FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF VIEIRA COELHO v. PORTUGAL
(Application no. 40764/20)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
13 January 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vieira Coelho v. Portugal,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Anja Seibert-Fohr, President,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins,
 András Jakab, judges,
and Crina Kaufman, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 40764/20) 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 1 September 2020 by a Portuguese national, Mr José Manuel da Mata Vieira Coelho (“the applicant”), who was born in 1952 and lives in Santa Cruz, and was represented by Mr F. Teixeira da Mota, a lawyer practising in Lisbon;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Portuguese Government (“the Government”), represented by their co-Agent, Ms A. Garcia Marques, subsequently replaced by Ms H. Martins Leitão, Deputy Attorney-General;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 2 December 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for aggravated defamation and aggravated disobedience. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) and Article 10 of the Convention. 2. At the material time the applicant was a member of the Regional Parliament of Madeira. On various dates, during press conferences organised by him in Madeira and on different social media platforms, he accused A.C., the deputy secretary general of a regional political party, of misappropriation of funds; M.A.G., a public prosecutor, of corruption; J.M.G., a businessman, of involvement in a fraud and falsification scheme; and M.J.M., an enforcement solicitor, of the homicide of a French politician. The applicant reiterated the accusation which concerned specifically M.A.G. during one session of the regional parliament. 3. Proceedings were instituted against him in the Madeira Criminal Court on account of these accusations. Proceedings were also instituted against him for aggravated disobedience on account of his refusal to comply with two legal orders: first, his refusal to disclose to the public prosecutor’s office the identity of the author of an article published in a local newspaper under his direction, and second, his failure to comply with a court injunction ordering him to remove from websites under his management certain statements concerning M.J.M. Those proceedings were eventually appended. 4. The applicant’s parliamentary mandate was suspended to enable the continuation of the criminal proceedings. 5. The applicant’s trial before the Madeira Criminal Court started on 25 February 2019. 6. On 25 February 2019, at the first hearing, N.B., the lawyer appointed by the applicant, withdrew from the case and was absent. At the beginning of the hearing, the court appointed A.C.S., a legal aid lawyer, to replace him. However, the applicant refused the new appointment and requested a 30-day adjournment. The judge noted that the applicant was free to choose his own lawyer at any time but emphasised that, under Articles 64 and 66 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he could not attend the hearing without legal representation. Further citing the need for the proper administration of justice and the interests of the other parties present in the room, the judge denied the adjournment request and proceeded with the hearing. During that session, the court heard the applicant, represented by A.C.S. 7. Following a withdrawal request presented by A.C.S., a new legal aid lawyer, C.P.G., was assigned to represent the applicant. However, C.P.G. also filed a withdrawal request, refusing to represent him. On 11 March 2019, at the outset of the second hearing, following the two prior withdrawals, a new legal aid lawyer, C.C., was assigned by the court to represent the applicant. The third hearing was held later that afternoon after a 30-minute adjournment to allow C.C. to review the case file. At the outset of the hearing, C.C. requested a further five-day adjournment, but it was refused on the grounds that her appointment was limited to that day and that the scheduled discussion was not considered complex, as only one injured party was expected to testify. 8. On 12 March 2019, at the outset of the fourth hearing, the judge determined that C.C. should represent the applicant for the remainder of the trial, and, accordingly, the session was adjourned in the morning to allow C.C. to review the case file. In the afternoon, during the fifth hearing, C.C. requested a 20-day adjournment for further examination of the case file. The judge rejected that request but granted a six-day adjournment, authorising her to review the case file outside court premises. 9. On 20 May 2019, after 19 hearings, the trial was concluded. C.C. represented the applicant in 18 of those hearings. 10. On 5 July 2019 the Madeira Criminal Court convicted the applicant on four counts of aggravated defamation, under Article 180 § 1, Article 183 §§ 1 (a) and 2, and Article 184 of the Criminal Code, and two counts of aggravated disobedience, under Article 348 of the Criminal Code. The court concluded that the applicant had failed to produce evidence to substantiate his particularly serious allegations (see paragraph 2 above). As a result, and taking into account the fact that he had already been convicted six times of defamation, the court sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay 6,000 euros (EUR) to A.C., EUR 20,000 to M.A.G., and EUR 2,000 to J.M.G. in compensation. 11. The applicant appealed against that judgment to the Court of Appeal of Lisbon. Claiming that his right to freedom of expression had been breached, he argued that the impugned statements had been made in a context of political debate and in service of his legitimate interest in disclosing corruption practices. 12. On 4 March 2020 the Lisbon Court of Appeal partially upheld the first-instance judgment, and decided that the suspension of the prison sentence would depend on the condition that the applicant pay, within a period of two years, the total sum of EUR 28,000, as previously determined by the Madeira Criminal Court, in compensation to the civil parties. In its reasoning, it balanced the competing rights which were at stake, and held that it was necessary to restrict the applicant’s freedom of expression in order to protect the reputation of the persons concerned by the accusations at issue. 13. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention, the applicant complained that C.C., the lawyer assigned to him at the second hearing of the trial, had not had adequate time to study the case file and discuss the case with him, and that this incident had undermined his defence rights and the right to effective legal assistance, in breach of his right to a fair trial. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant asserted that his conviction had constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression as a member of the Regional Parliament of Madeira.

Outcome for Article 10: violation