CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 janvier 2025

.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 }   Published on 17 February 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 8271/23 XXI. SZÁZAD MÉDIA KFT against Hungary lodged on 3 February 2023 communicated on 29 January 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant company is the publisher of the political daily newspaper Népszava . On 28 April 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Népszava published a caricature representing the National Chief Medical Officer, Ms   C.M., standing behind a pulpit and looking towards Jesus Christ on a cross. The speech bubble above Ms C.M.’s head used a pun referring to Jesus Christ’s underlying disease keeping him hanging on / leading to his addiction. On 20 May 2020 Mr I.V., member of the Christian Democratic People’s Party, brought proceedings against the applicant company under article 2:54 of the Civil Code. He alleged that the caricature had constituted an infringement of his personality rights as a member of the Christian community. The Budapest High Court dismissed Mr I.V.’s action on 19 January 2021. On 3 June 2021 the Budapest Court of Appeal overturned the first-instance judgment, finding that the impugned caricature infringed the personality rights of the plaintiff, as a member of the Christian community. It ordered the applicant company to publish an apology. The judgment was upheld by the Kúria on 13 July 2022. The applicant company’s constitutional complaint was dismissed on 6   December 2022. According to the Constitutional Court, the caricature had transferred a negative value judgment about religious observance and had not contributed to a debate of public interest. The applicant company complains that the obligation to publish an apology for the publication of the impugned caricature has breached its right to freedom of expression, as provided in Article 10 of the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article 10 § 2 (see Sekmadienis Ltd. v.   Lithuania , no. 69317/14, §§ 73-74, 30 January 2018)?