Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2026:426
Date: 2026-05-21
Language of the case: Hungarian

summary, which was drawn up 
on the basis of news referenced by Economx from the article that appeared in the 
Austrian specialist food publication, Viktor Orbán sent our newspaper a request 
for rectification worded as follows: we have disseminated a false fact in 
publishing the statement by PS, managing director of Spar Austria, to the effect 
that Orbán had asked for permission for one of his relatives to invest in the 
24.HU 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
company, since, as the prime minister maintains, that is not true. On 8 April, the 
minister for the economy, Márton Nagy also announced that the government 
would lodge a complaint against Spar due to “offensive statements made at 
different levels”.’ 
5 The judgment given by the referring court on 17 May 2024 was set aside due to a 
procedural defect, by decision of the second-instance court of 1 October 2024, 
and, for that reason, the proceedings at first instance must be repeated. To date, 
the second-instance court has not given any ruling on the merits of the case. 
Submissions of the applicant 
6 In his application, the applicant requests that, under Article 12(1) and (2) of the 
sajtószabadságról és a médiatartalmak alapvető szabályairól szóló 2010. évi CIV. 
törvény (Law CIV of 2010 on the freedom of the press and the fundamental rules 
applicable to media content; ‘Law CIV of 2010’), the court order the defendant to 
publish the following rectification on the grounds that it disseminated false facts: 
‘Rectification: in the article on our portal entitled “Spar has begun withdrawing 
its assets from Hungary”, published on 17 March 2024, we disseminated false 
facts by reporting the words of PS, to the effect that “according to reports, the 
Hungarian prime minister asked the multinational company to allow one of his 
relatives to invest in the Hungarian subsidiary”. On the contrary, the truth is that 
Viktor Orbán did not ask PS, or any shareholder, representative or employee of 
the multinational corporation Spar, for permission for one of his relatives to 
invest in Spar’s Hungarian subsidiary.’ 
7 The applicant denies that what is alleged happened: the applicant did not ask PS, 
or any shareholder, representative or employee of the multinational corporation 
Spar, for permission for one of his relatives to invest in Spar’s Hungarian 
subsidiary. The applicant stated that his son-in-law had no intention of entering 
Spar’s business in any way, a fact that was also known to the defendant since it 
reported it in the update to its press release on 4 April. The applicant maintains 
that the matter of what statements he did or did not make in relation to his 
relatives belongs to the sphere of the applicant’s private autonomy and is outside 
the scope of his public activities, since his communications carried out as a private 
individual do not form part of the management of public affairs. The applicant 
argues that there is also no conflict between fundamental rights, namely the right 
to discuss public affairs freely and the applicant’s right to a good reputation, given 
that the defendant did not express an opinion but rather reported a fact, since it is 
possible to establish with absolute clarity whether or not PS made the statement 
that is written in the article. The applicant further submits that, in any event, the 
statement at issue in the dispute cannot be inferred from the weak factual basis put 
forward by the defendant in its defence. 
8 The applicant relies on opinion No 14 of the Civil Chamber of the Kúria (Supreme 
Court, Hungary) to argue that the defendant also has an obligation to rectify the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2. 12. 2024 – CASE C-843/24 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
published news item taken from another news media outlet and argues that, since 
it is not possible to prove a negative, the burden of proving in the proceedings the 
veracity of what is written in the press release lies with the defendant. The press 
release at issue in the dispute reproduces word for word the text published in 
Lebensmittel Zeitung, from which it can be inferred that PS did not grant an 
interview or hold a press conference before the original publication appeared, 
matters which, according to settled case-law, would exempt the defendant from its 
obligation to demonstrate veracity. 
9 In relation to the exchange of communication between the parties, the applicant 
refers to the fact that, subsequently, the defendant only contacted the 
government’s information centre, which at that time totally and categorically 
refuted the assertion contained in the article. The applicant maintains that the 
update does not satisfy the conditions laid down by legislation or case-law either, 
since the average reader cannot deduce from that update which facts stated in the 
article were not true and the article merely includes the applicant’s rebuttal of the 
statement. 
As regards the reference for a preliminary ruling, the applicant maintains that the 
European Media Freedom Act will apply in full from 8 August 2025 and that the 
application to the present case of Article 3 thereof, applicable with effect from 
8 November 2024, is precluded by the prohibition of retroactive application, since 
the facts at issue in the dispute occurred on 17 March 2024. The applicant also 
identifies a substantive limitation in relation to the application of the regulation 
and, in that connection, draws attention to the fact that the regulation is not 
concerned with the system of protection of personality rights and, in accordance 
with the European Union provisions on the division of competences, the rules 
governing questions relating to those matters are outside its sphere of competence. 
For all those reasons, the applicant objects at the outset to preliminary ruling 
proceedings. 
Submissions of the defendant 
10 In its defence, the defendant claims that the action should be dismissed. It argues 
that it is a publicly known fact that part of the government’s economic policy is 
aimed at ensuring that the economy is based as far as possible on national capital 
and, in that connection, that retail chains pass into Hungarian ownership. The 
defendant submits that, consequently, the analysis of Spar’s market position is 
part of the free debate about public affairs and the government included it in its 
communication some days before the article appeared. The defendant maintains 
that any issue, difficulty or defect in Hungary’s economic system can be regarded 
as a public matter, protected by freedom of expression in its fullest sense. The 
defendant disputes that the statement was made by the applicant as a private 
individual and argues that his words should be treated as statements made as the 
head of government. 
24.HU 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
11 With regard to the statement in dispute, the defendant argues that it does not 
report facts but rather the opinion and value judgment of the defendant’s 
journalist, since that statement cannot be supported by objective evidence, that is, 
it is a statement that cannot be substantiated. In relation to the words in dispute, 
the defendant submits that it is necessary to examine the article in a broader 
context, in which the essential content of the article, as a whole, is a harsh 
criticism of the government’s economic policy and management of the economy. 
The disputed report expresses, fundamentally, the opinion of Spar’s directors as 
part of the criticisms aimed at the applicant and, therefore, the opinion expressed 
enjoys legal protection. The value judgment at issue enjoys legal protection 
because it has a weak factual basis which is simply the statements of the 
government and the applicant, their economic policy, criticism of the enrichment 
of the applicant’s family members and closest acquaintances, their attitude 
towards foreign undertakings, the levying of special taxes on business chains and, 
in certain cases, their management of the economy which is out of step with EU 
policy. It is open to the press to draw conclusions from facts and information 
known to it. For the purposes of opinion No 12 of the Civil Chamber of the Kúria 
(Supreme Court, Hungary), the words at issue are out of context, which means 
that they cannot be examined in isolation, while the article as a whole constitutes a 
value judgment resting on a weak factual basis. 
12 The defendant also relies on the fact that, following publication of the press 
release, interested parties were given the opportunity to express their views and 
those who responded had their point of view published, although the 
government’s information centre did not provide a response with regard to the 
substance of the communication at issue in these proceedings. Lastly, the 
defendant claims that, together with the update, the article includes, in a red box, 
in such a way that it attracts attention, the wording which the applicant asked to be 
published as the truth. In it, the defendant not only reported the wording that the 
applicant asked to be published as the truth but also what the applicant’s request 
was, to provide readers with an overview. Accordingly, the action should also be 
dismissed on that ground. 
Legal framework 
13 European Union law 
14 TEU 
Article 2 
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, 
democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the 
rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the 
Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, 
justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2. 12. 2024 – CASE C-843/24 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
15 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) 
Article 11. Freedom of expression and information 
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include 
freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without 
interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. 
2.  The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected. 
16 Regulation (EU) 2024/1083 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
11 April 2024 establishing a common framework for media services in the internal 
market and amending Directive 2010/13/EU (European Media Freedom Act) 
Article 3. Right of recipients of media services 
Member States shall respect the right of recipients of media services to have 
access to a plurality of editorially independent media content and ensure that 
framework conditions are in place in line with this Regulation to safeguard that 
right, to the benefit of free and democratic discourse. 
17 Article 29. Entry into force and application 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its 
publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. 
This Regulation shall apply from 8 August 2025. However: 
(a) Article 3 shall apply from 8 November 2024; 
(b) Article 4(1) and (2), Article 6(3) and Articles 7 to 13 and 28 shall 
apply from 8 February 2025; 
(c) Articles 14 to 17 shall apply from 8 May 2025; 
(d) Article 20 shall apply from 8 May 2027. 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all 
Member States. 
18 Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union 
Judgment of 20 April 2021, Repubblika (C-896/19, EU:C:2021:311). 
Judgment of 4 October 2024, Real Madrid Club de Fútbol (C-633/22, 
EU:C:2024:843). 
Judgment of 26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson (C-617/10, EU:C:2013:105). 
19 Provisions of national law 
24.HU 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
20 Article IX(2) of the Fundamental Law: 
Hungary shall recognize and protect the freedom and diversity of the press. 
21 Article 10 of the a sajtószabadságról és a médiatartalmak alapvető szabályairól 
szóló 2010. évi CIV. törvény (Law CIV of 2010 on the freedom of the press and 
the fundamental rules applicable to media content; ‘Law CIV of 2010’): 
Everybody has the right to be informed properly about local, national and 
European public affairs, as well as about events of importance to citizens of 
Hungary and to members of the Hungarian nation. The media system as a whole is 
responsible for providing trustworthy, rapid and accurate information concerning 
these affairs and events. 
22 Article 12(1) of Law CIV of 2010: 
Where any published media content states or disseminates false facts or distorts 
true facts about a person, the person concerned shall be entitled to demand the 
publication of a rectification indicating which of the published statements of fact 
are false and baseless, which facts are distorted and which facts are true in that 
regard. 
23 … 
24 … 
25 … 
… [details about the procedures and time limits for rectification of information 
reported in the press] 
26 Article 496(1) of the a polgári perrendtartásról szóló 2016. évi CXXX. törvény 
(Law CXXX of 2016 on civil procedure): 
If the news media outlet fails to comply with its obligation to publish a 
rectification within the time limit, or does so not in compliance with the request 
for rectification, the person requesting rectification may bring an action against 
that news media outlet for publication of a rectification. 
27 Opinion No 14 of the Civil Chamber of the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary) (in 
force since 1 July 1984, not binding on courts) 
Proof in court proceedings for rectification of information reported in the press 
1. News media outlets are required to substantiate disputed statements of fact 
contained in a press release. They are also required to substantiate in general the 
truth of a press release that faithfully reports statements of fact and declarations 
made by a third party or reproduces news from another media outlet (news media 
outlet). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2. 12. 2024 – CASE C-843/24 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
Presentation of the reasons why the referring court is uncertain about the 
interpretation or applicability of certain provisions of EU law 
28 Importance of the questions raised 
29 In the Hungarian legal system, the rectification of information reported in the 
press is a special instrument of civil law for the protection of personality, which 
enables public infringements of rights to be effectively remedied. Where 
published media content states or disseminates unsubstantiated facts or distorts 
true facts about a person, that person may lodge a request within a short period of 
time for publication of a rectification indicating which of the published statements 
of fact are baseless, which facts are distorted and which facts are true in that 
regard. If the news media outlet fails to comply with its obligation to publish a 
rectification, the person concerned may bring his or her claim for rectification in 
extraordinary civil proceedings in which very limited evidence is admissible. The 
purpose of the rectification is to correct within a short period of time published 
material which has not been substantiated. 1 
30 Freedom of the press and media pluralism are two fundamental pillars of 
democracy and of the rule of law. As a result of their functions mentioned above, 
court proceedings for rectification represent a fundamental element of the proper 
functioning of freedom of the press and contribute to ensuring that the public 
receives trustworthy and accurate information. Firstly, such proceedings 
contribute to maintaining the freedom of media outlets by encouraging them to 
engage in responsible, trustworthy journalism, since proceedings for rectification 
provide the opportunity to make a correction where a media outlet commits an 
error, so that, in this way, readers and viewers gain an accurate view of events. 
This transparency and the opportunity to hold to account strengthen the freedom 
of the press and increase public confidence. Secondly, it is, however, necessary 
that those proceedings do not become a tool to restrict the media. Claims for 
rectification which are excessive in number or disproportionate, or the possibility 
of being sued in court, may intimidate the media, which could lead to censorship, 
impede free journalistic investigation and undermine readers’ right to receive 
information and ideas. Thus, generally speaking, proceedings for rectification 
secure a balance between the right to freedom of information and the protection of 
individual and societal interests. 
31 Article 11 of the Charter enshrines freedom of expression, which includes 
freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without 
interference by the authorities and regardless of frontier, together with freedom 
and pluralism of the media. 
32 Article 3 of the European Media Freedom Act, applicable in all Member States 
with effect from 8 November 2024, provides that Member States must respect the 
right of recipients of media services to have access to a plurality of editorially 
 
1  … 
24.HU 
 
11 
Anonymised version 
independent media content and ensure that framework conditions are in place in 
line with that regulation to safeguard that right, to the benefit of free and 
democratic discourse. 
33 As the recitals of the regulation state, its aim is to ensure that recipients of media 
services in the European Union have the opportunity to consume pluralistic media 
content produced in accordance with editorial freedom in the internal market. That 
is key to fostering public discourse and civic participation, as a broad range of 
reliable sources of information and quality journalism empowers citizens to make 
informed choices, including about the state of their democracies. It is also 
essential for cultural and linguistic diversity in the European Union. 
34 Also in accordance with the recitals of the regulation, Member States should 
respect the right to a plurality of media content and contribute to an enabling 
media environment by making sure that relevant framework conditions are in 
place. In a well-functioning internal market, recipients of media services should 
be able to access quality media services that have been produced by journalists in 
an independent manner and in line with ethical and journalistic standards and 
which, therefore, provide trustworthy information. That is particularly relevant for 
news and current affairs content, which comprises a wide category of content of 
political, societal or cultural interest at local, national or international level. News 
and current affairs content has the potential to play a major role in shaping public 
opinion and has a direct impact on democratic participation and societal well-
being. Access to such services should also be ensured by preventing attempts to 
silence journalists, ranging from threats and harassment to censorship and 
cancelling of dissenting opinions, which could limit the free flow of information 
into the public sphere by reducing the quality and plurality of information. The 
right to a plurality of media content does not entail any corresponding obligation 
on any given media service provider to adhere to standards not set out explicitly 
by law. 
35 Jurisdiction of the EU courts 
36 The referring court explains below the relationship between the provisions of EU 
law and national law applicable to the main proceedings. 
37 Article 51(1) of the Charter defines the Charter’s field of application and, in that 
connection, provides that the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the 
Member States only when they are implementing EU law. This means that the 
fundamental rights guaranteed in the legal order of the European Union are 
applicable in all situations governed by EU law, but not outside such situations. In 
this respect, the Court has no power to examine the compatibility with the Charter 
of national legislation lying outside the scope of EU law. On the other hand, if 
such legislation falls within the scope of EU law, the Court, when requested to 
give a preliminary ruling, must provide all the guidance as to interpretation 
needed in order for the national court to determine whether that legislation is 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2. 12. 2024 – CASE C-843/24 
 
12  
Anonymised version 
compatible with the fundamental rights the observance of which the Court 
ensures. 2 
38 The mere fact that a national measure comes within an area in which the European 
Union has powers cannot bring it within the scope of EU law, and, therefore, 
cannot render the Charter applicable. In order to determine whether a national 
measure involves the implementation of EU law for the purposes of Article 6(1) 
of the Treaty on European Union or Article 51(1) of the Charter, it is necessary to 
determine, inter alia, whether that national legislation is intended to implement a 
provision of EU law; the nature of the legislation at issue and whether it pursues 
objectives other than those covered by EU law, even if it is capable of indirectly 
affecting EU law; and also whether there are specific rules of EU law on the 
matter or rules which are capable of affecting it. 3 
39 The referring court takes the view that court proceedings for the rectification of 
information reported in the press amount to the implementation, for the purposes 
of Article 51(1) of the Charter, of Article 3 of the European Media Freedom Act, 
that is, of EU law. Article 3 of the European Media Freedom Act imposes on 
Member States an obligation which also concerns the situation in the main 
proceedings, since court proceedings for the rectification of information reported 
in the press, which are an important element of the procedures which guarantee 
media freedom, must also comply with the abovementioned principles and 
objectives and may not limit the pluralism of the media. Proceedings for 
rectification represent a situation governed by EU law, since the question arises in 
those proceedings of whether, in the case of international referenced news, the 
requirement of proof disproportionately restricts the rights protected by Article 11 
of the Charter and Article 3 of the European Media Freedom Act. It must be noted 
that objectives of Article 3 of the European Media Freedom Act are the same as 
those of court actions for the rectification of information reported in the press: 
ensuring the freedom of the press and that the recipients of media services are 
properly informed about local, national and European public affairs and about 
events of importance to citizens of Hungary and members of the Hungarian 
nation. 
40 In accordance with Article 51(1) of the Charter, the provisions of the Charter are 
addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union 
with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only 
when they are implementing EU law. Article 3 of the European Media Freedom 
Act is also addressed to the Member States. 
41 The press release at issue in the main proceedings was published on 17 March 
2024, that is, on a date when Article 11 of the Charter was applicable, although 
 
2  Judgment of 26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson (C-617/10, EU:C:2013:105, paragraphs 17 
to 23). 
3  Judgment of 10 July 2014, Julián Hernández and Others (C-198/13, EU:C:2014:2055, 
paragraphs 33 and 35 to 37). 
24.HU 
 
13 
Anonymised version 
Article 3 of the European Media Freedom Act only applied with effect from 
8 November 2024. The question arises whether the application in the main 
proceedings of Article 3 of the European Media Freedom act is contrary to the 
prohibition of retroactive application of the law or whether, in view of the fact that 
that provision is binding on the Member State, the court seised of the case must 
apply provisions which are not directly binding on the litigants. 
42 According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, a court’s jurisdiction may also 
be based on the obstruction or limitation of the effective enjoyment of a right 
conferred by EU law or on the deprivation of that right. The jurisdiction of the 
Court of Justice in the present case may also be based on those situations. 
43 It follows from Article 2 TEU that the European Union is founded on values, such 
as the rule of law, which are common to the Member States in a society in which, 
inter alia, justice prevails. In that regard, it should be noted that mutual trust 
between the Member States and, in particular, their courts and tribunals is based 
on the fundamental premiss that Member States share a set of common values on 
which the European Union is founded, as stated in that article. Compliance by a 
Member State with the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU is a condition for the 
enjoyment of all of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to that 
Member State. A Member State cannot therefore amend its legislation in such a 
way as to bring about a reduction in the protection of the value of the rule of law, 
a value that is given concrete expression by, inter alia, Article 19 TEU. 4 
44 This case does not concern an amendment of the law and instead the issue relates 
to the implementation of the law. It is therefore necessary to determine whether 
any possible interpretation of the provision – whether the burden of substantiating 
referenced news may or must lie with a media outlet – results in a degradation of 
the values of the rule of law by undermining the right of citizens to have access to 
a plurality of independent media. 
45 The court’s jurisdiction in this case may also be based directly on the provisions 
of the Charter, irrespective of whether Article 3 of the European Media Freedom 
Act is applicable. 
46 The issue of the burden of proof 
47 In the main proceedings, the applicant bases his action on the dissemination by the 
defendant of false information about him by publishing, on the basis of an 
interview which appeared in an Austrian publication, statements made by the 
managing director of Spar Austria. The applicant does not dispute that the 
managing director’s statements were accurately reported in the referenced news 
item but rather simply contests the truthfulness of the managing director’s words. 
Accordingly, the applicant claims that he did not ask the managing director of 
 
4  Judgment of 20 April 2021, Repubblika (C-896/19, EU:C:2021:311, paragraphs 61 to 63). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2. 12. 2024 – CASE C-843/24 
 
14  
Anonymised version 
Spar Austria to allow one of his relatives to invest in the Hungarian subsidiary, 
but he does not dispute that the managing director said this to the press. 
48 In the present case, it should be pointed out that the subject matter of the disputed 
passage relates to the government’s economic policy, that is, to the management 
of public affairs and, therefore, statements of fact made in that connection are 
protected by the right to freedom of expression, whereas the protection of the 
private autonomy of the applicant, who is a prominent public figure in his capacity 
as prime minister, plays a secondary role in this case. Based on the standard of 
proof, it can be held that the press release at issue contains two statements of fact 
(PS stated that … and the applicant requested that …). In addition, it can be held 
that, in the disputed article, the defendant published the wording of the text which 
appeared in the Austrian newspaper, without commenting on or drawing any 
conclusions from it. 
49 The question to be determined in the main proceedings is whether the news media 
outlet must or may be required to establish the truthfulness of the referenced 
content and which facts need to be proven: that the managing director of Spar 
made the statements just as they were reproduced by the defendant, or also that 
the applicant actually said the words to which those statements refer? 
50 In accordance with Article 11(1) of the Charter, everyone has the right to freedom 
of expression, and this right includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and 
impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and 
regardless of frontiers. 
51 In the event that the publication of a news article has consequences for journalists, 
newspaper publishers or news media outlets, freedom of expression and 
information is expressly protected by Article 11(2) of the Charter, in accordance 
with which the freedom and pluralism of the media must be respected. 
52 The rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 11 of the Charter are not absolute 
rights and instead must be taken into account by reference to their function in 
society. It follows from Article 52(1) of the Charter that limitations on the 
exercise of those rights and freedoms are permitted by the Charter on condition 
that such limitations are provided for by law, they respect the essence of those 
rights, and subject to the principle of proportionality, they are necessary and 
genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union 
or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. It should be recalled in 
that respect that Article 11 of the Charter constitutes one of the essential 
foundations of a democratic, pluralist society and forms part of the values on 
which the European Union is based, in accordance with Article 2 TEU. Any 
interference with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 11 must be 
limited, in that context, to what is strictly necessary. That is the case, in particular, 
of interference affecting journalists, newspaper publishers and news media outlets, 
given the importance of the press in a democratic society and a State governed by 
the rule of law. 
24.HU 
 
15 
Anonymised version 
53 Further, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter, the rights contained 
therein have the same meaning and scope as the corresponding rights guaranteed 
by the ECHR, although that does not preclude EU law from affording more 
extensive protection. When interpreting Article 11 of the Charter, the Court must 
take account of the corresponding rights guaranteed by Article 10 ECHR, as 
interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, as the minimum threshold of 
protection. According to the settled case-law of the European Court of Human 
Rights, exceptions to the freedom of expression are to be construed strictly and 
Article 10(2) ECHR leaves little scope for restrictions on freedom of expression in 
the fields of political speech and matters of public interest. 5 
54 The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly held that news reporting 
based on interviews or reproducing the statements of others, whether edited or not, 
constitutes one of the most important means whereby the press is able to play its 
vital role of “public watchdog”. 6 That court has also held that, when giving 
judgment on such cases, a distinction needs to be made according to whether the 
statements emanate from the journalist or are a quotation of others. 7 In the case of 
Anatoliy Yeremenko v. Ukraine, the national courts did not make a distinction 
between statements made by a third party and information which a news media 
outlet provided about those statements. The applicant (the news media outlet) 
showed that it had reasonably verified the accuracy and trustworthiness of the 
information concerned and for that reason the European Court of Human Rights 
found that the liability attributed to the applicant in defamation proceedings 
constituted unjustified interference with the rights conferred on him under 
Article 10 (freedom of expression). 8 
55 Law CIV of 2010 and the provisions on civil procedure constitute the national 
legislation on rectification, while judgments Nos 13, 14 and 12 of the Civil 
Chamber of the highest court (Kúria, Supreme Court) have set out in identical 
terms since 1 June 1984, in the case of first two, and 1 January 1988, in the case 
of the latter, the rules of application relating to proceedings for the rectification of 
information reported in the press. 
56 For the purposes of the present case, the relevant matters relating to proof are 
dealt with in part I of opinion No 14 of the Civil Chamber of the Kúria (Supreme 
Court). According to that opinion, a news media outlet is required to substantiate 
disputed statements of fact included in a press release. A news media outlet is also 
required in general to substantiate a press release which faithfully reports 
 
5  Judgment of 4 October 2024, Real Madrid Club de Fútbol (C-633/22, EU:C:2024:127, 
paragraphs 45 to 52). 
6  Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom, paragraph 59. 
7  Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark, paragraph 77; Godlevskiy v. Russia, paragraph 45; 
Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, paragraph 65; Jersild v. Denmark, paragraph 35. 
8  Judgment of 15 September 2022, Anatoliy Yeremenko v. Ukraine, paragraphs 96 to 104, 108 and 
109. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2. 12. 2024 – CASE C-843/24 
 
16  
Anonymised version 
statements of fact and declarations made by a third party or reproduces news items 
from another media outlet (news media outlet). 
57 According to the grounds of part I of opinion No 14 of the Civil Chamber of the 
Kúria (Supreme Court), court proceedings for the rectification of information 
reported in the press are governed by the rules of evidence. Generally speaking, it 
is impossible or extremely difficult to prove that a situation did not happen. Where 
statements of fact about a person are communicated to someone, that person 
cannot be required to prove that those statements of fact are untrue. Therefore, it is 
to be expected that, in the interests of protecting of personality rights and 
providing readers with truthful information, the press should publish only 
statements of fact which can be substantiated. … In that connection, a news media 
outlet is required to establish the veracity of disputed statements of fact reported 
in a press release. In order to attain the objectives of rectification – namely, 
ensuring that information is accurate, maintaining the credibility of the press and 
ensuring that the person to whom the published item refers has genuine social 
status (whether the interest in question is a public interest or an interest of another 
kind) – it is also necessary to rectify false statements of fact where the published 
item comes from a foreign source. Accordingly, the legislation not only provides 
for the possibility of rectification where a published item is based on a direct 
source but also where information is reported which has come from a third party, 
that is, if such information is disseminated (Article 79(1) of the Civil Code). Thus, 
rectification is also possible in the case of a press release the contents of which are 
untrue or which distorts true facts, and which, in addition, accurately disseminates 
statements of fact or declarations made by a third party (organisation) or 
reproduces news items from another media outlet (news media outlet). 
58 The case-law of the Alkotmánybíróság (Constitutional Court, Hungary) and of the 
Kúria (Supreme Court) provide additional guidance to Hungarian courts for the 
purpose of responding in a particular case to the question of whether a news media 
outlet is required, under the general provisions, to substantiate the content of a 
published item or, whether, diverging from those provisions, it is not required to 
do so. 
59 The Alkotmánybíróság (Constitutional Court) has indicated, in relation to press 
conferences, that the constitutional requirement flowing from the freedom of the 
press, enshrined in Article IX(2) of the Constitution, means that the activities of a 
media content services provider which, accurately and without making its own 
assessments, reports statements made in relation to the discussion of public affairs 
at a press conference held by a public person, clearly indicates the source, and 
allows the person to whom the potentially damaging statements of fact refer to 
rebut those statements or gives that person the opportunity to respond, cannot be 
categorised as dissemination which breaches personality rights and justifies 
penalties under civil law. 9 A press report falls outside the interpretative scope of 
 
9  Judgment of the Alkotmánybíróság (Constitutional Court) No 34/2017 of 11 December. 
24.HU 
 
17 
Anonymised version 
dissemination where its sole focus is the up-to-date and accurate reproduction of 
statements by persons who participate in public debate. 10 
60 According to the practice of the Kúria (Supreme Court), which serves as binding 
guidance for courts and was developed in opinion No 14 of its Civil Chamber, the 
requirement in case-law that a news media outlet must not permit, in the form of 
dissemination, access to information which breaches a personality right is not 
considered to restrict freedom of the press or freedom of expression, or to impose 
on news media outlets a condition that is impossible to satisfy. In its judgment 
having the effect of a precedent, the Kúria (Supreme Court) stated that, in 
accordance with settled, unequivocal case-law, and having regard in addition to 
the wording of the provision, the dissemination (transmission of information from 
a third party) of a false fact may also lead to the rectification of information 
reported in the press, while the news media outlet may not claim in its defence in 
rectification proceedings that it merely passed on information obtained from a 
third party. 11 If the news media outlet is unable to show that the disputed 
statement of facts is true, it must publish a rectification, provided that the disputed 
published item cannot be regarded as irrelevant from the applicant’s point of 
view. 12 Where a news media outlet reports words spoken in a press conference 
without making its own assessments and clearly indicating the identifiable source, 
without adding any new content regarding the substance or its own assessment to 
the statements made by the politician appearing at the press conference or 
commenting on the statements made and simply explaining those statements to 
readers who may not understand the background to the report, that media outlet is 
not required to substantiate the report. 13 However, it is not the case that the press 
may report without restriction any forceful statement made by any individual, 
since the exercise of freedom of the press does not extend to the publication of 
information that is untrue and, indeed, one of the primary responsibilities of 
journalists is to establish the truthfulness of news items and information 
published. 14 
61 Broadening slightly the scope of the statements of fact which do not need to be 
substantiated, the Kúria (Supreme Court) stated in another judgment that media 
which report on statements made by public persons may be exempt from the 
obligation to verify the truthfulness of published facts if the journalist reports 
statements by third parties accurately, indicating clearly the identifiable source of 
the report and not his or her own assessments, and if the journalist allows the 
 
10  Judgment of the Alkotmánybíróság (Constitutional Court) No 3002/2008 of 10 January, 
paragraph 77 of the grounds. 
11  Judgment of the Kúria No Pfv.IV.20.995/2023/4. 
12  Judgment of the Kúria No Pfv.20.442/2024/4. 
13  Judgment of the Kúria No Pfv. 20.339/2020/4. 
14  Judgment of the Kúria No Pfv. 21.016/2022/6. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2. 12. 2024 – CASE C-843/24 
 
18  
Anonymised version 
person concerned to comment. In other words, the scope of the facts which may 
be published without satisfying the requirement of proof is not limited to 
statements made at a press conference but also includes statements made by a 
third party in a wider sphere. The judgment also states that, where statements by a 
third party are reported, it is always necessary to examine whether, in the case in 
point, the press has abused its exemption from the requirement of substantiation, 
since in such a case the responsibility of the press continues to exist. Abuse should 
be taken to exist if the title of the news report is misleading as regards the source 
or content of the published item and that creates the impression that the words are 
those of the media content services provider or undisputed reports. 15 
62 Since opinion No 14 of the Civil Chamber of the Kúria (Supreme Court) was 
drafted in 1984, many factors, such as the technological and IT revolution or the 
emergence of the internet and social media, have significantly and radically 
transformed the operation of the media and the habits of consumers. 
63 The question arises whether, in the case of referenced news or the mere reporting 
or dissemination of content appearing in another media outlet or of any content 
reporting news that was not generated first-hand by the media outlet concerned, 
the expectations regarding the news media outlet – the rules relating to the burden 
of proof in the proceedings – are the same as the abovementioned expectations 
formulated in relation to ‘dissemination’ in opinion No 14 of the Civil Chamber of 
the Kúria (Supreme Court). Must account be taken of the fact that journalists’ 
work is made extremely difficult where they have to substantiate news reports 
published in another country – as the case may be, under editorial responsibility – 
which appears to be a current phenomenon at a time when there is fast flow of 
news within the European Union? Does the determination of the extent of the 
obligation incumbent on news media outlets to substantiate information, in 
relation to the requirement to respect the freedom and pluralism of the media, 
come within the scope of a judicial examination? For the purpose of deciding that 
the requirement of objective information has been satisfied, is it not sufficient to 
expect a media outlet to clearly cite the source of the content of a particular report 
when it disseminates content without any assessment or contextualisation? 
64 On those grounds, the referring court takes the view that it is necessary to 
determine whether a practice whereby, as a general rule and in the case of media 
content published under editorial responsibility in another Member State, which 
has been referenced or merely presented, a media outlet is under an obligation to 
substantiate the information, is compatible with the law and expectations of the 
European Union, having particular regard to the fact that Article 3 of the European 
Media Freedom Act places particular emphasis on the importance of access to a 
plurality of media content. 
65 Summary of the referring court’s point of view in relation to the answers to 
be given to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
 
15  Judgment of the Kúria No Pfv.20.352/2023/5. 
24.HU 
 
19 
Anonymised version 
66 Article 3 of the European Media Freedom Act applies to this case and also 
determines the jurisdiction of the EU courts, since the procedure for rectification 
of information reported in the press amounts to the implementation of EU law and 
that provision is addressed to the Member States, such that its application in the 
main proceedings does not conflict with the prohibition of retroactive application. 
67 Freedom of the press and the right of citizens to have access to a plurality of 
independent media would be restricted in a way and to an extent which are 
contrary to the values and rights set out in the Charter if, where a media services 
provider refers to content reported in foreign media outlets, that provider is under 
an obligation to substantiate the referenced content, irrespective of whether it 
clearly states that it is referenced content. In the light of the foregoing 
considerations, the referring court takes the view that access to a plurality of 
editorially independent media content can be ensured where, in the case of 
referenced information, the burden of substantiating that information is not 
imposed on the news media outlet or the burden of proof is limited. Otherwise, 
freedom of expression and the freedom to receive and impart information and 
ideas would be restricted, as would the freedom of the media. 
68 … 
69 … [jurisdiction of the referring court] 
70 Annexes 
… 
Budapest, 2 December 2024. 
… [signature]