CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2020

.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 } Communicated on 13 January 2020 Published on 3 February 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 77940/17 INDEX.HU ZRT against Hungary lodged on 27 October 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant company operates a major internet news portal in Hungary called index.hu. On 1 December 2014 index.hu published an article about a Facebook campaign mentioning in particular a post published by a well ‑ known publicist. The article stated that according to the recollection of the publicist he had been held in military prison during his military service at the same time as the President of the Republic, who had been allegedly detained for shooting while drunk. In the civil proceedings initiated by the President of the Republic the domestic courts found that the applicant company infringed the President’s personality rights. The applicant company’s constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on 23 May 2017 for failing to raise an issue of constitutional relevance. The applicant company alleges a violation of its right to impart information and ideas under Article 10 of the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression, in particular its right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention, in view of the fact that the domestic courts’ application of the principle of objective liability for the contents of statements made by a third-party?