CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mai 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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 17 May 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 25520/13 Anna GERÉB against Hungary lodged on 8 April 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Anna Geréb, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Budapest. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 29 January 2003, in the course of disciplinary proceedings, the applicant was dismissed from the Hungarian Film Archive, where she had previously worked as an archivist. The reason for her dismissal was that she had previously forwarded a note to the Ministry of National Cultural Heritage concerning certain internal affairs of the Archive, without informing her employer. In the ensuing labour proceedings, the domestic courts upheld the employer’s decision on the applicant’s dismissal. On 23 January 2004 the applicant published an article in Élet és Irodalom, a weekly newspaper, about the film-archiving practices of her previous employer. She maintained that films had been destroyed without proper procedural guarantees and without regard to the Archive’s obligation to preserve them. On 27 January 2004 the applicant was invited to give a live radio interview. On the same day a radio station broadcast an interview with Ms   V.Gy., the director of the Hungarian Film Archive, who stated that criminal proceedings had been initiated against the applicant on charges of defamation and the statements of the applicant were “blatant lies”. Ms   V.Gy. initiated five separate defamation proceedings against the applicant for her comments and articles which had been published in the media. Between 27 January and 3 February 2004 the 35th Hungarian Film Week took place. On 27 January 2004 the Hungarian Film Archive held a press conference where both the applicant and Ms V.Gy. appeared. Mr H.P., who apparently arrived at the event with the applicant, addressed a question to Ms   V.Gy. concerning the Archive’s practices. Ms V.Gy. replied that her opinion had been published in Élet és Irodalom as a response to the applicant’s article and that disciplinary and defamation proceedings had been initiated against the applicant. She maintained that the applicant’s statements were blatant lies and defamatory. Mr. I.Sz., the husband of Ms   V.Gy. and a famous film director, addressed the participants, describing the legislative background of the functioning of the Archive and its aim to maintain ownership of Hungarian films in the hands of the Hungarian State. He concluded with the remark that “every political or interest group has always found its van der Lubbe. This time as well. The Reichstag is on fire, I’m very happy.” The applicant brought defamation proceedings under Article 75 § 1 of the Civil Code against Ms Gy.V. and Mr   I.Sz., seeking a declaration that the nature of the respondents’ statements was defamatory, and compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. She maintained that since the incident, her professional relationships had been disrupted and she had not received new professional assignments. In its judgment of 2 February 2012 the Budapest High Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. The court found that the impugned statements had been value judgments and therefore their veracity could not be assessed. Furthermore, the applicant’s right to reputation had to be balanced against the respondents’ right to freedom of expression. The court’s judgment stated that the applicant, through her statements concerning the Film Archive and her participation at the press conference, had become a quasi-public figure and as such had to tolerate broader criticism than private individuals. On 4 December 2012 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment, adding that the applicant was not a quasi-public but a public figure and that the impugned statements of the respondents had been expressed in the course of an ongoing professional debate and in a tense situation. COMPLAINT Referring to Articles 13 and 17 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the refusal by the Hungarian courts to grant her compensation for the impugned offensive statements infringed her right to reputation. 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 parties in the domestic proceedings, as guaranteed by Article   10?