CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 17 September 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 7796/16 Miroslav HÁJOVSKÝ against Slovakia lodged on 4 February 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the protection of the applicant’s private life in defamation proceedings that the applicant instituted against the publisher of a newspaper having published an article containing information on the applicant’s private matters as well as pictures of him taken without his consent. Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that, for the purposes of the article which did not objectively report on a topic of general interest (surrogacy motherhood) and was rather sensational, the publication of his pictures and of his story, both obtained secretly without his consent, was not necessary and that the domestic courts failed to achieve a fair balance between his right to respect for private life and the defendant’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains of insufficient reasoning of the domestic courts’ decisions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article   8 of the Convention, as a result of the nationwide dissemination of his photographs and other information concerning his private matters? Did the domestic courts convincingly explain why the protection of the freedom of expression of the publishing company outweighed the applicant’s rights to respect for his private life ( Ageyevy v. Russia , no. 7075/10, 18 April 2013)?