CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 octobre 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 21 October 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 45305/16 Andrea GIULIANO against Hungary lodged on 26 July 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the online harassment of the applicant who is a well-known gay rights activist. Following a provocative performance aimed at a far right group during the Budapest Pride march in 2014, a far-right wing online portal published the applicant’s name, photos, home address, work place and Facebook page. Subsequently he received a number of threats through Facebook and his employer was also threatened by members of far right groups telling him to dismiss the applicant. Following the applicant’s criminal complaint, the police opened investigations into defamation, against which the applicant complained stating that the statements in question also constituted hate speech. The investigation was then extended to misuse of personal data and harassment but since no suspect could be identified, it was suspended in November 2015. The applicant complained against this decision, but his claim was dismissed by the prosecutor’s office on 27   January 2016, on the grounds that the far-right wing online portal was hosted in the United States; international mutual assistance could not be requested and no perpetrator could be identified.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the alleged failure of the State to conduct an effective investigation into the online harassment suffered by the applicant amount to a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention, especially in view of the applicant’s submission that the investigation authority had not attempted to pursue international mutual assistance with the authorities of the United States?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention as a result of the alleged failure of the authorities to investigate the existence of a possible link between a discriminatory motive and the act of online harassment?