Case Summary and Outcome

The Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights dismissed a complaint brought by a journalist regarding his conviction for for publishing an article based on a taped telephone conversation between two politicians without their consent. The article, published in 2010, detailed a private exchange between A.V., a former Minister, and E.E., a Member of the European Parliament, obtained during high-profile criminal proceedings. Domestic courts found that the journalist violated the politicians’ right to privacy, as the conversation was personal and lacked significant public interest, imposing a €1,000 fine. The Lisbon Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, ruling that freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not outweigh the privacy rights under Article 8. The European Court unanimously declared the journalist’s application inadmissible, affirming that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the conflicting rights. The Court emphasized that the publication was not in the public interest and served primarily to satisfy readers’ curiosity, deeming the interference with the journalist’s freedom of expression proportionate and justified.

Facts

The case concerns the criminal conviction of a journalist for publishing an article based on a taped telephone conversation between two politicians without their consent. On November 13, 2010, the journalist, working for the tabloid newspaper Correio da Manhã, authored an article describing a private conversation from June 2009 between A.V., a former Minister, and E.E., a Member of the European Parliament at the time. In this exchange, the politicians criticized colleagues in the European Parliament. The journalist accessed the audio recording in her capacity as an assistente (auxiliary of the prosecutor) in high-profile criminal proceedings involving A.V. and others before the Aveiro District Court. [paras. 1–2]

On July 28, 2017, the Criminal Court of Lisbon convicted the journalist following a complaint by E.E., finding that the article was published without the prior consent of the parties involved. The court imposed a fine of €1,000, equivalent to ten daily fines, under Article 348 § 1(a) of the Criminal Code, Article 88 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings, and the Press Law. The Court determined that the content of the article was derived from a personal and private conversation and that the journalist’s right to freedom of expression did not outweigh the politicians’ right to privacy. [paras. 3-4]

The Lisbon Court of Appeal upheld this decision on April 19, 2018, emphasizing the private nature of the conversation and the absence of significant public interest to justify its publication. It further noted that the journalist had failed to seek authorization before publication, as required by law. The Court concluded that the applicant’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was outweighed by A.V.’s and E.E.’s right to privacy, given the circumstances. [paras. 5–6]

Decision Overview

The Court unanimously declared the application inadmissible, concluding that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the journalist’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention and the politicians’ right to privacy under Article 8. It agreed with the domestic courts that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the private life of A.V. and E.E. and was “prescribed by law”. [para 7] The Court emphasized that the information disclosed in the article was not of public interest, as it merely concerned the personal opinions of A.V. and E.E. about other politicians, rather than matters relevant to the criminal proceedings or a debate of public interest. [paras. 10–11]

The Court referred to the principles from Bédat v. Switzerland, Axel Springer AG v. Germany, and Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France, to determine that the article was primarily intended to satisfy the curiosity of readers, rather than contribute to a matter of general importance. The Court distinguished this case from others like Pinto Coelho v. Portugal and Campos Dâmaso v. Portugal, where publication served the public interest. [paras. 8–11] Additionally, the imposed fine of €1,000 was deemed proportionate to the circumstances. [para 12] The Court referred to Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) to reinforce its view that the article did not meet the threshold for public interest. It concluded that the domestic courts operated within their margin of appreciation in balancing the conflicting rights, and the journalist’s claim was manifestly ill-founded. [paras. 13–14]