ZÖCHLING v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT Article 10 of the Convention and to the case of Delfi AS v. Estonia (no. 64569/09, 10 October 2013). It concluded that the company had acted with the due diligence required under section 6 § 2.3a of the Media Act by deleting the impugned comments immediately on the applicant’s request. It was therefore not liable for the damages claimed by the applicant under section 6 § 1 of the Media Act. No further remedies were available. 8. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the respondent State had not fulfilled its positive obligation to protect her private life and reputation when rejecting her claims. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 9. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 10. The general principles concerning competing interests under Article 8 and Article 10 of the Convention have been summarised in the case of Delfi AS, cited above, § 139). The Court has identified the following criteria for the assessment of liability for third-party comments on the Internet: the context of the comments, the measures applied by the company in order to prevent or remove defamatory comments, the liability of the actual authors of the comments as an alternative to the intermediary’s liability, and the consequences of the domestic proceedings for the company (see, in the context of criminal liability for anonymously posted comments on the applicant’s Facebook “wall”, Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 45581/15, §§ 163-66, 15 May 2023 with reference to Delfi A.S., cited above, §§ 142-43, and Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary, no. 22947/13, § 69, 2 February 2016). In striking a fair balance between an individual’s right to respect for his or her private life under Article 8 and the right to freedom of expression under Article 10, the nature of the comment will have to be taken into consideration, in order to ascertain whether it amounted to hate speech or incitement to violence (Sanchez, cited above, § 166). 11. The Government explicitly listed the criteria established in the cases of Delfi AS and Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt (see paragraph 10 above) and concluded that the Court of Appeal had balanced the interests at issue fairly, finding those protected by Article 10 to be of overriding importance. For the reasons set out below the Court cannot agree with that conclusion. 12. As to the context of the comments in issue, the Court agrees with the Government that the company’s portal was not one of the largest news portals in Austria, unlike the portal in Estonia in the case of Delfi AS (cited above, 3