Communicated on 4 March 2015
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 20487/13
Katalin Fatime FALUDY-KOVÁCS
against Hungary
lodged on 16 March 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Katalin Fatime Faludy-Kovács, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Budapest. She is represented before the Court by Mr B. Karkosák, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the widow of a well-known Hungarian poet, György Faludy. They married in 2002, and their relationship, partly due to a significant difference in age, as well as their life and work, were constantly the subject of wide media coverage. They often appeared in tabloids.
The applicant’s husband died in 2006.
On an unspecified date in 2008 an article was published in a daily newspaper based on an interview with the applicant, revealing that she wished to have a child who would be the blood relative of both her and her deceased husband and would carry the intellect and attitude of her late husband. The applicant explained that she envisaged her own sister and her late husband’s grandson being the parents of that child.
Following some consultations with the applicant, on 26 March 2008 a weekly newspaper republished the same story, adding that the late poet’s grandson dismissed the idea of having a child with the applicant’s sister. The front page of the weekly newspaper displayed a photo of the applicant with her late husband and the headline “They trample on the memory of Faludy. The widow does everything for the limelight”. Despite the applicant’s previous request, the article made no mention of a book to be published on the applicant’s late husband.
Subsequently, in reaction to the applicant’s complaint, the newspaper published an additional article on the book under publication; however, this latter did not appear on the front page as was the applicant’s presumed desire. The applicant sought the publication of a further article but this request was declined by the newspaper.
Dissatisfied, the applicant lodged a civil action against the publisher of the weekly newspaper under section 78 of the [old] Civil Code, alleging a violation of her personality rights, in particular her right to reputation. She maintained that the headline published on 26 March 2008 negatively influenced her public image. She sought an injunction against any further infringement of her right to reputation, an apology from the publisher and compensation for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 4,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 13,000 euros (EUR)).
In its judgment of 5 April 2009 the Budapest Regional Court granted an injunction against any further infringements, ordered a public apology, obliged the respondent company to pay the applicant HUF 600,000 (EUR 2,000) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for compensation. According to the court’s reasoning, the statements in the front page title constituted journalistic opinion, which were protected by the right to freedom of expression, as long as they were not devoid of any factual basis and did not amount to a blatantly humiliating or offensive value judgment. The court concluded that the statement that the applicant had done everything for the limelight did not infringe her personality rights, whereas the statement that she had trampled on her husband’s memory had indeed infringed her right to reputation and dignity (33.P.22.472/2009/16.)
On 8 December 2011 the Budapest Court of Appeal, acting as a second-instance court, reversed the previous judgment and dismissed the applicant’s action in its entirety. The court reiterated the Constitutional Court’s case-law on the different fundamental rights at stake, pointing out that even shocking, disturbing or inaccurate opinions were protected by the freedom of expression and were not susceptible to proof. It held that the impugned headline was not a statement of facts but a value judgment expressed in connection to the applicant’s own statements and previous life-style. It went on to stay that the applicant’s own conduct, diverging from the widely-accepted social norms, was likely to trigger more critical, even hurtful reactions (2.Pf.21.247/2011/4.)
The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. In its judgment of 12 September 2012, the Supreme Court endorsed the finding of the second-instance court that the impugned headline did not constitute a statement of fact but a value judgment concerning the unusual manner in which the applicant intended to found a family. Since it was not devoid of factual basis, it could not be considered humiliating, hurtful or offensive and as such did not infringe the applicant’s dignity. The court nonetheless stated that it was irrelevant whether the applicant’s previous unconventional conduct justified the impugned value judgment (Pfv.IV.20.710/2012/5.)
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that the refusal by the Hungarian courts to grant her compensation for the publication of offensive statements infringed her right to reputation. She alleges a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic authorities strike a fair balance between the applicant’s right to protection of her reputation and the right to freedom of expression of the respondent party in the domestic litigation, guaranteed by Article 10?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy