CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2024

.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 } Published on 19 February 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 52586/22 MAGYAR HANG INTERNETES SAJTÓTERMÉK SZERKESZTŐSÉGE and ALHAMBRA PRESS BT against Hungary lodged on 3 November 2022 communicated on 1 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicants’ obligation to publish a retraction of information disseminated by a politician at a press conference. The first applicant is the editorial board and the second applicant is the publisher of Magyar Hang – Polgári Hetilap és Portál, (hereinafter “ Magyar Hang” ), a weekly newspaper and internet portal. On 17 August 2020 Magyar Hang published on its internet portal an article with the title “ Párbeszéd lodges criminal complaint in the Visegrád luxury hotel affair”. The article reported about the press conference held by D., a member of the opposition party Párbeszéd Magyarországért , relating to the allegedly fraudulent sale of a hotel by T., the son-in-law of the Prime Minister. T. requested the editorial board of Magyar Hang to publish a rectification of certain information in the article and, since the first applicant did not comply with the request, T. lodged a civil action with the Budapest High Court. On 13 November 2020 the court dismissed the action, and the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Budapest Court of Appeal on 18   March 2018. Following a request for review lodged by the plaintiff, the Kúria overturned the second-instance judgment and ordered the first applicant to publish a retraction and the second applicant to pay the plaintiff’s court fees. According to the Kúria ’s reasoning, although the publication concerned a verbatim report of a press conference, it had not included the response of the person concerned and had therefore not respected the duties of responsible journalism. The applicants’ constitutional complaint was dismissed on 28   June 2022. The applicants complain that the obligation to publish a retraction amounted to a violation of their right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article   10 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, specifically their right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention? In particular, did the measures imposed on the applicants by the Hungarian authorities discourage the participation of the media in debates over matters of legitimate public concern?