CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s1CBBD6E0 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 21 March 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 35030/13 VERLAGSGRUPPE DROEMER KNAUR GMBH & CO. KG against Germany lodged on 29 May 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a publishing company. On 29 November 2011 the Munich Court of Appeal ordered it to pay 10,000 euros in compensation to a person referred to as a presumed member of the mafia on one page in a book published by it (entitled “Mafia” and written by Petra Reski). The   court considered that the applicant company, which had based the impugned passage of the book on findings in an internal report of the Federal Office of Criminal Investigations, had not complied with its duty of thorough investigation and had seriously interfered with the personality rights of the person referred to. In a decision of 19 November 2012, served on 3   December 2012, the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant’s constitutional complaint. The applicant complains under Article   10 of the Convention that the Court of Appeal judgment ordering it to pay compensation breached its right to freedom of expression. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?   In particular, to what extent are the duties and responsibilities inherent in the applicant company’s area of business relevant to its claim and the State’s margin of appreciation in this regard?