INDEX.HU ZRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 31. The Court reiterates that in proceedings such as those in the present case the domestic courts are to consider whether the context of the case, the public interest or the intention of the author of the impugned article justified the possible use of a dose of provocation or exaggeration (see Balaskas v. Greece, no. 73087/17, § 58, 5 November 2020). However, having regard to the reasons advanced by them in their decisions, the Court considers that the national courts unduly dissociated the impugned statement from its context and apparent goal by focusing only on the fact that it shared an allegation about the private life of J.A. (compare Ziembiński v. Poland (no. 2), no. 1799/07, §§ 44-45, 5 July 2016). As a consequence, they failed to include in their assessment any considerations as regards the possible contribution of the article to debate on a matter of public interest. 32. The Court observes that, at the time, J.A. was the President of Hungary and a prominent politician of the governing party. The domestic court, however, did not find those elements relevant for their assessment, since – apparently – in their understanding the publication had not concerned J.A.’s public functions and, therefore, had not related to a matter of public interest. 33. As the Court has previously held, although the publication of news about the private life of public figures is generally for the purposes of entertainment, it also contributes to the variety of information available to the public and undoubtedly benefits from the protection of Article 10 of the Convention (see Dupate v. Latvia, no. 18068/11, § 51, 19 November 2020). Furthermore, the public interest also relates to matters which are capable of giving rise to considerable controversy, which concern an important social issue or which involve a problem that the public would have an interest in being informed about (see, for example, Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, §§ 89 and 103, ECHR 2015 (extracts), with further references). In order to ascertain whether a publication concerning an individual’s private life is not intended purely to satisfy the curiosity of a certain readership, but also relates to a subject of general importance, it is necessary to assess the publication as a whole and to examine whether, having regard to the context in which it appears (see Björk Eiðsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 46443/09, § 67, 10 July 2012), it relates to a question of public interest. 34. In this connection, the Court considers that information on the President’s conduct during his compulsory military service was not of an intimate nature and did not fall solely within the private sphere with its publication intended merely to satisfy the public’s curiosity. The information in question was not without political import and could have aroused the interest of the public with regard to the way in which the President approached or assumed his responsibilities. 35. In any event, in the present case the intrinsic political importance of the story about the President’s military service was supplemented by a further 8