Portuguese state to pay FC Porto €15,300 after European court ruling | OneFootball

Francisco J. Marques and FC Porto SAD were defeated in five of the six cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), together with the former Porto president Pinto da Costa. At issue were decisions by the FPF Disciplinary Board, which had resulted in fines and suspensions from performing duties. In the only case in which they prevailed, the Portuguese state was ordered to pay FC Porto compensation of 15,300 euros, in addition to 6,465 euros in costs.

Francisco J. Marques and the club invoked the right to freedom of expression, provided for in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, that argument was accepted in only one of the complaints. In the other five, the ECHR upheld the decisions of the Disciplinary Board, then chaired by José Manuel Meirim, between 2016 and 2020.

The decision was made public by the European Court of Human Rights on 7 July. Later, the Court of Arbitration for Sport also reported the same conclusions.

The cases concerned statements made by Francisco J. Marques, then communications director of the blue-and-whites, and articles published in the newsletter ‘Dragões Diário’ between 2017 and 2019. The texts included strong criticism of referees and refereeing bodies, allegations of supposed favoritism toward Benfica, suspicions of pressure and/or coercion on referees, and the denunciation of an alleged ‘octopus’ that would control Portuguese football behind the scenes.

Before appealing to the ECHR, Francisco J. Marques and FC Porto challenged the decisions in Portugal, first at the Court of Arbitration for Sport and then at the South Central Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court.

Although it examined the right to freedom of expression in all cases, the ECHR considered that the statements and comments had gone beyond its limits. According to the court, in light of Article 8 of the Convention, what was at stake was the social and professional reputation of the referees, since they were being accused by implication of criminal practices, corruption, and match manipulation.

‘Red Passion’

The only case in which the court found a violation of freedom of expression was related to criticism aimed at referee Bruno Paixão, published in the 8 April 2019 edition of the ‘Dragões Diário’ newsletter, after the Disciplinary Board had imposed a sanction.

Under the title ‘Red Passion’, the article addressed the events of the match between Feirense and Benfica, played the previous day and won by the Reds 4-1 after initially trailing 1-0. Pizzi equalized from the penalty spot in the 40th minute, and the Eagles, who went on to win the league that season, completed the comeback. João Pinheiro officiated the match and Bruno Paixão served as VAR, becoming the target of Porto’s criticism.

“Bruno Paixão had a refereeing career full of untenable decisions. As VAR, he is following the same shameful path,” wrote FC Porto’s official outlet.

According to the European Court of Human Rights, these statements “did not allege corruption, match manipulation or deliberate favoritism,” but were instead “value judgments” about Bruno Paixão’s performance, “common in the context of football competitions, which remained within the limits of acceptable criticism.”

The monster

In the other five cases, the ECHR found no grounds to overturn the decisions of the FPF Disciplinary Board.

One of those cases was related to the denunciation of an alleged system of control over refereeing and competitions, made by Francisco J. Marques on the program ‘Universo Porto da bancada’, on Porto Canal, on 4 January 2017. “A monster was created that controls all of this. That monster was created to control the referees and, through that, the results of the competitions.”

In the European Court of Human Rights’ analysis, J. Marques and FC Porto “did not present sufficient evidence to factually support such allegations.” It therefore concluded that the disciplinary measures imposed by the Disciplinary Board were compatible with freedom of expression.

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇵🇹 here.