03/02/2020 ARZTEKAMMER FUR WIEN AND DORNER v. AUSTRIA - 8895/10 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fourth Section)) [201… likewise not provided any persuasive argument substantiating his allegations. Neither the fact that the shares in the F. company are owned by other companies limited by shares and that one of those shareholders is managed by a private-equity fund, nor the fact that financial resources for expansion are raised by debenture provides a factual basis for the unethical conduct typically associated with “locust” corporations. In addition, the fact that doctors are employees within the F. company does not provide a factual basis for the second applicant’s allegations. The general remarks by the second applicant concerning the future impact of the growing popularity of companies providing medical services are not related to any actions on the part of the F. company; therefore, they cannot provide a factual basis for his allegations against that company. 70. Accordingly, the Court arrives at the conclusion that the prohibition imposed on the second applicant was based on “relevant and sufficient” grounds. 71. As regards the measures imposed on the second applicant, the Court notes that, according to its case-law, the nature and severity of the interference imposed are factors to be taken into account when assessing its proportionality (see mutatis mutandis Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July, cited above, § 59, and Europapress Holding d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 25333/06, § 54, 22 October 2009). 72. The Vienna Commercial Court did not impose a penalty, but prohibited the second applicant from calling the F. company ruthless by the term “locust”. The second applicant was also ordered to publish the operative part of the Vienna Commercial Court’s judgment on the first applicant organisation’s website, and in its print newsletter. Even if the second applicant now risks the imposition of fines for non-compliance with the injunction, the nature and severity of the court’s action was moderate. The second applicant also failed to give reasons as to why the court’s action would prevent him from fulfilling his duties. 73. In conclusion, the Court finds that the interference with the exercise of the second applicant’s right to freedom of expression was necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention, in order to protect the reputation and rights of the F. company. There has therefore been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1. Declares the application of the first applicant organisation inadmissible and the remainder of the application admissible; 2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of the second applicant. Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 February 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Fatoş Aracı Deputy Registrar András Sajó President BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2016/179.html www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2016/179.html 13/13