6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Fontanelas. 7.  He is one of the most well-known television hosts in Portugal and is currently the host of a morning talk show. He has worked in the media for almost forty years. 8.  He publicly declared his homosexuality in 2008. 9.  Between midnight and 1 a.m. on 28 December 2009, a live talk show, Five Minutes to Midnight (5 Para a Meia-Noite) was broadcast on one of the channels of the national television service, RTP2. The programme was presented by F.C. and featured two famous people from the media as guests. 10.  In the course of the talk show, during a quiz, the guests were asked to answer the following question, which was identified as the most important by F.C.: “Who is the best Portuguese female TV host?” The possible answers to the question included the name of three female television hosts and the applicant’s; the latter being the “correct” one. The transcript of the quiz reads:
 
“F.C.: Who is the best female Portuguese TV host? Option A, F.C.; option B, C.V; option C, C.P. or option D, Manuel Luís Goucha. J.M.: Oh boy. I will obviously exclude option A, definitely. From the other three, I think they are all gorgeous. I’ll choose... F.C: We know that you are a Manuel Luís Goucha fan and [that] this is difficult for you. Goucha in the afternoons, mornings... F.C.: Let’s see the answer. J.M. cannot stand his excitement any longer. Let’s see the answer. Manuel Luís Goucha! J.M.: I knew it, I knew it. That’s what I was going to say. She was the one telling me not to say it, that it could be bad.” 11.  On an unspecified date of 2010 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint for defamation and “insult” (injúria) with the Lisbon Criminal Department for Investigation and Prosecution against the State-owned television company RTP, the production company, the television presenter F.C. and the directors of programming and content. He complained that they had damaged his reputation and dignity by including his name in the list of possible answers to the question asked during the programme. 12.  On 2 March 2011 a public prosecutor of the Lisbon Criminal Department discontinued the proceedings by adopting a decision which stated that the defendants had not intended to offend the applicant. 13.  On an unspecified date the applicant sought to intervene in the proceedings as an assistant to the public prosecutor (assistente) and lodged private prosecution submissions (acusação particular) with the Lisbon Criminal Investigation Court (Tribunal de Instrução Criminal) against the defendants. They challenged his prosecution submissions by requesting that a judicial investigation be opened (requerimento de abertura de instrução). 14.  On 24 June 2011 the investigating judge (juiz de instrução) responsible dismissed the case (despacho de não pronúncia). In relation to the individual defendants, the judge decided that there was insufficient evidence of any defamation and insults by them, thus the case was unable to be brought to trial. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“Given the defendants’ statements, it is clear that they did not intend to attack the [assistente’s] honour. Nor did they anticipate this as possible. The subjective element of this criminal offence is therefore unverified.
The [assistente] is a public figure and so must be used to having his characteristics captured by comedians in order to promote humour; it being public knowledge that [the applicant’s characteristics] reflect behaviour that is attributed to the female gender, such as his way of expressing himself, his colourful [feminine] clothes, and the fact that he has always lived in a world of women (see, for example, the programmes he has always presented on television).
The [assistente] has recently made his homosexuality public, and the defendants never intended to criticise his sexual orientation ...”
With regard to the two defendant companies, the proceedings were discontinued pursuant to Article 11 of the Criminal Code, which excludes “legal persons” from liability for defamation and insult. 15.  The applicant appealed against the decision not to indict the natural defendants before the Lisbon Court of Appeal (Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa). In particular, he argued that the reason his name had been included in the list of possible answers had been his sexual orientation. On 17 April 2012 the appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the Criminal Investigation Court’s decision. It stated that there was insufficient evidence to enable them to consider that there had been any defamation by the defendants. In its decision, the court cited the above quotation from the investigating judge’s decision of 24 June 2011 and further stated:
 “It should not be considered offensive to one’s honour anything that the complainant considers as such, but what in the opinion of the majority of reasonable people should be considered an offence to the social and individual values of respect (judgment of the Coimbra Court of Appeal of 16 March 1993).
...
And as the impugned decision noted, having balanced in a very sensible way the conflict of interests at hand and the context in which it unfolded:
‘It should be taken into account that we have before us a comedy show, and that the moment at which the defendant asked her guest a question, referring to [assistente] Manuel Luís Goucha as ‘one of the best female Portuguese hosts’, was considered to be one of the many jokes said throughout the show, typical of such shows.
The [assistente] is a public figure and so must be used to having his characteristics captured by comedians in order to promote humour; it being public knowledge that [the applicant’s characteristics] reflect behaviour that is attributed to the female gender, such as his way of expressing himself, his colourful [feminine] clothes, and the fact that he has always lived in a world of women (see, for example, the programmes he has always presented on television).
The [assistente] has recently made his homosexuality public, and the defendants never intended to criticise his sexual orientation. ...”
It further considered that:
“... the expression used in a playful and irreverent context and in the normal style previously adopted by the television show under consideration, even though one may consider it as being in bad taste, does not reach the threshold required by law for the protection of honour and consideration.”