Criticism of a football referee's impartiality is protected as freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights has found.
In de Carvalho Marques and Others v Portugal, the court dealt with six applications against Portugal.
One application related to Porto FC over comments in a newsletter about the performance of a VAR. The referee, named as BP in the judgment, was described in the article as having a ‘career as a referee [which was] full of untenable decisions, and now, as a [VAR], he is following the same shameful path’. It continued: BP ‘seem[ed] to have an issue with impartiality’.
The disciplinary council of the Portuguese Football Federation ordered proceedings be initiated against Porto FC. The club was fined €15,300 for 'offending the honour and reputation of sporting bodies and their members'.
The Sports Arbitration Court quashed the disciplinary council’s decision. The disciplinary council’s subsequent appeal was dismissed and it then sought leave to go to Portugal's Supreme Administrative Court, which confirmed the disciplinary council verdict. Porto FC then turned to the ECtHR, alleging the sanctions were a breach of its Article 10 right to freedom of expression.
The court agreed, finding comments were ‘common in the context of football competitions’. Interference with freedom of expression may have 'a chilling effect‘, it continued, even given the 'relatively moderate' fine.
Ruling on the six applications, the court found that the published statements did not appear to relate directly to the referees’ private lives, but rather to their professional conduct and public performance as referees’.
The court awarded Porto FC €15,3000 in damages as well as €6,465 costs. Portugal has three months from the judgment’s date to pay.
The other five applications, involving Porto FC as well as Francisco José de Carvalho Marques, the communications director of Porto FC and Jorge Nuno Lima Pinto da Costa, the president of the board of directors, which all related to similar disciplinary proceedings, were found not to have violated Article 10.
1 Reader's comment