CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 22950/23 MEDIAREY HUNGARY SERVICES ZRT. against Hungary lodged on 26 May 2023 communicated on 13 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the civil and administrative law proceedings conducted against the applicant company, publisher of the Hungarian print and online edition of the Forbes business magazine. It publishes the list of the largest family businesses and the list of the wealthiest Hungarians annually. In August and November 2019, the applicant company turned to the Barabás family, the owners and managing directors of Hell Energy Magyarország Kft (“Hell Energy”), a Hungarian energy drink manufacturer, informing them before the publication that they would feature in the lists. The owners objected to the processing of their personal data under Regulation   (EU)   2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation – “the   GDPR”). However, the applicant company considered that freedom of expression prevailed in both cases; it published the September issue online and sent the new issue to print. The Barabás family members submitted a request for a provisional measure prior to any legal proceedings. On 20   December   2019 the Budapest High Court ordered a sum of HUF 4,227,690, corresponding to the printing expenses, to be deposited with the court by the Barabás family members for the provisional measure to take effect. On 22   January   2020 the Budapest High Court established that the deposit had been made and since then, the applicant company was provisionally ordered to process the claimants’ personal data only with the data subjects’ express written consent and was prohibited from making their personal data public until the final settlement of the claim. Accordingly, the applicant company withdrew the issue from print and revised the content so that the data subjects were no longer identifiable in the online version of the publication. The applicant company’s appeal and its request for judicial review in which it contested the provisional measure were rejected on 21   January and 17   June   2020 respectively. On 31   January   2023 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant company’s constitutional complaint inadmissible. The decision was served on the applicant company’s legal representative on 6   February   2023. Meanwhile, in December 2019, the Barabás family members lodged a complaint with the Data Protection Authority (“the DPA”) to challenge the lawfulness of the applicant company’s data processing operations. On 23   July 2020 the DPA held that the applicant company was in breach of several provisions of the GDPR, ordered it to comply with the data subjects’ requests and to bring its future processing operations into compliance with, inter alia , Article   6(1)(f) of the GDPR. The DPA imposed an administrative fine in the amount of 2 million Hungarian forints (around 5,750 euros) on the applicant company. It considered that the data processed in relation to the Forbes lists had not contributed to a debate of public interest and could not be assimilated to the performance of a task carried out in the public interest within the meaning of Article   6(1)(e) of the GDPR. All parties to the case introduced administrative actions against the decision. The Budapest High Court dismissed the joined case on 23   June   2021 as the grounds raised by the applicant company, upheld in part by the High Court, did not have an influence on the overall lawfulness of the DPA decision. On 2   March   2022 the Kúria dismissed the requests for the review of the lower court decision. It held that the Hungarian legislature, in its powers reserved to Member States under Article   85 of the GDPR, granted no exemptions or derogations from the provisions of the GDPR in respect of personal data processed by the press. On 28   March   2023 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant company’s constitutional complaint inadmissible. The decision was served on the applicant company’s legal representative on 4   April   2023. The provisional measure issued on 20   December   2019 was set aside, and the deposit amount was released to the applicant company by the Budapest High Court on 21   February   2024. The applicant company complains that the provisional measure and the DPA’s administrative decision, both upheld by the domestic courts and the Constitutional Court, were at variance with the requirements of Articles 6, 10 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention by the provisional measure and the DPA’s administrative decision, both upheld by the domestic courts? If so, was that interference prescribed by law? Did it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims listed in Article 10 §   2 of the Convention? Was it “necessary in a democratic society” in terms of Article   10   §   2?   In particular, did the legal framework ensure both tight control over the scope of the provisional measure and effective judicial review to prevent any abuses ( see RTBF v. Belgium , no. 50084/06, §§ 105, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey , no. 3111/10, § 64, ECHR   2012)? Were there sufficient safeguards, notably procedural guarantees, available to the applicant company (see Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey , no.   28255/07, §§ 56-76, 8 October 2013)?   Did the legislature, in its powers conferred on it by the GDPR, and the domestic courts in their civil and administrative court proceedings give due consideration to the principles and criteria established by the Court’s case ‑ law for striking a fair balance between the right to respect for private life and the right to freedom of expression (see Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and   Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, §§ 150 and 165, 27 June 2017, and L.B. v. Hungary [GC], no. 36345/16, §§ 124-26 and 128, 9 March 2023)?