CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 13 January 2020 Published on 3 February 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 15076/17 Mária SOMOGYI against Hungary lodged on 7 February 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant shared on her Facebook profile a post of another Facebook user adding a comment critical of the major of the municipality of Tata. In the ensuing civil proceedings initiated by the local municipality the domestic courts found that the applicant had breached the personality rights of the municipality and obliged her to pay compensation in damages. The applicant’s constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on for not raising an issue of constitutional relevance. The applicant alleges a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular her right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?