6 WĘGRZYNOWSKI AND SMOLCZEWSKI v. POLAND JUDGMENT 23. Section 31 of the 1984 Press Act provides, in so far as relevant, as follows: “At the request of a natural or legal person or other organisational entity, the editor-in-chief of the relevant daily newspaper or magazine is under an obligation to publish, free of charge: 1. a factually based (rzeczowe i odnoszące się do faktów) rectification of untrue or inaccurate statements, 2. a factually based (rzeczową) reply to any statement which might infringe someone’s personal rights.” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 24. The applicants complained that their rights to respect for their private life and reputation had been breached. They referred to Article 8 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant provides as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life ... 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” A. Admissibility 1. Alleged abuse of the right to individual petition 25. The Government were of the view that the application should be declared inadmissible because it had amounted to an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. The applicants should have raised the issue of the Internet publication of the defamatory article in the first set of civil proceedings in order to obtain appropriate redress. They should have sought an order that the article – which had already been published on the newspaper’s website at that time – be removed from it. However, they had failed to do so. 26. The Government concluded that the applicants had brought the present case before the Court with the aim of using the protection system set up by the Convention to redress their own negligence in vindicating their personal rights. As they were both lawyers, their failure to act in an appropriate manner lacked justification. 27. The applicants did not specifically address this aspect of the case.