INDEX.HU ZRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT contradictions in A.V.’s statements and published the President’s reaction on the same day. The domestic courts, however, did not give any consideration to those relevant contextual factors, or to whether, when publishing A.V.’s story, the applicant company expressed any endorsement, approval or support of its content. They found the applicant company liable on the basis of the Civil Code: by disseminating the story to a wider public, the applicant company assumed objective liability for any untrue and injurious statement made by a third party. The Kúria thus held that the question of whether the applicant company had acted in good or bad faith was not relevant for the assessment of objective liability but rather for the assessment of any compensation. However, when read in its entirety, the article reveals the rather extensive steps taken by the author to warn the reader about the unreliable character of the rumour on which it was reporting. In this context, the Court reiterates that, as part of their role of “public watchdog”, the media’s reporting on “‘stories’ or ‘rumours’ – emanating from persons other than the applicant – or ‘public opinion’” is to be protected where these are not completely without foundation (see Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 36, 27 November 2007). 40. The Court therefore considers that the imposition of objective liability on the applicant company for the reproduction of statements made by third parties, irrespective of whether the author or publisher acted in good or bad faith and in compliance with journalistic duties and obligations, is difficult to reconcile with the existing case-law according to which the “punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person in an interview would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so” (see Jersild, cited above, § 35, and Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 62, ECHR 2001-III). (c) Conclusion 41. Against that background, the Court is unable to conclude that the national courts applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention. The interference in issue was therefore not “necessary in a democratic society”. 42. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 43. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 10