INDEX.HU ZRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT court found that the impugned statements had not concerned a matter of public interest and were not related to the media campaign, since J.A. had not been part of either the demonstrations or the governmental measures preceding them. Thus, it was not necessary to balance the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression against J.A.’s right to protection of his right to reputation. The statement had been injurious to J.A. and the applicant company had failed to check whether it was true. The Court of Appeal ordered it to pay 600,000 Hungarian forints (HUF – approximately 1,500 euros (EUR)) to J.A. 13. The applicant company submitted a petition for review to the Kúria. By a decision of 7 September 2016, the Kúria dismissed the applicant company’s petition and endorsed the conclusion of the second-instance court that the publication in question had not concerned a debate of public interest since it had not concerned the exercise of public power by J.A., but rather the dissemination of untrue statements which were not protected by the constitutional right to freedom of expression. Applying the rule of objective liability, the Kúria held that the applicant company had been responsible for transmitting the injurious Facebook post to the broader public and that the question whether it had acted in good or bad faith was only relevant for the calculation of damages. It nonetheless reduced the amount of damages payable to J.A. to HUF 50,000 (approximately EUR 120), finding it relevant that the applicant company had expressed its doubts as to the veracity of the statements, presented their context and subsequently published J.A.’s response to the article. Furthermore, its readership had been perfectly capable of assessing such “soldiers’ tales” for what they were, without attaching any importance to them. In the view of the Kúria no serious harm had been caused to J.A. and the public perception of him had not changed as a consequence of the publication. 14. The applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint, arguing that the publication had concerned a matter of public interest, namely the conduct of the President of Hungary during his compulsory military service. The Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on 23 May 2017, finding that the applicant company had merely challenged the courts’ assessment of facts, which was not subject to review by the Constitutional Court. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 15. The relevant provisions of Act no. V. of 2013 on the Civil Code provide as follows: 3