5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Lisbon. 6.  The applicant is a university professor. At the relevant time he was also a columnist for O Independente, a national weekly newspaper. The applicant had previously worked at the Portuguese Meteorological Institute (Instituto Português de Metereologia – hereinafter “the IM”) (since renamed the Portuguese Sea and Atmosphere Institute (Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera), where he had acted as vice-president from May 2003 to April 2004 and where he had been the project coordinator of a project co-funded by the EU agency EUMETSAT from May 1998 until he was removed from this position by the President of the IM, A.S., on 6 January 2006. 7.  On 3 March 2006 O Independente published an article entitled “Bad weather at the Institute”, which contained statements by the applicant on the problems faced in the implementation of the project. 8.  The article also contained statements by A.S., which downplayed the applicant’s statements and cast aspersions on the applicant’s ability to lead the project, his professional capacity and seriousness. The relevant parts of the article read as follows:
“... Someone who does not share these views is the President of the IM, [A.S.], who has assured O Independente that ‘the project does not face any risk’ and denigrated Carlos Câmara, whom he does not recognise as having the ‘skills to evaluate the development of the project’, and his opinions ... With regard to Câmara leaving the project, [A.S.] mentioned that the former scientific coordinator ‘had broken a relationship of trust’, adding that his behaviour and his profile had led to his removal ...” 9.  On 10 March 2006 O Independente published an opinion article, entitled “The Liar”, written by the applicant in reply to the article of 3 March 2006. The article was divided into three parts: i) the reasons he had decided to write the article; ii) the problems with the project in question, namely financial mismanagement and lack of staff; and iii) a reaction to the statements made by A.S. The relevant parts of the article read as follows:
“Last Friday, O Independente devoted an article to the circumstances surrounding my removal from scientific coordinator of the project...
Contacted by A.F.S., my declarations focused on two issues of extreme gravity since they undermine the operational functioning of the project: the lack of a cost centre for the financial management and the non-recruitment of the necessary elements for its execution. Naturally, the journalist attempted to get the other party’s opinion and so contacted the President of the IM, [A.S]. He could have either confirmed my statements or lie shamelessly. [He] opted for the latter and the issue ceased to be an incident (unfortunate) in my professional career to become something that deserved the attention of a chronicle.
In relation to the financial management, the President of the IM stated that ‘both the IM and the ‘manager’ of the project are aware of all the expenses and funding involved’. Clear and objective questions require clear and objective answers and the question is solely one of whether there is a cost centre and if, in 2005, the financial execution reports were regularly made showing that the amount of 1,187,135 euros – 768,315 euros of which received from EUMETSAT in the beginning of 2005 and the remainder 418,820 euros to be invested by the IM – was spent in accordance to the plan signed by the President. And it would be desirable that the reports were signed by the financial controller of the project, the existence of which is envisaged in the [project] plan but was never hired.
Regarding the lack of staff, the President of the IM stated that ‘the current coordinators counter this insufficiency’. Clear and objective questions require clear and objective answers and the only question that arises is whether the proposed contracts were in fact made. I say that no financial report was ever made nor any contract despite the existence – since October 2004! – of a list of names of people to hire.
By denying these facts – which are easy to demonstrate – the President shows that he is a liar ... Unlike the President of the IM – who without the political support he has wouldn’t be anything else other than an A. [referring to the President of the IM’s first name] – in the world in which I engage professionally, I don’t need to be a “coordinator” in order to have my expertise recognised. In that world – in which my expertise comes from peer recognition and is the result of the evaluation of my work – the President of the IM is nothing but a petty liar [mentiroso reles] and a poor wretch [pobre diabo]. And being the president is nothing more than a mere accident ... of base politics.” 10.  On an unknown date A.S. lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant, accusing him of defamation. He alleged that the applicant’s article had disseminated defamatory statements about him. On an unknown date A.S. sought leave to participate in the proceedings as an assistant (with victim status) to the public prosecutor (assistente) and lodged a claim for damages against the applicant. 11.  The Lisbon Criminal Court reviewed the documents which had been submitted to the proceedings and took oral evidence from witnesses and established that the applicant’s professional capacity and expertise in meteorology and climatology were highly recognised at the national and European levels. It further established that from 2004 to 2006, when the applicant had been coordinating the project, he had written various emails and memoranda which had been addressed to the manager of the project, C.T., and the Science Minister reporting problems in the implementation of the project, and an additional open letter to staff working for the IM; the applicant had also had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Science and Innovation where those problems had been discussed. Five witnesses testified that a tense relationship had existed between the applicant and A.S. at the IM. 12.   By a judgment of 14 July 2010, the Lisbon Criminal Court convicted the applicant of aggravated defamation. According to the judgment, by making the impugned statements the applicant had wilfully defamed A.S. by making disparaging allegations in respect of him. The court further noted that the applicant’s article, and in particular the choice of the words “petty liar” and “poor wretch”, had been vindictive and a personal attack on A.S. The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows:
“The article published on 10 March 2006 was the culmination of a tense relationship between [the applicant] and the assistant to the public prosecutor and an example of their professional disagreements.
... following an analysis of the phrases used in the article, in particular “petty liar” and “poor wretch”, the court is of the opinion that [the applicant] did not limit himself to objective criticism within a professional context and veered into attacking the assistant, given that those value judgments go beyond mere professional criticism and fall within the hard core of the right to reputation.
... the phrases in question are objectively offensive. [The applicant], given his education and experience in the journalistic field, knew that those [phrases] were capable of undermining the assistant’s personal honour, as they did.
Even though [the applicant] has a sharp, direct and somehow incisive way of writing, he acknowledged in his first declarations that he would probably not use the same writing tone today. The truth is that [the applicant] exceeded himself by writing and addressing those phrases in respect of the assistant in an opinion article in a newspaper which, at the time, had a wide circulation.
...
In a cold and strict analysis of the facts which were established in the instant case ... there are no doubts that [the applicant] wanted, and managed, to libel the offended by imputing to him epithets such as the ‘President of the IM is nothing more than a petty liar and a poor wretch’ which are harmful to his personal and professional honour and by calling into question his personal competence and good name. They are value judgments and not statements of fact ...
...
The instant case does not fall in a political context. We are within a weather circle (círculo da metereologia) in which the President of the IM is at risk. As a person exercising a leadership position in a public body, he is subject to criticism ...
However ... there cannot be a total squeezing of the right to honour of the person concerned.
If throughout the article in question in the instant case [the applicant] objectively criticised the assistant’s professional performance, even in reply to the previous article published on 3 March 2006, he [the applicant] drifted into a personal attack motivated by a feeling of revenge when he stated that ‘the President of the IM is nothing more than a petty liar and a poor wretch’. In fact, [the applicant], dissatisfied with the fact that, in his opinion, the assistant had called into question his professional competence, used as a counterattack these value judgments which do not concern the work of the assistant but directly involved the person concerned.
While the word ‘liar’ would be a fact and as such addressed towards the professional performance of the assistant, the phrases ‘petty liar’ and ‘poor wretch’ constitute value judgments which, in the opinion of this court, are excluded from objective criticism and fall within the scope of a personal attack on the assistant.
...
In the instant case, [the applicant] knew that the offended was the President of the IM, a public body, and wrote those words about him in order to address the duties performed and the activity performed in relation to those functions.
...
[The applicant] went further than what his right to defence of the public interest and his right to criticism would allow. By making value judgments such as the ones examined, there cannot be grounds to excuse [the applicant] as the defence of public interest cannot justify such a squeezing of the right to honour and good name. The right to criticism has to remain within the objective criticism of the duties performed by the person concerned and not displace into personal criticism, into personal attack. In fact, the phrases had only one purpose – to be used as a counterattack to the interview given by the assistant to a journalist in which he mentioned that he did not consider that [the applicant] was competent to evaluate the progression of the programme, and with the aim of downgrading and humiliating the assistant.” 13.  The Lisbon Criminal Court sentenced the applicant to 250 day fines, totalling 2,000 euros (EUR). He was also ordered to pay EUR 3,000 in damages to A.S. 14.  On an unknown date the applicant appealed against the judgment to the Lisbon Court of Appeal. 15.  On 17 February 2011 the Lisbon Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision. The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows:
“In the instant case the phrases ‘petty liar’ and ‘poor wretch’, in the context of the written piece concerning the professional relationship between the assistant and [the applicant], their academic background and their personal relationship, cannot be disregarded as [the applicant] wishes. Despite the possibility of ‘widening’ the scope of the concept of freedom of expression, [the applicant]’s education enables us to understand that he meant what he said. In other words, he cannot claim that the word ‘liar’ was not from the ethical and moral point of view ‘innocent’ and even less when the adjective ‘petty’ is added ... [The applicant] could probably have achieved the ‘informative’ result which he wanted by only [saying] ‘misrepresenting the truth’. However, that did not happen as he added an adjective to the expression in such a way as to make a sharper negative evaluation of the person concerned. And, in our opinion, [he did so] in an unnecessary and disproportionate way.
There is no need to argue that the professional status of the parties makes freedom of expression unlimited, in comparison with other situations where the parties involved are not national figures.
What happens must be precisely the opposite. Not only because it is not normal for high-level civil servants to use bad language, but also because their knowledge and education ordain that they accept and solve their professional disagreements without resorting to personal ‘attacks’ in public discussions.
 ...
Even within this context of tense professional relationship, there can be doubt that the phrases “petty liar” and “poor wretch” are objectively defamatory, capable of undermining one’s character and how one is considered ...
In this regard, [the applicant]’s desired freedom of expression went much further than the limits covered by criticism by entering into the sphere of the offence of honour (an indivisible feeling, referring both to the professional and personal aspect [of the individual]) and into the scope of defamation.”