CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 juin 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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 July 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 16756/24 Mathias Friis MORTENSEN against Denmark lodged on 7 June 2024 communicated on 24 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE By a High Court judgment, which became final on 7 February 2024, the applicant was convicted of defamation for having written in a post on Twitter (now X), that the controversial leader of a political party, P., “is allowed to be a Nazi ... [whereas another person was convicted for calling a police officer an idiot]”. The applicant was sentenced to 10 day-fines of 1,000   Danish Kroner (DKK) each, and ordered to pay compensation to P. in the amount of DKK   30,000. The applicant complained that the High Court judgment was in violation of his rights under Article 10 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention (see, amongst others, Brosa v. Germany , no. 5709/09, 17 April 2014 and Balaskas v.   Greece , no.   73087/17, 5 November 2020)?