Published on 15 September 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 9431/25
HETI VILÁGGAZDASÁG KIADÓ ZRT.
against Hungary
lodged on 7 March 2025
communicated on 26 August 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the order on the applicant company to pay damages to two individuals for publishing an online article.
On 8 November 2018 the applicant company published an online article entitled “Hungarians do not steal, they venture”. The article ironically compared a controversial public procurement case involving European Union funds and its aftermath to the Hungarian invasions of Europe in the Middle Ages. The article drew a parallel between the recent and historical events to note that the “ventures” were neither ended by legal acts nor punishments according to the internal rules of the Hungarian tribes but by a battle where Hungary was defeated. Another parallel drawn in the article pointed to a similarity between the unlawful use of EU funds with impunity and “ventures” aimed at obtaining goods. The article included expressions such as “stinking Hungarian migrants” and “Hungarian bandits”.
Following a civil action lodged by two individuals, the Budapest High Court found that the applicant company had infringed the human dignity of the plaintiffs as members of the Hungarian community and ordered it to pay damages, remove the unlawful content and publish a statement of regret. The Budapest Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and dismissed the claim. On 24 March 2021 the Kúria quashed the second instance judgment and upheld the first instance judgment. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint.
The applicant complains that the judgments of the domestic courts constituted an unnecessary interference with the exercise of its freedom of expression in violation of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, §§ 15-21, 19 July 2011; Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, §§ 30 and 36-46, ECHR 2003‑XI, Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, §§ 19-21 and 25-26, ECHR 2006‑XIII)?