ZÖCHLING v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT § 129). However, although the Court of Appeal noted in its decision that when assessing the obligations of the media owner, his or her conduct, the organisation of the news portal and the degree of violation of law (Schwere der Rechtsverletzung) had to be taken into consideration, it subsequently did not examine the size of the portal or the extent of the company’s commercial interest in the posting of the comments (see Sanchez, cited above, § 166), nor did it consider the Regional Criminal Court’s finding that the article the comments were based on intentionally stirred up antipathies against the applicant (see paragraph 6 above). The Court of Appeal did not refer to the content of the comments either although they clearly amounted to hate speech and contained incitements to violence (see Sanchez, cited above, § 166; contrast, Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt, cited above, § 77; Pihl v. Sweden (dec.), no. 74742/14, § 37, 7 February 2017; Høiness v. Norway, no. 43624/14, § 69, 19 March 2019, in all of which cases the content of the impugned comments was found not to amount to hate speech). 13. As to the measures applied by the company to prevent or remove defamatory content, the comments in issue were deleted after having been notified to the company by the applicant (see paragraph 5 above). The Court of Appeal did not examine the possibility for the company to operate a notice-and-take-down system which could have been a useful tool for balancing the rights and interests of all those involved (Delfi AS, cited above, § 159). In cases where third-party user comments were in the form of hate speech and direct threats to the physical integrity of individuals, as in the instant case (see paragraph 4 above), the rights and interests of others and of society as a whole may entitle States to impose liability on Internet news portals without contravening Article 10 if they failed to take measures to remove clearly unlawful comments without delay, even without notice from the alleged victim or from third parties (ibid.) In its recent judgment in the case of Sanchez (cited above, § 190), the Court reiterated that a minimum degree of subsequent moderation or automatic filtering would be desirable in order to identify clearly unlawful comments as quickly as possible and to ensure their deletion within a reasonable time, even where there has been no notification by an injured party. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal did not consider possible measures to be applied by the company to prevent defamatory content on its portal or to remove such content. It did not have regard to the Regional Criminal Court’s finding that offensive comments about the applicant had repeatedly been posted under articles published on the company’s portal since September 2015 (see paragraph 6 above) so that the company could have anticipated further offences. It did not assess whether informing users that unlawful comments were merely “undesirable” rather than prohibited (see paragraph 2 above) could be regarded an effective measure to prevent hate speech. 4