In a ruling released on Tuesday, the court sentenced the Portuguese state to compensate Soares Gomes da Cruz and Emídio Antunes after the Portuguese courts Fined them for defaming politicians.

The European Court found that the Portuguese court's decisions were not correct, as regards the article on the violation of freedom of speech, and that statements by Soares Gomes da Cruz and Emídio Antunes were made in the context of debates on matters of public interest.

Emídio Antunes, from Santarém, wrote on March 2011 an opinion article in the newspaper O Mirante criticising the politician Rui Barreiro, then secretary of state for agriculture, forestry and development, saying he was ‘the dumbest politician’ he knew.

In July 2012, the journalist was sentenced for defamation to pay €2,500, and the court considered that the considerations made had gone beyond objective criticism.

Soares da Gomes Cruz, a doctor and partner at a clinic that provided care in Lourinhã, published an open letter in a regional newspaper in September 2009, in which he criticised the mayor, saying he was a ‘coward, lacking in character and honesty.’

The doctor's criticism was made after his clinic had not been chosen by the city council to provide care for the population.

The doctor also distributed pamphlets criticising the mayor.

The courts found him guilty of two crimes of defamation and one for insulting an official entity, and he was told to pay €22,500.

Both defendants appealed to the European Court, claiming that they had been convicted of violating Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights on freedom of expression.

The court found the conviction of Emídio Antunes to be disproportionate, justifying that Portugal is a democratic society that must guarantee and maintain the freedom of the press.

Concerning Soares da Gomes Cruz, the court decided that the conviction for insulting a legal entity, was not a crime under the Portuguese legal system.

In addition to the exaggeration of the amounts of compensation and fines, the sentence claimed that the national courts have exceeded their discretion (margin of appreciation) in discussing issues of public interest and do not consider the balancing exercise necessary under the criteria of the convention.