Case Summary and Outcome

On 13 January 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. v. Portugal (No. 2). The case concerned a Portuguese television company that broadcast footage of two private individuals involved in a heated exchange with a comedian during a stand-up comedy show without their express consent. Domestic courts ordered the company to pay damages to the individuals for violating their rights to privacy and image. The ECtHR held that the Portuguese authorities properly balanced the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 with the individuals’ right to respect for private life under Article 8. It concluded that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression was necessary in a democratic society, particularly because the broadcast concerned private individuals and lacked any clear public interest.

---

Facts

Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. (SIC) is a Portuguese private television broadcasting company that operates several television channels. On 18 January 2012, M.G. and M.C. attended a stand-up comedy performance in a theatre in Lisbon. At the entrance of the auditorium, a notice indicated that video recording would take place during the show, and later, at the beginning of the performance, the comedian informed the audience that the show was being recorded. Three cameras were visibly filming both the comedian and the audience throughout the event. During the performance, the comedian made controversial remarks, after which M.G. and M.C. stood up and became involved in a heated exchange with him as they were leaving the auditorium, which was recorded by the cameras.

The recorded performance was later included in a documentary series about the comedian’s career entitled The Humourist, broadcast on SIC Radical. A promotional video for the series, which aired on 29 January 2013, included brief extracts of the exchange involving M.G. and M.C., showing their images and voices. Episode 1 of the series, broadcast on 4 February 2013, and episode 4, broadcast on 26 February 2013, also contained extracts of the exchange. The promotional video was broadcast repeatedly for at least 45 days, and the relevant episodes were rebroadcast several times. The footage in question was additionally made available on SIC’s website and on the comedian’s YouTube channel.

In June 2013, M.G. and M.C. requested that their images be removed from the broadcasts; SIC denied the request. Subsequently, on 25 April 2014, M.G. and M.C. initiated civil proceedings before Portuguese courts against the company, alleging that their images and voices had been broadcast without consent and that this caused them distress and humiliation.

On 9 July 2018, the Cascais Civil Court dismissed the claim, arguing that SIC did not act unlawfully. The Lisbon Court of Appeal upheld this decision on 26 September 2019. On 16 June 2020, the Supreme Court of Portugal overturned the Lisbon Court of Appeal’s judgment, holding that the company had unlawfully broadcast the images and voices of M.G. and M.C. without valid consent. It ruled that any tacit consent to filming was limited to the normal course of the show and did not extend to the editing and dissemination of the footage, particularly for promotional purposes. The Court ordered SIC to pay EUR 40,000 in damages and to remove all recordings containing the claimants’ images, including those published online or accessible through third parties.

On 2 July 2020, SIC subsequently sought leave to appeal before the Constitutional Court of Portugal, arguing that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of domestic law violated its freedom of expression and precluded any balancing exercise between the competing rights to freedom of expression and the right to one’s image. On 15 September 2020, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

After exhausting domestic remedies, the company filed an application before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) alleging that the domestic judgments constituted an unjustified interference with its right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

---

Decision Overview

The judgment was delivered by the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights sitting as a Chamber, presided over by Judge Lado Chanturia.  The central issue before the Court was whether the damages imposed on the applicant television company for broadcasting footage of two private individuals involved in a heated exchange with a comedian during a stand-up comedy show constituted a violation of its right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR.

SIC argued that the Supreme Court’s decision constituted a disproportionate interference with its freedom of expression, including its right to produce satirical and parodic content and to exercise editorial discretion over programming. It maintained that the interference lacked a legal basis, as M.G. and M.C. gave tacit consent to being filmed, and that the personal data protection framework relied upon by the Supreme Court did not apply to image rights. The applicant further contended that the sanction did not pursue a legitimate aim, particularly because a large portion of the damages were punitive, and that the measure was unnecessary and excessive, with potential chilling effects on media freedom.

On the other hand, the Government of Portugal accepted that there had been an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 10 of the ECHR. Still, it argued that it was lawful and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting M.G. and M.C.’s rights to privacy and image. It submitted that the broadcast concerned entertainment content involving private individuals and did not contribute to a debate of public interest. The Government also argued that M.G. and M.C. did not consent to the edited and promotional use of their images, which had been taken out of context and caused serious harm. It concluded that the sanction imposed was proportionate and justified.

The Court examined the case primarily under Article 10 of the ECHR, which protects freedom of expression, and considered the competing interest of the individuals’ right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the ECHR. The ECtHR first confirmed that the domestic judgments constituted an interference with the applicant company’s freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. It then examined whether this interference satisfied the requirements of Article 10(2) ECHR (legality, legitimacy, and necessity).

On the first prong of the test, the Court reiterated that it is not responsible for interpreting domestic legislation, unless the interpretation in question is manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary. In this case, it held that the Supreme Court’s reliance on Article 79 of the Civil Code to award compensation against the applicant company did not meet this threshold. Accordingly, the ECtHR accepted the Government’s argument that the interference had a legal basis as it was based on Portuguese civil-law provisions protecting the right to image.

Regarding the issue of legitimacy, the Court found that the interference pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the rights of others—specifically the rights of M.G. and M.C. to respect for their private life and image.

The Court then examined whether the domestic authorities properly balanced the competing rights under Articles 10 and 8. The Court noted several relevant factors to issue its verdict and balance the competing interests:

• The contribution to a debate of public interest

For the ECtHR, the broadcast of the footage did not contribute to a debate of public interest. The footage merely showed an exchange or a dispute during a comedy show and was primarily used for entertainment and promotional purposes.

• How well-known the person affected was

M.G. and M.C. are both private individuals, not public figures, the Court opined. Furthermore, it does not appear that, by merely attending a stand-up comedy show, they had sought exposure, courted publicity to further their own interests, or voluntarily entered the public domain.

• The conduct of the person concerned prior to publication of the article

The conduct of M.G. and M.C. did not clearly or unequivocally demonstrate their tacit consent to the recording and prominent broadcast of their images and voices in the documentary series and its commercial promotion. Moreover, even accepting that stand-up comedy shows can be recorded, it cannot be reasonably assumed that people expect that their images and voices will be extracted from a heated altercation, edited, and taken out of context for commercial purposes. The fact that both individuals expressly contacted the applicant company in an attempt to resolve the issue constitutes further evidence of the absence of clear and unequivocal consent, the ECtHR argued.

• How the disputed images were obtained

According to the ECtHR, although the performance took place in a public setting and the audience was aware that filming was taking place, this did not necessarily imply consent to the broadcasting of identifiable footage, particularly where the footage was later extracted and disseminated.

• The content, form, and consequences of the videos

The Court considered the impact of the broadcast on the individuals, noting that the footage exposed the individuals to embarrassment and was capable of tarnishing their reputation, with potential adverse effects on both their professional and personal lives. It further noted that SIC failed to take steps to minimize any adverse effects, such as seeking the individuals’ explicit consent and blurring their faces or distorting their voices.

It therefore concluded that the broadcasting of their images and voices without their consent attained a sufficient level of seriousness to threaten the personal enjoyment by M.G. and M.C. of their rights under Article 8 of the ECHR.

• The nature and severity of the sanction imposed

The Court examined the proportionality of the sanctions imposed by the domestic courts and held that the damages awarded were not excessive in view of the overall circumstances of the case.

In light of these arguments, the Court concluded that the domestic authorities remained within their margin of appreciation when balancing the competing rights, namely the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression on one hand and the rights of M.G. and M.C. to respect for their private life on the other. The interference with the applicant company’s freedom of expression, therefore, was necessary in a democratic society. Thus, the ECtHR unanimously held that there was no violation of Article 10 of the ECHR.

---