INDEX.HU ZRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT and misdemeanours committed by the organisers and spokespersons of the demonstrations in order to discredit them. 6. As a response to that perceived smear campaign, a journalist at the Internet blog portal Kettős Mérce (“Double Standard”) launched a “solidarity initiative” as an expression of sympathy with the activists, inviting people to share their own stories of minor infractions on social media with a hashtag referring to the television channel. A number of media outlets reported on the action. 7. On 1 December 2014 Index published an article entitled “I was in jail with J.A.” (J.A. being the President of Hungary at the time), reporting on the highlights of the solidarity initiative and summarising a story shared on Facebook by A.V., the former editor-in-chief of Magyar Narancs, a weekly political magazine. The report was accompanied by an interview in which A.V. recounted that he had been in military prison together with J.A., who, according to rumours circulating at the time, had been drunk and firing his weapon at random. A.V. admitted to not remembering the events perfectly, but stated that they had occurred at the time of the Argentina World Cup. 8. Index added the following comment to the article: “[A.V.] himself said that he wasn’t sure that [J.A.] had actually been firing his weapon at random. Bearing in mind that that qualifies as a military offence which carries a sentence of more than just a couple of days of detention, the story is – at least in that respect – certainly made up. We have contacted the Office of the President for comment, and we will update the article once we have received their answer.” 9. A few hours after the publication of the article, the Office of the President issued a statement confirming that the President had been placed in military detention twice during his compulsory military service and that one of those detentions had happened during the Argentina World Cup. However, the reason for his detention had not been firing his weapon while drunk, but rather because he had fallen asleep in the early hours of the morning while on guard duty, as he had been secretly watching football matches at night. 10. On the same day the applicant company published a separate article in which it summarised the story of A.V. and quoted the statement of the Office of the President denying the allegations. The second half of the article again reported on the online initiative launched in reaction to what the article called the “character assassination” of the organisers of the demonstrations by various media outlets. 11. On 16 January 2015 J.A. lodged a civil action with the Budapest High Court against A.V. and the applicant company for having distributed a false statement about him and having infringed his right to reputation. J.A.’s action against the applicant company was dismissed on 20 February 2015, essentially on the grounds that the applicant company had complied with journalistic standards. A.V., however, was ordered to pay compensation. 12. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal overturned the first-instance judgment in respect of the applicant company and found in favour of J.A. The 2