CASE OF EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE NEWSPAPER AND INTERNET PORTAL MAGYAR HANG AND ALHAMBRA PRESS BT v. HUNGARY

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE NEWSPAPER AND INTERNET PORTAL MAGYAR HANG
AND ALHAMBRA PRESS BT v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 52586/22)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

16 December 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Editorial Board of the Newspaper and Internet Portal Magyar Hang and Alhambra Press Bt v. Hungary,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Jovan Ilievski, President,
 Péter Paczolay,
 Juha Lavapuro, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 52586/22) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 3 November 2022 by the editorial board of the newspaper and internet portal Magyar Hang (“the first applicant”) and its publisher, Alhambra Press Bt (“the second applicant”) established in Budapest since 2018 and 2003 respectively and represented by Mr T.L. Sepsi, a lawyer practising in Budapest;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, of the Ministry of Justice;

the Government’s observations;

Having deliberated in private on 25 November 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case concerns a court decision ordering the first applicant to publish a retraction in respect of an online news article and the second applicant to bear the costs of proceedings, including the plaintiff’s legal expenses and the court fees.

2.  On 17 August 2020 Magyar Hang published on its internet portal an article entitled “Párbeszéd lodges criminal complaint in the Visegrád luxury hotel affair”. The article reported on a press conference held earlier that day by B.T., a member of the opposition party Párbeszéd Magyarországért, relating to the allegedly fraudulent sale of a hotel. A certain I.T., a businessperson and the Prime Minister’s son-in-law, was one of the shareholders of the company selling the property. The article presented that B.T. had suspicions of a criminal nature in regard to the purchase and resale of the hotel and the lack of investments which would justify the difference between the purchase and sales price. The article also noted that B.T.’s allegations were based on media sources and that the purchase and resale prices were estimates. The statements at issue in the article read as follows:

“Párbeszéd is filing a criminal complaint concerning ‘the luxury hotel in Visegrád’, says the party’s press release. B.T. suspects misappropriation of funds causing a particularly significant financial disadvantage.

In his letter sent to the Central Investigative Prosecutor’s Office, the Member of Parliament relied on press reports. According to it, I.T.’s company, Hotel VSGRD Kft, had bought a hotel some years before for around 1.6 billion forints, which had been planned to be turned into a luxury hotel, but was left behind half-finished. He then sold this building, located in the Danube Bend, to the business circle of X for 3.65 billion.

The previous owners wanted to build a luxury hotel there before 2008. According to B.T.’s letter, the business circle of I.T. did not do much with the hotel, its value did not change significantly according to the property register. Despite this, it was transferred to M [Minerva Investment Fund Management] Zrt. at a much higher price. Thanks to the business, Hotel VSGRD Kft achieved a net profit of 1.21 billion last year, of which 1.075 billion was taken out as dividends by its owners.

The Member of Parliament also wrote that according to [his] current knowledge, Hotel VSGRD ‘has not implemented any value-increasing investment that could justify the difference between the purchase and sale price, which exceeds two billion forints’.”

3.  I.T. asked the first applicant to publish a retraction of false statements allegedly made in the article. In particular, he claimed having neither acquired a hotel for around 1.6 billion forints through Hotel VSGRD Kft, nor having sold it to the business circle of X for 3.65 billion. He said he personally had nothing to do with the difference in the purchase and sales price. To challenge the assertion made in the article, he briefly gave an account of some investments on the property.

4.  Since the editorial board of Magyar Hang did not comply with his request, I.T. lodged a civil action with the Budapest High Court, alleging the dissemination of false statements.

5.  On 13 November 2020 the High Court dismissed the action. It held that the press release and the criminal complaint lodged by B.T. formed the basis of the article. The court referred to I.T. as a so-called “special public figure” having regard to his significant achievements in the real estate, property development and tourism sectors and his appearances in the media in which he had discussed his business portfolio. It held that I.T. was able to rebut the impugned statements himself given his role in the shaping of public opinion; he could have reached the wider public through the media considering, inter alia, an interview in which he had discussed his business interests, including the Visegrád project. The High Court held that the challenged statements had not emanated from Magyar Hang’s journalists and that the article had faithfully reported on statements made by public figures, including a clear indication of their source, without any further discussion of the matter by the journalists.

6.  On 18 March 2021 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the decision, albeit for different reasons. It established the veracity of the statement of fact on the purchase of the hotel. It held that I.T. lacked standing in respect of the statement of fact concerning the resale of the property and that the question of investments and increase in value of the property mentioned in the article, when interpreted in the ordinary sense, constituted value judgments.

7.  On 13 October 2021 the Kúria established that the news report recapitulated the statements made by a public figure, B.T., partly in matters of public interest. It took the view that the lower courts had erroneously drawn a parallel with cases involving the use of public funds, whereas in the present case the transactions regarding the hotel had no bearing on public expenditure. The Kúria referred to three of its earlier decisions emphasising that I.T. could be regarded as a ‘public figure’ (but not a ‘special public figure’) only in relation to his significant role in economic life, his wealth and his interest in matters involving public funds and public procurement. In the context of the article in question, it held that I.T. was not even a ‘public figure’ because of the absence of a connection between the sequence of sales and the use of public funds. Accordingly, the degree of tolerance he needed to display in relation to the press was limited to being asked questions in public on matters of public interest pertaining to him.

8.  The Kúria considered that the second-instance court had failed to assess the veracity of the disputed statements. It held that the news report provided a factually correct account of the press conference held by B.T. As regards the estimated sales price of the hotel, the Kúria held that the applicants were under an obligation to give I.T. the opportunity to refute the statements intended to be published, in view of the Constitutional Court’s decision no. 34/2017. (XII.11.) AB. It further held that the company’s publicly available balance sheets did not prove the amounts for which the hotel was purchased and then resold. It consequently ordered the first applicant to publish a retraction of its statements concerning the purchase and resale of the hotel and the second applicant to pay I.T.’s legal costs and court fees in the total amount of 322,200 Hungarian forints.

9.  On 28 June 2022 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint. It considered that the article gave a truthful account of the statements made by B.T. at the press conference. For the court, I.T. was a businessperson who did not discuss issues of politics or affairs of general interest in public; and he could not be qualified as a public figure solely by considering his business interests or his family ties. Therefore, he could not be expected to reply to criticism against him or press reports on such criticism by his own means. The fact that the applicants had not given him the opportunity to have a refutation published was not acceptable. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicants’ legal representative on 4 July 2022.

10.  The applicants complained that the obligation to publish a retraction and to bear the costs of proceedings, including the plaintiff’s legal expenses and the court fees, amounted to a violation of their right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  The applicants argued that the interference with their right to freedom of expression by the impugned court rulings could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society and had breached Article 10 of the Convention.

12.  The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

13.  The general principles applied in cases which concern a conflict between the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention and the right of the person targeted by the contested remarks to respect for private life protected by Article 8 of the Convention have been summarised in Axel Springer AG v. Germany ([GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 85-95, 7 February 2012). The general principles concerning the right of reply have been referred to in Axel Springer SE v. Germany (no. 8964/18, §§ 32-37, 17 January 2023). The imposition of objective liability of the press for the reproduction of statements by third parties has been examined in Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary (no. 77940/17, §§ 26 and 40, 7 September 2023). In examining whether a measure restricting freedom of expression was “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court accordingly has to take into account the following criteria: (a) whether the impugned publication contributed to a debate of general interest; (b) how well known the person concerned is and what the subject of the report is; (c) the prior conduct of the person concerned; (d) the method of obtaining the information and its veracity; (e) the content, form and consequences of the publication; and (f) the severity of the sanction imposed.

14.  It has not been in dispute between the parties that the decisions of the domestic courts ordering the publication of a retraction and the payment of legal fees constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, that the interference was ‘prescribed by law’ and that it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, namely of I.T., within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.

15.  In determining whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society” in the light of the criteria established by the Court in its case-law, the Court notes, first, that the article at issue reported on a matter of public interest, namely on the criminal complaint of B.T. (an opposition MP) and a press conference held by him in the context of a wider discussion on the purchase and sale of a luxury hotel and on I.T.’s alleged role in that regard.

16.  In assessing the extent to which I.T. is well‑known, in which case the limits of acceptable criticism are wider, the applicants considered him a ‘public figure’ on account of his success as a businessperson and his family ties to the Prime Minister, his father-in-law. The Government agreed with the Constitutional Court’s decision not qualifying him as such, notably in the absence of a political or public activity on his part. The Court notes in this respect that any person could be regarded as a public figure who through their actions or their position, have entered the public sphere (compare Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 121, ECHR 2015 (extracts) and the references cited therein).

17.  The Court observes that the Kúria made I.T.’s status as public figure contingent on public expenditure (see paragraph 7 above). However, the Court notes that I.T. was not only known to the public as the Prime Minister’s son-in-law, but also as a businessperson who discussed in the media his most prestigious enterprises in the property development and tourism sectors and the success those brought him over the years (see paragraph 5 above). It follows that I.T. belonged to the group of public figures by his very position in society irrespective of the nature of funds involved in the transactions (compare also Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 10520/02, § 36, 14 December 2006; Ţiriac v. Romania, no. 51107/16, §§ 87-88, 30 November 2021).

18.  As for the method of obtaining the information and its veracity, as well as the content, form and consequences of the publication, the parties held opposing views as regards the extent of duties and responsibilities carried with the applicants’ exercise of freedom of expression. The Government pointed out that the article had been published before I.T. could react to it in any meaningful way and that the applicants were under an obligation to provide I.T. the right of reply to the statements contained in the article. The applicants considered that a right of reply had not arisen before the publication of the article, considering that it reproduced verbatim some public statements made elsewhere (see paragraph 2 above) and I.T.’s earlier discussion of his business interests in the media. The Court finds little force in the Government’s contention. It reiterates that such a pre‑notification requirement is not prescribed by Article 8 (see Mosley v. the United Kingdom, no. 48009/08, § 132, 10 May 2011; Eigirdas and VĮ "Demokratijos plėtros fondas" v. Lithuania, nos. 84048/17 and 84051/17, § 120, 12 September 2023; and Kajganić v. Serbia, no. 27958/16, § 72, 8 October 2024). The parties further differed as to whether the news item was of a kind that required rapid publication; however, it is not for this Court, or for the national courts for that matter, to substitute their own views for those of the press as to what reporting techniques should be adopted (Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).

19.  The Court further observes that the requirement of tolerance that I.T. was to show as a public figure (see paragraph 16 above) did not involve a duty to tolerate factual inaccuracies (see Axel Springer SE, cited above, § 41). According to the Article 10 “duties and responsibilities”, the applicants were under an obligation to act in good faith and to provide reliable and precise information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Axel Springer AG, cited above, § 93). The Court sees no reason to depart from the conclusions reached by the Kúria and the Constitutional Court on this particular point. Likewise, the Court would agree with the distinction made by these courts between statements of fact and value judgments (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above) inasmuch as the news report was held to have given a factually correct account of the press conference held by B.T. The Court also agrees with the domestic courts’ finding that the purchase and the resale price of the luxury hotel constituted statements of fact. The Court reiterates that the classification of a statement as a fact or as a value judgment is a matter which in the first place falls within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities, in particular the domestic courts (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 55, ECHR 2007-IV).

20.  However, the Court observes that the Kúria enjoined the applicants to retract the statements as a result of their failure to prove the veracity of the amounts involved in the transactions. However, it is undisputed that the amounts in the news report were quotations from B.T.’s criminal complaint and other media sources and did not directly emanate from the applicants (compare also Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 45, 23 October 2008). Furthermore, they were quoted by the journalists merely as estimates. In the Court’s view, the Kúria imposed a more demanding standard on the applicants than that of due diligence (compare also Udovychenko v. Ukraine, no. 46396/14, § 44, 23 March 2023). Indeed, objective liability was imposed on the applicants for the reproduction of statements made by third parties, irrespective of whether the author or publisher acted in good or bad faith and in compliance with journalistic duties and responsibilities. This approach is inconsistent with the Court’s case-law according to which the “punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person in an interview would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so” (see Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary, no. 77940/17, cited above, § 40, 7 September 2023; Jersild v. Denmark, cited above, § 35; Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 62, ECHR 2001-III). The Court must also exercise the utmost caution where the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authorities are such as to dissuade the press from taking part in the discussion of matters of legitimate public concern (see Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 111, ECHR 2004-XI).

21.  In the light of the above considerations the Court concludes that the judicial authorities failed to apply Convention standards when deciding on the dispute (compare Axel Springer AG, cited above, § 88, and Kunitsyna v. Russia, no. 9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13 December 2016). In these circumstances it is not decisive that the proceedings were civil in nature and did not involve a pecuniary sanction. The domestic courts thus failed to adduce “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the retraction order and the order to pay legal costs and court fees. The interference complained of was therefore not “necessary in a democratic society” in the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.

22.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

23.  The applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction in accordance with the requirements of Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to make any award.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 December 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Dorothee von Arnim Jovan Ilievski
 Deputy Registrar President