The Central Civil Court of Funchal, based in the Edifício 2000, has dismissed a legal action brought by the Atalaia Living Care Association against Medialivre, owner of Correio da Manhã, journalist Egídio Carreira and three former managers of the institution: Pedro Cipriano, Cristina Pontes and Joaquim Sousa Lino.
All five defendants were cleared of the claims against them.
The ruling, signed last Sunday by Judge Alexandre Azadinho and seen by DIÁRIO, concluded that the newspaper reports published in April 2024 did not accuse the association of any unlawful conduct. It also found that no specific damage to its image or reputation had been proven.
The case arose from an article published in the 15th of April 2024 edition of Correio da Manhã, under the front-page headline: “Friend pays salary to president’s daughter and receives millions from the Government.”
The report, written by Egídio Carreira, stated that Miguel Albuquerque’s daughter was receiving €1,467 a month from a company controlled by businessman Tony Saramago, founder of Atalaia Living Care, a private social solidarity institution that had received millions of euros from the Regional Government.
The article also claimed that Sara Albuquerque had never attended the institution’s premises or provided any services to it.
On the same page, a separate article headlined “Contract is worth €17 million” reported that the association had signed an agreement with the Regional Government to participate in the Integrated Continuing Care Network between 2022 and 2025.
The page also referred to an alleged lack of economic activity by a company, payments to employees, scrutiny of the association and information reportedly provided following searches.
Atalaia Living Care argued that the publication created the impression that it was involved in unlawful practices, damaging its reputation and good name.
The association claimed that the reports had improperly linked its contracts with the Regional Government to the employment of Sara Albuquerque by a separate commercial company with a similar name: Atalaia Living Care – Cuidados de Saúde Integrados, Lda.
It sought €100,000 in compensation from Medialivre and the journalist, together with a public retraction, as well as €50,000 from each of the association’s three former managers.
Medialivre and Egídio Carreira contested the action, maintaining that the report resulted from an investigation conducted over several weeks. During that period, documents were collected and cross-checked, and several people were interviewed, including Tony Saramago.
They also argued that the journalist had published information he believed to be true and had acted in accordance with his duty to inform the public. Medialivre further maintained that it could not automatically be held responsible for the work of its journalists.
The court found that the report had been published with the knowledge of, and without opposition from, the management of Correio da Manhã.
It also established that Egídio Carreira had written the report but had not been involved in selecting the front-page presentation, photographs or headlines, which were editorial decisions made by the newspaper.
The ruling confirmed that the journalist had gathered and cross-checked information over several weeks, consulted documents and spoken to several people, including the founder of Atalaia Living Care.
Central to the court’s assessment was the distinction between the Atalaia Living Care Association, an IPSS, and the separate commercial company Atalaia Living Care – Cuidados de Saúde Integrados, Lda.
The judge noted that the reports did not state that the association had paid Sara Albuquerque’s salary or had any contractual relationship with her. The payment was instead attributed to the commercial company described as being controlled by Tony Saramago, the association’s founder.
The ruling stated that Saramago had confirmed that Sara Albuquerque was paid by the commercial company, which was managed by his son.
The court also concluded that the information concerning the association was accurate. Tony Saramago had confirmed that Atalaia Living Care had signed an agreement worth more than €17 million to provide services within the Integrated Continuing Care Network.
The judge therefore found that no false information concerning the association’s activities had been published and that the reports had not accused it of any unlawful act.
The court also considered it journalistically permissible to describe Tony Saramago as someone who “controlled” the commercial company, despite acknowledging that it could not be legally established that he owned it.
The ruling stressed that the level of precision required in a newspaper report is not identical to the legal precision required in a judicial decision.
Another decisive factor was the absence of evidence that the association had suffered any specific damage as a result of the publication.
The ruling said no damage to Atalaia Living Care had been established and concluded that the reports were not capable of harming the association’s image. At most, the articles could have affected the commercial company and Tony Saramago, who were the principal subjects of the reporting.
In balancing the right to a good name against freedom of expression, the court attached particular importance to the public interest of the information concerned.
The case involved contracts financed with public money, which, according to the ruling, afforded greater scope for freedom of expression and the public’s right to information.
Citing existing case law, the court noted that, in matters of public interest, freedom of expression should only be restricted when there is a “pressing social need” to do so.
The judgment recognised that the rights to honour and a good name have the same constitutional value as freedom of expression and that a balance must be found between them.
However, following case law from the Supreme Court of Justice, it concluded that, in this case, freedom of expression outweighed the association’s claims and justified the dismissal of the action.
Regarding the association’s three former managers, the court found insufficient evidence that they had supplied confidential documents or information about Atalaia Living Care to journalists.
Those allegations were considered unproven. The fact that the three defendants had previously held management positions within the association was not, by itself, sufficient to establish responsibility.
Judge Alexandre Azadinho ultimately concluded that the legal requirements necessary to hold any of the defendants civilly liable had not been met and that there was no proven damage requiring compensation.
The action was dismissed in its entirety; all five defendants were cleared of the claims against them, and Atalaia Living Care was ordered to pay the legal costs.
Samantha Gannon
info at madeira-weekly.com
Views: 43
