MAGYAR JETI ZRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 13 32. On 26 July 2012 the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC (No. 11-3257, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15419 (3d Cir. July 26, 2012) (precedential)) “that providing a link on a website to an allegedly defamatory article [was] not republication for purposes of the single publication rule or the statute of limitations”. Rather, the court found that the principles of traditional publication, according to which a mere reference to an article did not republish the material, as long as it did not restate the defamatory statement, were also applicable to Internet publication. It held that “[t]aken together, though a link and reference m[ight] bring readers’ attention to the existence of an article, they d[id] not republish the article”. THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 33. The applicant company complained that the rulings of the Hungarian courts establishing objective liability on the part of its Internet news portal for the content it had referred to via a hyperlink had amounted to an infringement of freedom of expression as provided in Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” A. Admissibility 34. The Government argued that the applicant company had failed to exhaust domestic remedies since it had not challenged the final judgment before the Constitutional Court. 35. The applicant company argued that it had exhausted all available remedies. 36. The Court notes that on 15 January 2018 the applicant company’s representative submitted to it the Constitutional Court’s decision of 19 December 2017 (no. 3002/2018.(I.10.)AB) (see paragraph 20 above). The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicant company has in fact