Previous 14 / 14 Next

INDEX.HU ZRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 September 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Deputy Registrar Marko Bošnjak President 12

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary

Case Law

Country

Hungary

Country Location

Latitude: 47.198137592375716

Longitude: 19.319928512752984

Country Location (linked Case Law): Hungary

Decision Date: Sep 7, 2023

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Violation of a Rule of International Law

Keywords

Defamation / Reputation
Digital Rights
Freedom of Press

Judicial Body: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Court Name: Chamber of the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights

Case Number: 77940/17

Case Summary: The Chamber of the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled that Hungary violated the Applicant’s (a news media outlet) freedom of expression by imposing objective liability on the Applicant due to the allegedly defamatory article. The case concerned the publication of a story about the President of Hungary’s conduct during military service, which was part of a media initiative to counter a smear campaign. The ECtHR found that the domestic courts had not properly balanced the right to freedom of expression against reputation protection, as the story addressed a matter of public interest. Additionally, the ECtHR criticized the imposition of objective liability, stating that it hindered the media’s role as a “public watchdog” and ran counter to established case law under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECtHR concluded that Hungary’s interference with the Applicant company’s freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society, resulting in a violation of Article 10.

Case Significance: The ruling is important since, inter alia, it stresses that the concept of objective liability is not appropriate for the cases of defamation. Namely, the court expressly stated that this type of liability cannot be imposed without assessing if a person acted in good faith. The good faith standard is essential for satisfying the standard that the ECtHR set out in Jersild judgment – 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 the discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so.” (Jersild v. Denmark, para. 35)

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

CIPIT
Columbia

Date Updated: Oct 30, 2023

Primary Documents

Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary .pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary

Primary Documents

Notifications