MAGYAR TARTALOMSZOLGÁLTATÓK EGYESÜLETE AND INDEX.HU ZRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 5 comments made by those readers. It rejected the applicants’ argument that they were only intermediary providers which allowed them to escape any liability for the contents of comments, other than removing them if injurious to a third party. The Kúria held that the applicants were not intermediaries in terms of section 2(lc) of Act no. CVIII and they could not invoke the limited liability of hosting service providers. It shared the Court of Appeal’s view in finding that the comments were capable of harming the plaintiff’s good reputation and that the applicants’ liability consisted of their having allowed their publication. The Kúria imposed HUF 75,000 on each applicant as review costs, including the costs of the plaintiff’s legal representation. This decision was served on 2 October 2012. 23. The applicants introduced a constitutional complaint on 3 January 2013, arguing in essence that the courts’ rulings holding them responsible for the contents of the comments amounted to an unjustified restriction on their freedom of expression. 24. On 11 March 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible. 25. On 27 May 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint, (decision no. 19/2014. (V.30.) AB). In the analysis of the proportionality of the interference, the Constitutional Court explained the absence of unconstitutionality in the case as follows. “[43] In the case concerned by the Kúria’s judgment, the operator of the webpage did not moderate the comments. The identities of those primarily responsible, unless figuring nominatively, are unknown; and for that reason, the liability lies with the operator of the webpage. [44] In the present case, the aggrieved fundamental right is not the right to freedom of expression as such, but one of its particular elements, the right to freedom of the press. [50] It is without doubt that blogs and comments constitute expressions and as such attract the protection of Chapter IX of the Fundamental Law. [59] The liability incumbent on the operator of the webpage obviously restricts freedom of the press – which includes, without doubt, communication on the Internet. [63] The legislation pursues a constitutionally justified aim. It is also suitable for that purpose in that, without the liability of the operator of the webpage, the person concerned could hardly receive compensation for the grievance. However, the proportionality of the restriction is open to doubt from two perspectives: is it proportionate to hold the operator of the webpage liable for the expression which proved to be unlawful; and moreover, is the extent of the liability (that is, the amount of compensation) proportionate? [65] If the liability for the publication of comments is based on the very fact of the publication itself, it is not justified to distinguish between moderated and nonmoderated comments in regard to the proportionality of the restriction on the fundamental right in question. ... The Constitutional Court has already held that the