6 MAGYAR JETI ZRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT veracity of the facts[;] therefore they acted in a manner that would generally be expected of them in the given situation. ...” 15. The applicant company appealed, arguing that public opinion associated the notion of “Jobbik” not so much with the political party but with anti-Roma ideology, and the name had become a collective noun for anti-Roma organisations. According to the applicant company, the content of the statement had not been offensive towards the political party, since it was publicly known that Jobbik had been engaged in hatred-inciting activities. The applicant company also emphasised that by making the interview with the first defendant available in the form of a link but not associating the applicant company with the video’s content, it had not repeated the statements and had not disseminated falsehoods. 16. On 25 September 2014 the Debrecen Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision. It held that the statement by J.Gy. had qualified as a statement of fact because it had given the impression to the average audience that the football supporters had been organisationally linked to the political party. The court found that the statement had been injurious to the political party since it had associated the latter with socially reprehensible conduct. As regards the applicant company in particular, it held: “... With regard to the fifth defendant’s [the applicant company’s] reference in its appeal, the court of first-instance correctly established that making a false statement available through a link, even without identifying with it, qualified as dissemination of facts. Dissemination (or circulation) is the sharing of a piece of news as thought-based content and making it available for others. Contrary to the fifth defendant’s viewpoint as expressed in its appeal, an infringement of the law by dissemination occurs even if the disseminator does not identify with the statement, and even if the disseminator’s trust in the veracity of the statement is ungrounded. Making lawful content available in any form qualifies as dissemination; and the disseminator bears objective responsibility for sharing another person’s unlawful statement owing to the occurrence of the sharing. Based on the grammatical and taxonomical interpretation of dissemination as defined in Article 78 § 2 of the Civil Code, it occurs by means of the sharing of information, which makes the content in question accessible to anyone. The essence of dissemination is the sharing of information, and owing to the objective legal consequence, it does not matter what the goal of the sharing was, or whether the disseminator acted in good or bad faith; nor do the scope of publicity or the gravity of the infringement have any relevance. ...” 17. On 1 December 2014 the applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint under Act no. CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court (“the Constitutional Court Act”), arguing in essence that under the Civil Code, media outlets assumed objective liability for dissemination of false information, which according to judicial practice meant that media outlets were held liable for the veracity of statements that clearly emanated from third parties. Thus, even if a media organ prepared a balanced and unbiased article on a matter of public interest, it could still be found to be in violation