14 WĘGRZYNOWSKI AND SMOLCZEWSKI v. POLAND JUDGMENT The Court also noted with approval that the domestic courts had not suggested that potentially defamatory articles should be removed from archives altogether (see Times Newspapers, cited above, § 47). 60. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that it is not in dispute that that article published by Rzeczpospolita in December 2000 was in breach of the applicant’s rights. The domestic courts expressly acknowledged that in their first two judgments. They allowed the applicant’s claim on the grounds consonant with the Convention standards (see paragraphs 6-8 above). However, the instant case concerns issues arising in connection with the second set of civil proceedings where the presence of the offending article on the newspaper’s website and the State’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention arising in this context were examined. 61. The Court observes that during the first set of the civil proceedings the applicants failed to make claims regarding the article’s presence on the Internet. Therefore the courts could not adjudicate on this matter. The judgments given in the first case did not create for the applicants a legitimate expectation to have the article removed from the newspaper’s website. It should be further noted that the domestic courts found that the article had been published on the newspaper’s website simultaneously with the print edition in December 2000. The applicant did not challenge this finding in his appeals. Therefore the second case against Rzeczpospolita brought by the applicant in 2004 concerned the same factual circumstances. 62. The Internet archive of Rzeczpospolita is a widely known legal resource for Polish lawyers and for the general public, often used and acceded to by members of legal professions. No arguments have been submitted to the Court to justify the applicant’s failure to ensure that the scope of the first defamation claim encompassed the article’s presence on the newspaper’s website. 63. The Court observes that the Warsaw Regional Court stated in its judgment of 28 September 2005 that the case brought by the applicant was not res judicata (see paragraph 12 above). The applicant was therefore given an opportunity to bring his claims concerning the Internet version of the article before the courts and to have them examined in judicial proceedings incorporating a full array of procedural guarantees. 64. The Court further observes that the applicant made his claim under Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code. The courts accepted that the claim could be examined under these provisions and that they also applied to publications disseminated on the Internet. The Court therefore considers that it has not been demonstrated that no appropriate legal framework was in place at the relevant time and that the absence of such a framework made it impossible for the applicant to defend his rights (compare and contrast K.U. v. Finland, no. 2872/02, § 49, ECHR 2008).