CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 18 October 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 8964/18 AXEL SPRINGER SE against Germany lodged on 14 February 2018 communicated on 30 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a court decision against a newspaper to release a rectification regarding a previously published article. The applicant company had published an article about the German politician K. and her prior connections to the Ministry for State Security ( Stasi ). Beforehand, the applicant company had contacted K. with a catalogue of questions to which K. had not replied. After the article was published, K. demanded the release of a rectification regarding certain details in the article. The Berlin Regional Court dismissed K.’s lawsuit but the Court of Appeal ordered the applicant company to publish the requested rectification. The applicant company relies on Article 10, arguing that contrary to the claims in the rectification the article had not alleged an involvement of K. in the concealment of SED party assets. It further complains that since K. had refused to answer the applicant company’s questions regarding certain facts, a request to publish a rectification in regard to these same facts was in breach of good faith.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s freedom of expression in ordering it to publish the rectification within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?