CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 8 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .sC01CF9FE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s76A8ECA6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .s7A5A2521 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s66FA0DC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s24AEEE00 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s8113DDA4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9027DC3E { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s5EC3D95B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBE703564 { width:8.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s5CDD36FB { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2BC6FEE0 { margin-left:12.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sDB284F74 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE03C66E7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF73BBD2E { margin-left:-2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s507990D1 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB9BE2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB4BC8881 { width:33.89pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s5CE24FBA { width:136.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF TAFZI EL HADRI AND EL IDRISSI MOUCH v. SPAIN (Application no. 7557/23)     JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Positive obligations • Private life • Dismissal of civil defamation action of two social educators against a newspaper and a journalist for an article identifying them by their full names and stating they had exposed minors, in the centre they worked at, to religious indoctrination aligned with Islamist fundamentalist ideologies • Art   8 applicable • Margin of appreciation not exceeded • Domestic courts’ balancing exercise between competing Art   8 and Art   10 rights in conformity with criteria laid down in Court’s case-law   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 8 January 2026   FINAL   11/05/2026   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Tafzi El Hadri and El Idrissi Mouch v. Spain, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Kateřina Šimáčková , President ,   María Elósegui,   Andreas Zünd,   Diana Sârcu,   Mykola Gnatovskyy,   Vahe Grigoryan,   Sébastien Biancheri , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   7557/23) against the Kingdom of Spain lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Spanish nationals, Mr Khalil Tafzi El Hadri and Mr Omar El Idrissi Mouch (“the applicants”), on 6 February 2023; the decision to give notice to the Spanish Government (“the Government”) of the complaint under Article   8 of the Convention; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 2 December 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the alleged failure of the domestic courts to properly balance competing rights (Articles   8 and 10 of the Convention) in defamation proceedings instituted by the applicants, by giving insufficient protection to the applicants’ right to protect their reputation. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were born in 1966 and 1969 respectively. Mr   Khalil Tafzi El Hadri (“the first applicant”) lives in Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain, and Mr Omar EL Idrissi Mouch (“the second applicant”) lives in Brussels, Belgium. The applicants were represented by Mr B. Salellas Vilar, a lawyer practising in Girona. 3.     The Government were represented by their co-Agent, Ms   H.   E.   Nicolás   Martínez. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.         Background to the case and the ABC article 5.     In 2011 both applicants were working as social educators at the C.V. residential centre for minors in Barcelona (“centre for minors”). The centre was managed by M.F. Foundation (“the foundation”), a private entity. 6.     On 27   September 2011, ABC — one of the best-selling national newspapers in terms of daily readership — published an article “Centres for minors, seedbeds of fundamentalism” ( Los centros de menores, semilleros del integrismo ) in its online edition and on page   26 of its print edition. The article read as follows: “Many educators, who have been employed solely because they are able to speak a Moroccan dialect, preach non-integration to teenagers. Some centres for minors that take in many Muslim boys have become hotbeds for training Islamists, according to warnings from administrations such as those in Catalonia and Andalusia. However, [these authorities] are powerless to tackle a problem that feeds into a failure of social integration. The autonomous communities which have the power to regulate these centres delegate their management to foundations that employ the educators and sometimes even appoint the director. Many of these shelters are already full of Moroccan adolescents who have entered Spain illegally and without identity documents, so their age is unknown. The vast majority speak the Dariya dialect. Consequently, when teachers are being recruited, their knowledge of the language takes precedence over any qualifications or [educational] specialisation. As a result, almost all of the teachers assigned to Moroccan adolescents are [Moroccan] nationals and Muslims. The situation becomes more complicated when one of these centres for minors [which are mostly Muslims] needs to employ a new monitor because those already working there are [in charge of] recruiting from within the Islamist environment they are [familiar with]. Moreover, the absence of an administrative filter means that the recruitment of these teachers can become a breeding ground for Islamist radicals. The same is true of security [guards]. Prelude to jihad In recent years, both the Interior Ministry and other administrative bodies have detected that a significant number of these centres have educators who convey Islamist messages to young people, [bringing them closer to the prelude] to "jihad". That is to say, they do not openly call for terrorist activity, but their discourse does provide a breeding ground for some to consider waging [their] “holy war”. Furthermore, the Anti-Terrorist Services have identified individuals who have been recruited at some of these centres and who have subsequently travelled to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight. The educators also preach from a position of superiority as the children are generally illiterate and displaced in an unfamiliar country. Over time, groups form with great internal cohesion because of their shared religious identity. “I am different from the others, and I integrate with those who are like me” is the message they internalise. The [L.M.] centre in Almería is no exception to this problem. On 2 September, a fight broke out after children of [Roma] origin complained about the management’s favourable treatment of Moroccans. Ahmed U. assaulted one of the [Roma] children, after which the rest of the Moroccans [started to fight], and the situation quickly escalated into a pitched battle. The management reportedly took no action, giving the Moroccans the benefit of the doubt according to [sources in] the centre, which stress that the Muslims acted as a group united by their religious principles. The current ringleaders are Sohuail A. A. and Mohamed D. The situation at the [C.V.] centre for minors in Barcelona is also of great concern, as recognised by the centre’s management, which has informed the Department of Social Action and Citizenship of the Generalitat [the Government of Catalonia]. Of the 26   Maghrebi minors currently housed in this centre, 24 are from Tangier and many of them have known each other since their childhood because they lived in the same neighbourhood. They communicate with their educators in the Dariya dialect. One of [the educators is] Omar El Idrisi who, according to sources at the centre [ según confirman fuentes de este centro ], indoctrinates the pupils in Islamist fundamentalism [ los adoctrina en el integrismo islamista ]. He takes his pupils to pray at the Tariq Ibu Ziyad Mosque, [which is] named after the Berber general who led the Muslim invasion of the Iberian Peninsula. Another educator at the centre is Khaliltafzi [1] [sic.] El Hadri, a member of Justice and Charity [ Justicia y Caridad ], one of the most radical strands of Islam (una de las corrientes más radicales del Islam) . When [the minors turn] 18, they are recruited to work in establishments run by Islamists, where they continue their [radicalisation]”. 7.     The above text was accompanied by the following summary in the centre of the page: “From rootlessness to active Islamism Educators In the recruitment, [their] ability to communicate with Moroccan minors is prioritised, so in nearly all cases Maghrebi Islamists are recruited. Preaching Educators indoctrinate minors in the most radical [form of] Islam [ el islamismo más radical ] in order to prevent them from integrating into the “corrupt” West, taking them to the most fundamentalist mosques to pray. Ghettos In a centre in Barcelona, 24 out of 26 minors are from Tangier, and one of their educators is from Justice and Charity, one of the most radical strands of Islam. Destination Iraq Groups of Islamists have been detected who, after leaving the centre for minors, fought in Iraq. Others frequented the circles of the perpetrators [ frecuentaron el entorno de los autores ] of 11-M [that is, the terrorist attacks in Madrid on 11 March 2004].” 8 .     On 30   September 2011 the M.F. Foundation commenced disciplinary proceedings against the first applicant over the statements made in the publication. Having heard the applicant’s explanations, on 7   October 2011 the foundation discontinued the proceedings. 9 .     In September 2011 more than thirty foundation employees who worked at the centre for minors, including the applicants, issued a communiqué expressing strong disagreement with the article, which they said contained false information and unfairly questioned the professionalism of the staff and also targeted individuals based on their national origin. The employees called for proper fact-checking before publishing such claims, requested an investigation to find those responsible for spreading the false information, affirmed that the school operated under official educational guidelines and demanded a public retraction of the disputed statements to restore the reputation of the centre and its employees. 10 .     At some point, apparently shortly after the article was published, the director of the C.V. centre for minors wrote a letter to the Consortium of Social Services of Barcelona (a public entity operating in the field of health and social care) denying that there was any radicalism at the centre. The director gave an update on the measures taken in response to the publication, including the holding of a meeting between the centre’s management and the foundation and the interviewing of the applicants and other staff members. He emphasised that the two applicants had good professional and work records. He stated that the origin of the information reported in the article was unknown, and that the centre’s activities were based on an educational project approved by the domestic authorities. That project, oriented towards cohesion and social inclusion, would not contribute to the spread of any fundamentalist or radical ideology. Staff had been reminded of the guidelines for communications with the media. The director said that all the employees who had been interviewed had denied having spoken to or communicated with the media in any way. 11 .     Both applicants continued to work as social educators at the centre for minors until 31   May 2012, when the centre closed. Referring to material from domestic civil proceedings, the Government submitted that the centre was closed because the contract between the Consortium of Social Services of Barcelona and the M.F. Foundation had not been renewed. The domestic courts found that the applicants were dismissed along with the other staff members because of the closure of the centre.       Relevant domestic proceedings    Criminal proceedings 12 .     On 24 September 2012 the applicants filed a criminal complaint against the ABC newspaper and the author of the article. 13 .     In January 2013 an investigating court in Barcelona opened a preliminary investigation but, in the same decision, discontinued it for lack of territorial jurisdiction to deal with the case. It referred the case to an investigating court in Madrid. On 5   March 2013, the Investigating Court of Madrid no.   14 dismissed the case, as the acts complained of did not constitute a criminal offence. The investigating court emphasised the “eminently informative purpose” of the article, which meant that it fell under the protection of the right to freedom of expression; observed that criminal proceedings were reserved for particularly serious matters, which was not the situation in this case; and further observed that the applicants could have brought civil proceedings. It appears that the parties did not appeal against the decision to dismiss the case.    Civil proceedings      The applicants’ civil claim and the first-instance proceedings    Submissions of the parties to the civil proceedings 14 .     On 25   September 2015 the applicants filed a civil claim for breach of their right to honour against DIARIO ABC, S.L. (“the ABC ”) and the journalist who was the author of the article. They sought a finding that there had been an unlawful interference with their right to their reputation and compensation for the harm caused to them by the publication. They also sought an order for the article to be taken down and for the publication of the judgment at the defendants’ expense. 15 .     The applicants claimed the article contained false accusations, attributing their employment as educators solely to their knowledge of Moroccan dialects and accusing the centre for minors of indoctrinating young people with Islamist fundamentalism. The applicants argued that the article unjustifiably attributed wrongful and unlawful conduct to them. They emphasised that the damaging accusations directly targeted them on the basis, they believed, of their religion and their Moroccan origins. The applicants observed that the ABC article explicitly named them and the centre for minors, accusing them of belonging to radical Islamic movements and attempting to indoctrinate minors with Islamist fundamentalism. The article had damaged their professional reputation as educators and, in the first applicant’s case, as a university lecturer. The article appeared prominently in Google search results for their names, and any employer who found the article and became aware of its contents would be dissuaded from recruiting the applicants as educators. They observed that the article had been published by the third best-selling national daily newspaper, with an average daily circulation of 183,078, and that the damage was amplified by the additional number of visitors to its website. 16.     The applicants argued that, given the seriousness of the allegations, the burden of proving that all the disputed statements were accurate was on the author of the article, who had failed to meet that requirement. It could easily be demonstrated that, contrary to the claims made in the article, the applicants held valid professional qualifications. The management of the centre publicly supported them and had discontinued the disciplinary proceedings (the applicants referred to the information and documents summarised in paragraphs   8-10 above). The applicants stressed that the article did not merely report others’ opinions but presented the claims as factual. The journalist had reworked the information obtained, portraying the applicants as individuals of questionable morality and ethics. The ABC had included value judgments in an article, altering the facts in information given to them and defending the accuracy of the reported facts. The applicants pointed out that the accusations were not based on identifiable sources, but gave rather vague references to unnamed sources at the centre for minors, which suggested that the journalist and ABC had failed to check the information. No source was cited to support the claim that one of them was a member of the group Justice and Charity. To highlight the damage caused to the first applicant’s reputation by that specific allegation, they referred to academic articles concerning the ideology of Justice and Charity, according to which the movement advocated “jihad”. 17.     Lastly, they claimed that the publication promoted hatred and discrimination. The applicants argued that the 11   September 2001 and 11   March 2004 terrorist attacks in the USA and Spain had changed the West’s perceptions of Islam and the Arab world, and that terms used in the article ‑ such as "Islamist radicals" and "jihad" ‑ evoked associations with violence and terror, regardless of the author’s intention. 18 .     In the domestic proceedings the applicants submitted that they had continued to work in the centre for minors after the publication of the article. The first applicant stated in court that he had received unemployment benefits after the closure of the centre for minors. He subsequently carried out a job search by sending out his curriculum vitae but received no responses or offers of employment. He also stated that he was invited to a few interviews with unspecified employers but these were then cancelled on the same day. He attributed this to the recruiters’ finding out about the article. The second applicant stated in court that he had combined his employment at the centre for minors with another job at C.A.S.M., a residential centre for minors, where he had been employed until 2014. 19.     The journalist and the ABC submitted in reply that the article dealt with an issue of obvious public interest, namely the situation in Spain (and Catalonia in particular) of unaccompanied foreign minors, especially those of Moroccan origin, who were not integrated into Spanish culture and society. Because of a lack of administrative control over educators, many of those minors were indoctrinated with radical Islamic ideas in centres for minors. The article was clearly aimed at providing information and there had been no intention of damaging the applicants’ reputations. The journalist argued that he had checked the information carefully with reliable sources before the article was published. The criterion of accuracy was complied with, and the article did not use offensive language for either facts or opinions. 20.     The public prosecutor’s office supported the newspaper and the journalist.    First-instance judgment of 26   February 2018 21 .     On 26   February 2018 the Court of First Instance of Hospitalet de   Llobregat dismissed the claim. It held that its role was to analyse whether the article had violated the applicants’ right to their reputation or whether it was protected by freedom of expression or freedom of the press, in the light of the principles developed in the case-law of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Spain, as well as the Court’s case-law (including Castells v. Spain , 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, and Fuentes Bobo v.   Spain , no.   39293/98, 29 February 2000), all of which were cited in the judgment. The court reiterated that freedom of expression prevailed over the protection of the right to privacy as long as the information was truthful, was a matter of public interest or relevance, and was not expressed unnecessarily offensively or harmfully. 22 .     The first-instance court found it necessary to clarify the concept of “Islamic fundamentalism” before it assessed the impact of the article on the applicants’ reputations. The court observed that, despite its frequent misuse in everyday language, the term referred to the literal interpretation of Islamic texts and did not inherently imply violence or “jihad”. According to the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, the term referred to the attitude of certain groups who insisted on preserving the absolute and unchangeable nature of Islamic doctrine. It therefore stood for those branches of Islam that promoted a strict, literal interpretation of the sacred texts and rejected any form of reinterpretation or modification. The expression in question, which the applicants claimed had been wrongly attributed to them, described those of the Muslim faithful who adhered to that literalist view, and did not inherently imply violence or jihad. 23 .     The first-instance court further found that recent terrorist attacks involving young people, including nationals of European states, had led to a strong public interest in understanding how young people could be drawn into radical Islamism. The court observed that, at the time in question, Spain, like other European countries, remained on a “level 4” (high) security alert. The information provided by the newspaper was therefore of general interest, as it was aimed at explaining the dangers posed by a failure of Moroccan immigrants to integrate into Western society, against the background of the jihadist threat. One of the reasons for the lack of integration was the methods used by the administration to accommodate those young people in centres for minors, particularly when it came to choosing and appointing staff. 24 .     The domestic court then turned to the content of the article, in so far as it concerned the applicants. It observed that the article stated, in general terms, that when educators were engaged to work in centres for young immigrant children of Maghrebi origin, particular attention was paid to their knowledge of the language and dialects, given the children’s language problems. Prioritising knowledge of the language over educational considerations increased the risk of employing people who preached a more radical form of Islam. That could hinder the social integration of the young people into European culture and encourage their integration into Muslim communities. Given the particular vulnerability of these young people, it could also increase the risk of them joining groups that were susceptible to jihadist recruitment. 25 .     The court noted the applicants’ denial that they were members of the group Justice and Charity and their denial that they had indoctrinated young people with Islamist fundamentalism or accompanied them to pray in mosques, as well as their submission that the centre was forbidden to provide any kind of religious education. The court found that even though the applicants stated that the information in the article did not entirely correspond to reality, the article only suggested that the applicants: (1)   professed a particular strand of Islam, exercising their right to freedom of religion; (2)   encouraged their students to participate in it ( hacen participes de la misma ); and (3) belonged to a legitimate political party ( que pertencen a un partido politico legítimo). The behaviour or attitudes attributed to the applicants were an exercise of their freedom of religion and their right to join political parties, which could not be seen as dishonourable or insulting. None of the statements, even if uncertain or inaccurate ( aun inciertas o inexactas ), implied that the applicants were indoctrinating minors in jihad or encouraging them to commit violent acts. 26 .     The court further noted the journalist’s explanation that his article was intended to highlight the risks involved in educating young people in centres for minors through educators who might hold radical ideological views. This concern did not stem from allegations of indoctrination of violence but rather from the children’s particular situation of isolation and vulnerability. According to the journalist, that background could lead them to misinterpret religious messages, potentially resulting in their conversion to jihadism. The article did not accuse the educators of indoctrinating minors in the practice of jihad or of encouraging them to participate in violent acts. Instead, the article revealed that the system designed by the public administration for the care of these minors had exacerbated the existing problem of the minors’ social integration. The court concluded that describing the applicants as fundamentalists ( calificar a los actores de integrismo ) therefore did not damage their reputation, even if the term might be wrongly associated by some with violent extremism. 27 .     Lastly, the court of first instance found that, even though the applicants subsequently denied that the facts published were accurate, the journalist checked them with necessary diligence. The court referred to the following considerations: “In the article, [the journalist] states that [his source] is the Department of Social Action and Citizenship, who obtained their information from the centre for minors itself, as well as the Ministry of the Interior. As regards the origin of the information and checking its accuracy, he clarified in court that, given that his professional career had focused on [analysing] terrorism (originally that perpetrated by ETA and currently that of jihadists), he had contacts in the intelligence services who had confirmed the information he had published (saying that the information had been obtained from people who worked at the centre). He also states that he checked the information with the Generalitat , but was not able to obtain a version [of the events] directly from the [centre for minors]. When he attempted to contact them and indicated the subject he wanted to discuss, they simply hung up.”      Proceedings in the Barcelona Audiencia Provincial 28 .     The Barcelona Audiencia Provincial considered the applicants’ appeal and dismissed it on 6 February 2019, upholding the findings of the first-instance court. 29.     The appellate court reiterated the Court’s case-law on freedom of expression as one of the essential foundations of society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of everyone. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it applied not only to “information” or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. These were the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there was no “democratic society”. As set out in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (the appellate court cited Handyside v.   the   United   Kingdom , 7   December 1976, §   49, Series A no. 24; Éditions Plon v.   France , no.   58148/00, §   42, ECHR 2004-IV, and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v.   France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, §   45, ECHR 2007-IV). 30.     The appellate court found that the article in the present case was not a neutral report, because it contained the journalist’s opinions and evaluation of the situation and was not confined to merely relaying others’ statements. The court then observed that the article addressed issues in the management of centres for Muslim immigrant minors, focusing on various factors which could foster those minors’ Islamist radicalisation. The article also highlighted concerns raised by the authorities about employment practices in those centres and the lack of administrative filters. There was widespread concern about immigrant integration and the education of vulnerable minors, especially when terrorism was under discussion. Therefore, the appellate court found the subject of the article to be of great public interest. It found that, although the article “mixed freedom of information and freedom of expression”, the former clearly prevailed. The appellate court reiterated that freedom of information was a right not only of the journalist but also of a society, so that a free and informed public opinion could be formed on matters of general interest, which was intrinsically linked to political pluralism inherent for a democratic State. 31 .     Before assessing the accuracy of the statements made in the article, the domestic court considered whether the content was unnecessarily offensive or was irrelevant to the ideas being conveyed. It reiterated that freedom of expression and information generally outweighed a person’s right to their reputation, particularly when the topic was of public interest, and that any limitations had to be narrowly interpreted. The appellate court further observed that the expressions used in the article were to be interpreted in context, not just by their literal or “street” meaning, to determine whether they were offensive or unjustified. 32 .     The appellate court rejected the applicants’ argument that the statements made had been insulting or offensive. The court failed to see how an allegation of attendance at a mosque would be offensive. It referred to the centre for minors’ 2008 activity report and stressed that visiting a mosque was listed among the centre’s educational (or, in another part of the judgment, recreational) activities. Similarly, it found that a statement that one of the applicants was a member of Justice and Charity was not inherently offensive. As regards the allegation that the applicants had been indoctrinating minors, the court observed that disciplinary proceedings had been commenced, and then discontinued, in respect of only one of the applicants. 33 .     In connection with the above findings, the appellate court noted that the present case contrasted with the Supreme Court’s judgment no.   581/2016 of 30   September 2016 (which concerned, among other things, allegations made in a TV report that the claimants had been promoting Wahhabism, and that one of the claimants in that case was a Wahhabi, see paragraph   60 below), in that the article in the present case did not mention Wahhabism, which was described as an ultra ‑ conservative and radical version of Islam. It referred instead, in general terms, to “Islamic fundamentalism”. Contrary to the applicants’ allegation that an ordinary (“street”) person would directly associate fundamentalism with violence and terrorism, that term  as rightly noted by the first-instance court  only referred to strands of Islam based on a literal or orthodox reading of the religious texts. The scope of the right to freedom of information could not be restricted by erroneous interpretations of individual words. The court also found nothing in the text of the article to support the applicants’ argument that it included accusations that they had incited people to hatred or violence. Having considered the term “indoctrination” and referring to its definition in a Spanish academic dictionary, the court found that transmitting ideas or beliefs “or a strand of religion based on the literal reading of sacred texts” could not be considered insulting (the court referred again to the centre’s activities including the celebration of Ramadan and visiting a mosque). Having considered various interpretations of the term “jihad”, the court observed that the article did not suggest that the applicants had incited people to “jihad” but rather highlighted the danger of calls to jihad in a general way. 34 .     The appellate court therefore found that the journalist did not make allegations of “violence or hatred [or] any appeal to terrorism” against the applicants, and that the expressions used in the article were not manifestly insulting, humiliating, or grossly offensive ( manifestamente injuriosas, vejatorias o ultrajantes ).      Proceedings before the Supreme Court    The parties’ submissions to the Supreme Court 35.     The applicants lodged a cassation appeal, maintaining their earlier submissions and arguing, in essence, that the lower courts had incorrectly balanced the right to freedom of information and the right to one’s reputation. They pointed to the lower courts’ failure to find the statements about them offensive, as well as to give due weight to the terms and expressions used in the text, as well as the context of the article. The courts had not taken into account the fact that the article contained false information, namely that educators had been recruited based solely on their language skills and that they lacked professional qualifications; that the centre was a breeding ground for Islamic radicals who were responsible for indoctrinating minors in radical Islamism - the precursor to jihad; that the applicants had been indoctrinating minors, with the first applicant doing so by taking them to a mosque; and that another applicant belonged to a political party aligned with radical Islamism. Expressions such as “Islamist fundamentalism”, “Islamic radicalism” and “jihad” were clearly unnecessary in an article that was supposedly only intended to highlight organisational issues in centres for unaccompanied immigrant minors of Moroccan nationality and Muslim faith. They maintained that the article did not fall under the category of neutral reporting. Referring, notably, to the Supreme Court’s judgment no.   472/2014 of 12   January 2015 (see paragraph   61 below), they pointed to the journalist’s failure to demonstrate that he had diligently checked the information before the publication either with the centre (whose management, as the applicants noted, had approved of their work) or with other sources. 36.     The ABC and the journalist objected to the cassation appeal, arguing, in essence, that the domestic courts had correctly balanced the conflicting rights. In so far as the accuracy of the article was concerned, it only reported a risk of especially vulnerable minors being manipulated by educators who had been employed despite not having the proper qualifications. The information was both of general interest and accurate. The only implication was that minors might misinterpret their educators’ strong religious message. The journalist had duly checked the information. In addition to his extensive experience in terrorism issues and his sources in the Ministry of the Interior, he had checked the information with the Generalitat and had attempted to verify it further with the centre itself, although they had not answered his phone call. The article did not contain words or expressions which were insulting, humiliating or unrelated to the subject-matter of the article.    The Supreme Court’s judgment of 24   March 2021 37 .     On 24   March 2021 the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal. The Supreme Court confirmed that the fundamental rights in conflict were the right to one’s reputation and the right to freedom of information, and that its task was to carefully balance these rights. It upheld the appellate court’s finding that the purpose of the article was to communicate to the public information about the issue detected by the regional and central authorities that a failure of the social and cultural integration of Moroccan immigrant minors could be a factor in those minors being recruited by Islamist terrorists. That issue could be exacerbated by the absence of the required controls on the educators’ having requisite professional qualifications. However, the Supreme Court observed that the information in the article was accompanied by value judgements or opinions the journalist himself had drawn from the information. 38.     The Supreme Court then reiterated that freedom of information could only take precedence over the right to one’s reputation if three conditions were met: (1) publication concerned a matter of public interest, (2)   it was presented proportionally, that is, without clearly injurious or degrading language, and (3) it met the requirement of veracity (truthfulness). 39.     The Supreme Court further endorsed the lower courts’ finding that the information reported in the article was clearly of general interest, given that it concerned the issue of Islamic terrorism. 40 .     The Supreme Court quoted extensively from its own findings in earlier cases (see, for an overview, paragraphs   58-62 below). In particular, the Supreme Court reiterated that the duty of truthfulness (veracity) required journalists to exercise reasonable diligence in fact-checking, in line with professional standards and the specific context of a case. Accuracy did not mean that the report had to be absolutely correct in every detail, but rather that the journalist had taken reasonable steps to check the information before publication. The Supreme Court referred to its own precedents and stressed that, when a source was credible and reliable, fact-checking beyond confirming the source’s identity or reliability was not necessarily required. 41 .     Applying the principles summarised in its earlier precedents to the present case, the Supreme Court concluded as follows: “The core information conveyed in the article in question is indisputably... of public interest. The facts attributed to the applicants do not in themselves undermine [the applicants’] dignity or reputation in the eyes of others[. T]hey consist of a statement that they indoctrinate pupils in a particular strand of Islam, more radical than others [( determinada corriente de la religion ilslámica, más integrista que otras )] by taking them to pray in a particular mosque. [Such] conduct is neither wrongful nor dishonourable [either in Islam] or in any other religion. [The allegation that] the applicants belong to a particular strand of Islam characterised by radicalism [is] not socially reprehensible either. [Furthermore], the reporter consulted various official sources when writing his article and attempted to obtain the version of the centre for minors, but was unsuccessful. The [first-instance] court’s weighing of the facts was ... in line with the [Supreme Court’s] case law, notably the ... judgment no.   581/2016 of 30   September [2016, see paragraph   60 below].      The applicants’ amparo appeal 42.     The applicants lodged an amparo or constitutional appeal. On 7   October 2022 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ amparo appeal because the case had no special constitutional significance.    Other relevant information      The applicants’ professional lives after the publication 43 .     Employment records for the first applicant dated September 2024 were submitted by the Government with their further observations. They showed that since 2003 the first applicant had been working for the Polytechnic University of Catalonia, including part-time between 2013 and 2015 (when he had also been in receipt of unemployment benefits); that between 2016 and 2018 he had worked in the sphere of education, including for the Consortium of Social Services of Barcelona; and that since 2016 he had been employed with a social initiative cooperative providing educational services for youth and families in the region. 44 .     The Government also cited a court statement made by the second applicant and his employment records dated September 2024 in their further observations. These showed that the second applicant had worked at both the C.V. centre for minors and at the C.A.S.M., another residential centre for minors, at the same time, between September 2008 and January   2014. In 2014 he moved to Belgium.       The accessibility of the article 45 .     In their additional observations dated 16   September 2024 the Government submitted that they had searched for the applicants’ names using the Google search engine. They had entered different word combinations, as suggested by the applicants in their domestic statement of claim (see paragraph   15 above). None of the results referred to the ABC article. A warning stating that some results might have been removed under European data protection law was displayed on the search results page. 46 .     It appears that the article is still accessible in the digital edition of the newspaper and can be found using search engines and keywords such as the full name of the centre for minors, but apparently not by searching for the applicants using their names. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE         THE Spanish Сonstitution 47 .     Under Article   20 of the Constitution, the following rights are recognised and protected: the right to free expression and dissemination of thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, in writing or by any other means of reproduction (Article 20   (1)(a)); and the ri