FOURTH SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 77494\/17
\nManuel Carlos DE MELO CHAMPALIMAUD
\nagainst Portugal<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13\u00a0November 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Egidijus K\u016bris, President,
\nPaulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
\nIulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section egistrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 October 2017,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr Manuel Carlos de Melo Champalimaud, is a Portuguese national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Cascais. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. S\u00e1 Fernandes, a lawyer practising in Lisbon.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant is a businessman and one of the sons of a very well-known Portuguese banker and industrialist who was, at a certain time, the wealthiest man in Portugal.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 March 2014, the national newspaper Correio da Manh\u00e3 published an article, under the headline \u201cMillionaire accused of assault over 100 euros\u201d (\u201cMilion\u00e1rio acusado de agredir por 100 euros\u201d), which reported that the applicant had had an argument with his housemaid over her salary and had assaulted her. It also reported that the housemaid had gone to the hospital and had filed a complaint against the applicant.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 April 2014, the Correio de Manh\u00e3 published the applicant\u2019s response in which he denied assaulting his housemaid.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On an unknown date the housemaid withdrew the complaint against the applicant and the criminal proceedings were dismissed on that ground.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 June 2014 the applicant lodged civil proceedings before the Lisbon Court against the Correio de Manh\u00e3 and three journalists, seeking payment for non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused to him by the article\u2019s publication.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0By a judgment of 1 February 2016 the Lisbon Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant. Relying inter alia on the evidence in the case file, in particular on the statements made by the housemaid which had been corroborated by the medical records from the hospital she had gone to after the alleged assault, it stated that the newspaper article had had a true factual basis. It noted that the article had been written as a statement of facts and had not formulated any value judgment concerning the applicant. It further pointed out that the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life had been legitimately restrained as the newspaper article concerned a subject of general interest, considering that a criminal offence had been alleged and the fact that the applicant was a well-known businessman, from whom honesty and integrity were expected, even in his private life, and specially as an employer. Relying on the judgment of the Court in Delfi AS v. Estonia ([GC], no. 64569\/09, ECHR 2015), the Lisbon Court considered that the newspaper was nevertheless liable for the unlawful user-generated comments on its internet portal and awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage arising from those comments.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 March 2016 the applicant brought an appeal before the Lisbon Court of Appeal complaining about the establishment of the facts and the conclusion that his right to respect for his private life had been legitimately restrained.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0By a judgment of 26 April 2017, the Lisbon Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Lisbon Court but reduced the compensation that had been granted in regard to the user-generated comments on the newspaper\u2019s portal to EUR 500.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The Constitution<\/em><\/p>\n Article 26 \u00a7 1<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone shall possess the right to a personal identity, to the development of their personality, to civil capacity, to citizenship, to a good name and reputation, to their own likeness, to speak out, to protect the privacy of their personal and family life, and to legal protection against any form of discrimination.\u201d<\/p>\n Article 38<\/p>\n \u201c1. Freedom of the press is guaranteed.<\/p>\n 2. Freedom of the press implies:<\/p>\n a) Freedom of expression and creativity on the part of journalists and other staff, as well as journalists\u2019 freedom to take part in deciding the editorial policy of their media entity, save when the latter is doctrinal or religious in nature;<\/p>\n b) That journalists have the right, as laid down by law, of access to sources of information and to the protection of professional independence and secrecy, as well as the right to elect editorial boards;<\/p>\n c) The right to found newspapers and any other publications without the need for any prior administrative authorisation, bond or qualification …\u201d<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Civil Code<\/em><\/p>\n Article 70<\/p>\n \u201cThe law protects individuals against any unlawful interference or threat of harm to their person or character.\u201d<\/p>\n Article 484<\/p>\n \u201cAnyone who states or spreads [knowledge of] a fact that is capable of harming the reputation of another natural or legal person is liable for damages.\u201d<\/p>\n Article 496<\/p>\n \u201c1. When determining the amount of compensation, attention must be paid to non-pecuniary damage that, by its seriousness, deserves the protection of the law…\u201d<\/p>\n \u201c4. The amount of compensation shall be determined fairly by the court…\u201d<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The Press Act (Law no. 2\/99 of 13 January 1999)<\/em><\/p>\n Section 3<\/p>\n \u201cFreedom of the press has as its only limits those that derive from the Constitution and the law, in order to safeguard the accuracy and objectivity of information, to guarantee the rights of a person\u2019s reputation, private life, image and word and to defend the public interest and democracy.\u201d<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 8 of the Convention that the national authorities had failed to protect his reputation, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, since the domestic courts had failed to strike a fair balance between respect for his right to privacy and the right of freedom of expression.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Furthermore, he complained of unfairness in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, as the court had allegedly not reacted to his arguments regarding the veracity of witnesses\u2019 statements.<\/p>\n