CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt }   Communicated on 13 January 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 61178/14 ATV ZRT. against Hungary lodged on 3 September 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the obligation of the applicant company, the owner of a TV channel to pay a fine for the infringement of the rules of journalistic conduct. The domestic courts found that the statement of a newsreader at the TV channel calling the political party Jobbik “parliamentary extreme-right” constituted an opinion, not allowed in a political news programme under section 12 (3) of Act no. CLXXXV of 2010 (the Media Services and Mass Communication Act).   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression, in particular its right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?   2.     In particular, to what extent are the duties and responsibilities inherent in the applicant company’s activities relevant to its claim and the State’s margin of appreciation in this field?