This is an important section:
"2.4. It can be verified that the divergence found in the decisions of the instances consists essentially in the following :
- the first instance found that the defendant Gonçalo Amaral, for having been responsible for the criminal investigation as a member of the PJ, although, meanwhile, he retired, couldn't enjoy full and complete freedom of expression, since the functions he was in charge of imposed on him, in particular, the reserve duty, wherefore that freedom having to yield to this duty, his conduct was unlawful in virtue of the art. 484°of the CC.
- the second instance took the view that this argumentation could not be upheld, inasmuch "it would be hardly understandable that a civil servant, even more a retired one, should carry on his silence and reserve duties, thus limiting the exercise of his right to opinion as to the interpretation of facts already made public by the judicial authority and widely discussed, actually largely at the instigation of the protagonists themselves, in national and international media", imposing himself to consider the publication of the book in question as revealing the legitimate exercise of right to opinion."
this is rather interesting - why?
"The appellants, in the conclusion of their claim for review, despite alluding to their claim to have the sentence of the first instance reinstated, did not make any express reference to the question of the alleged reserve duty of the defendant Gonçalo Amaral, to which, according the same judgement, freedom of speech should give in, which constitutes the cornerstone of the entire construction leading to the conclusion that the conduct of that defendant was illicit, by virtue of art.44° of the CC."
Art 44 of CC is to do with business so I don't see how it relates to the case!
" Article 44
(Enrichment without cause)
Unjust enrichment is governed by the law on the basis of which the transfer of the book value to the enriched was verified."
It may just be a typo for 484 "
(Offense of credit or good name)
Anyone who asserts or divulges a fact capable of prejudicing the credit or good name of any person, whether natural or legal, shall be liable for the damages caused."
Which is highly relevant to the case.