PIHL v. SWEDEN DECISION 3 11. The association admitted that the comment constituted defamation and that it had received an email when it was published. However, it stressed that comments posted on the blog were not reviewed before they were published and it was expressly stated on the webpage that everyone was responsible for their own comments. The association was therefore not responsible for the comment. Moreover, it had not been obliged to remove the comment under the Act on Responsibility for Electronic Bulletin Boards since defamation was not one of the offences listed in the Act for which such an obligation existed. 12. On 11 March 2013, the District Court rejected the applicant’s claim. It found the comment constituted defamation based on the content and the context in which it had been made. However, it found no legal grounds on which to hold the association responsible for failing to remove the comment sooner than it had done. It noted that Section 5 of the Act on Responsibility for Electronic Bulletin Boards did not include defamation, for which reason the association, or its legal representative, could not be accused of defamation, either as the principal or as an accomplice, according to the Penal Code or Section 5 of the Act. 13. The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal, which granted leave to appeal. On 28 November 2013, it upheld the District Court’s judgment in full, finding no reason to divert from the lower court’s conclusions. 14. On 19 March 2014 the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal. 15. On 11 April 2014 the applicant lodged an application with the Chancellor of Justice (Justitiekanslern) for payment of damages on the basis that the State had failed in its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention through the national courts’ decision not to hold the association responsible for the defamatory comment against him. 16. On 25 July 2015 the Chancellor of Justice rejected the application. The Chancellor noted that protection against defamatory statements fell within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention but that, in situations like the present one, the applicant’s rights under that Article had to be balanced against the right to freedom of expression under Article 10. Referring to the Court’s reasoning in the case of Delfi AS v. Estonia (no. 64569/09, 10 October 2013) and noting that the case had been referred to the Grand Chamber, the Chancellor found that it could not be deduced from the Court’s case-law that there was an absolute obligation on States to have legislation in place, in each individual case, enabling the person responsible for a blog to be held accountable for comments made on it. Instead, the rights under Article 8 and Article 10 had to be balanced against each other in each individual case and, in doing so, the State had a margin of appreciation. Having regard to the above, the Chancellor found that the