Lisbon Court of Appeal, proc. 8777/21.3T8LSB-7, 14.09.2021

RIGHT TO HONOUR | RIGHT TO ONE’S OWN IMAGE | LIMITS TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION | DISCRIMINATORY TENOR OF THE REMARKS

 

 

Lisbon Court of Appeal, proc. 8777/21.3T8LSB-7, 14.09.2021

 

JURISDICTION: Civil

SUBJECT: Special procedure for protection of personality rights (breaches of the right to honour and of the right to one’s own image)

RAPPORTEUR: Luís Filipe Pires de Sousa

RULING: Dismisses the appeal and confirms the lower court decision which had established that there was an illegal breach of the plaintiffs’ right to honour and to their own image and convicted the defendants/appellants to (i) issue a public apology, (ii) refrain from making or disseminating remarks or publications that offend the plaintiffs’ good name, and (iii) ensure the publication of the ruling in the same media outlets where the offensive remarks were originally made.

DOMESTIC LAW:

Portuguese Constitution [Articles 1, 8(1), 16(2), 18(2), 24, 25(1), 26(1), 37]

Civil Code [Articles 70, 79, 81, 340(2), 483]

Code of Civil Procedure [Articles 5, 154(1), 412, 527, 608(2), 615(1)(d), 635(4), 639(1), 640, 663(2), 878

Criminal Code (Article 199)

Labour Law Code (Article 18)

Media Act – Law No. 2/99, of 13 January 1999 (Articles 1, 3)

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 184/02, 07.03.2002

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 2751/02, 10.10.2002

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 3898/03, 26.02.2004

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 3924/04, 13.01.2005

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 4789/04, 03.03.2005

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 159/09, 18.06.2009

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 4822/06, 17.12.2009

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 48/04, 27.01.2010

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 5583/04, 29.04.2010

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 734/05, 09.12.2010

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 1272/04, 30.06.2011

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 319/10, 30.4.2014

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 971/12, 17.12.2014

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 353/13, 09.04.2015

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 677/12, 10.12.2015

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 156/12, de 07.07.2016

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 861/13, 17.11.2016

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 60/09, 06.09.2016

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 1405/07, 13.07.2017

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 1519/15, 22.02.2017

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 3788/14, 25.10.2018

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 24555/17, 09.12.2020

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 189.18.2.T8GRD.C1.S1, 06.01.2020

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 214/18, 18.03.2021

Supreme Court of Justice, proc. 7693/19,12.01.2021

Central Administrative Court South, proc. 615/15, 16.01.2020

Constitutional Court, judgment 6/84, 18.01.1984

Constitutional Court, judgment 81/84, 31.01.1985

Constitutional Court, judgment 394/93, 29.09.1993

Constitutional Court, judgment 634/93, 04.11.1993

Constitutional Court, judgment 67/99, 03.02.1999

Constitutional Court, judgment 303/2010, 14.7.2010

Constitutional Court, judgment 708/2013, 15.10.2013

Constitutional Court, judgment 62/2017, 14.02.2017

Lisbon Court of Appeal, proc. 6509/05, 06.03.2012

Porto Court of Appeal, proc. 5/11, 09.06.2011

INTERNATIONAL LAW:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 12, 19)

European Convention on Human Rights (Article 10)

European Court of Human Rights, Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25.06.1992

European Court of Human Rights, Oberschlick v. Austria, 01.07.1997

European Court of Human Rights, Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, 28.09.2000

FOREIGN LAW: n.a.

KEYWORDS: Right to honour; right to one’s image; personality rights; intent to discriminate on the basis of skin colour and socio-economic status; limits to freedom of expression; public apology; publicised episode of violent clashes with the police; lack of basic safety and housing conditions; Roma; African; Afro-descendants; Angolan; Cape Verdean; episode of alleged police violence; brawl among residents; controversy ; wave of popular outrage; demonstrations against racism and police violence; attack on a police station; group photo with the President of the Republic; TV debate for the presidential election; “outlaws”, “banditry”, Welfare State; election campaign; principle of proportionality; discriminatory tenor of the remarks; discrimination not necessarily determined by the colour of the skin or the socio-economic status ; illicit character of the remarks ; public figure in politics, widely known in Portugal; citizens deprived of public notoriety; attempted to take advantage of the media coverage ; consent of the person portrayed; “good Portuguese”; pluralistic and democratic society; photograph as a weapon of social segregation; absolute right; respect for private and family life; legitimate interest in sharing information; breach of privacy; remarks or expressions which criticise, shock, offend, exaggerate or distort reality; media; common citizen; “watch dog”; tolerant to criticism; political ammunition; self-esteem; social inclusion; political debate; more aggressive, exaggerated and excessive language; protagonists of party competition; protection of personality; offensive remarks; anonymous persons; historic context of the problems that took place in the neighbourhood; subsidies; attack on democracy; political ideology; defamation; “politically correct”; “contract for inclusion”; “case of social injustice”; Portuguese nationality; valid residence permit; social benefits from the Portuguese state; Minimum Social Income; media celebrity; “extreme-right candidate”; social housing; “abusive display of xenophobia and racism”; people of average culture; generally accessible average culture; party leader; freedom of the press; social reputation; participants in the national political debate; group with certain physical and social features; reductive differentiation between the good and the bad; pictures taken in public spaces; facts of general interest or which happened in public

COMMENTS: Coming soon.

REFERENCES IN THE LITERATURE: n.a.

 

Download the ruling.