GASPAR GUIMARÃES proti Portugalsku

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 28183/22
Fernando GASPAR GUIMARÃES
against Portugal

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 February 2026 as a Committee composed of:

Anne Louise Bormann, President,
Sebastian Răduleţu,
András Jakab, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application against the Portuguese Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 30 May 2022,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Mr F. Teixeira da Mota, a lawyer practising in Lisbon.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 10 of the Convention concerning freedom of expression were communicated to the Portuguese Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration read inter alia as follows:

“The Portuguese Government declares that:

1. It acknowledges the violation of the right to freedom of expression of the applicant, Fernando Gaspar Guimarães and recognizes that the decisions taken by the national courts did not comply with the requirements of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. In particular, the national authorities did not strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the applicant’s right to freedom of expression as a lawyer and, on the other, the protection of Mr R.’s reputation as a judge. The decision of the national authorities to order the applicant to pay €5,000 to a judge for damage to his honour also failed to respect the principle of proportionality as required by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

...

3. The Portuguese Government offer to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 14 750 (fourteen thousand seven hundred and fifty euros) by way of compensation for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and the sum of EUR 2 500 (two thousand five hundred euros) in respect of all costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

4. The Government point out that the application concerns a civil case and that, in accordance with the " repetitive " and consolidated case-law on similar cases, the award of a sum corresponding to the amount of just satisfaction determined by the Court in similar cases previously settled by judgment, generally in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the violation, should constitute adequate redress for the violation incurred into.

5. The Government emphasise that, in the present case, it is not necessary to guarantee "certain access" to the procedure for reopening domestic proceedings, namely through a review procedure, since the content of the present unilateral declaration exhausts the civil compensation which the applicant would obtain by reopening domestic proceedings through a review procedure based on Article 696, al. f, of the Code of Civil Procedure.

...

9. The Portuguese Government observes that this proposal offers adequate and sufficient redress to the applicant, in view of the violation that is being acknowledged.

10. The payment of this sum shall constitute the final settlement of this case.

11. This sum shall be exempt from any tax which may be applicable and will be paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision to strike out the case.

12. The Government, in the event of failure to pay the above-mentioned sum within the three-month period, commits itself to paying, from the expiry of this period until the full payment of the sum in question, a simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.”

The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. He disagreed with the terms of the declaration.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to freedom of expression of lawyers (see, for example, Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, ECHR 2015, and Pais Pires de Lima v. Portugal, no. 70465/12, 12 February 2019).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 12 March 2026.

{signature_p_1} {signature_p_2}

Viktoriya Maradudina Anne Louise Bormann
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention

(concerning freedom of expression)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant