SECOND SECTION
CASE OF EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE NEWSPAPER AND INTERNET PORTAL MAGYAR HANG 
AND ALHAMBRA PRESS BT v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 52586/22)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
16 December 2025
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Editorial Board of the Newspaper and Internet Portal Magyar Hang and Alhambra Press Bt v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Jovan Ilievski, President,
 Péter Paczolay,
 Juha Lavapuro, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 52586/22) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 3 November 2022 by the editorial board of the newspaper and internet portal Magyar Hang (“the first applicant”) and its publisher, Alhambra Press Bt (“the second applicant”) established in Budapest since 2018 and 2003 respectively and represented by Mr T.L. Sepsi, a lawyer practising in Budapest;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, of the Ministry of Justice;
the Government’s observations;
Having deliberated in private on 25 November 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns a court decision ordering the first applicant to publish a retraction in respect of an online news article and the second applicant to bear the costs of proceedings, including the plaintiff’s legal expenses and the court fees. 2. On 17 August 2020 Magyar Hang published on its internet portal an article entitled “Párbeszéd lodges criminal complaint in the Visegrád luxury hotel affair”. The article reported on a press conference held earlier that day by B.T., a member of the opposition party Párbeszéd Magyarországért, relating to the allegedly fraudulent sale of a hotel. A certain I.T., a businessperson and the Prime Minister’s son-in-law, was one of the shareholders of the company selling the property. The article presented that B.T. had suspicions of a criminal nature in regard to the purchase and resale of the hotel and the lack of investments which would justify the difference between the purchase and sales price. The article also noted that B.T.’s allegations were based on media sources and that the purchase and resale prices were estimates. The statements at issue in the article read as follows:
“Párbeszéd is filing a criminal complaint concerning ‘the luxury hotel in Visegrád’, says the party’s press release. B.T. suspects misappropriation of funds causing a particularly significant financial disadvantage. In his letter sent to the Central Investigative Prosecutor’s Office, the Member of Parliament relied on press reports. According to it, I.T.’s company, Hotel VSGRD Kft, had bought a hotel some years before for around 1.6 billion forints, which had been planned to be turned into a luxury hotel, but was left behind half-finished. He then sold this building, located in the Danube Bend, to the business circle of X for 3.65 billion. The previous owners wanted to build a luxury hotel there before 2008. According to B.T.’s letter, the business circle of I.T. did not do much with the hotel, its value did not change significantly according to the property register. Despite this, it was transferred to M [Minerva Investment Fund Management] Zrt. at a much higher price. Thanks to the business, Hotel VSGRD Kft achieved a net profit of 1.21 billion last year, of which 1.075 billion was taken out as dividends by its owners. The Member of Parliament also wrote that according to [his] current knowledge, Hotel VSGRD ‘has not implemented any value-increasing investment that could justify the difference between the purchase and sale price, which exceeds two billion forints’.”
3. I.T. asked the first applicant to publish a retraction of false statements allegedly made in the article. In particular, he claimed having neither acquired a hotel for around 1.6 billion forints through Hotel VSGRD Kft, nor having sold it to the business circle of X for 3.65 billion. He said he personally had nothing to do with the difference in the purchase and sales price. To challenge the assertion made in the article, he briefly gave an account of some investments on the property. 4. Since the editorial board of Magyar Hang did not comply with his request, I.T. lodged a civil action with the Budapest High Court, alleging the dissemination of false statements. 5. On 13 November 2020 the High Court dismissed the action. It held that the press release and the criminal complaint lodged by B.T. formed the basis of the article. The court referred to I.T. as a so-called “special public figure” having regard to his significant achievements in the real estate, property development and tourism sectors and his appearances in the media in which he had discussed his business portfolio. It held that I.T. was able to rebut the impugned statements himself given his role in the shaping of public opinion; he could have reached the wider public through the media considering, inter alia, an interview in which he had discussed his business interests, including the Visegrád project. The High Court held that the challenged statements had not emanated from Magyar Hang’s journalists and that the article had faithfully reported on statements made by public figures, including a clear indication of their source, without any further discussion of the matter by the journalists. 6. On 18 March 2021 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the decision, albeit for different reasons. It established the veracity of the statement of fact on the purchase of the hotel. It held that I.T. lacked standing in respect of the statement of fact concerning the resale of the property and that the question of investments and increase in value of the property mentioned in the article, when interpreted in the ordinary sense, constituted value judgments. 7. On 13 October 2021 the Kúria established that the news report recapitulated the statements made by a public figure, B.T., partly in matters of public interest. It took the view that the lower courts had erroneously drawn a parallel with cases involving the use of public funds, whereas in the present case the transactions regarding the hotel had no bearing on public expenditure. The Kúria referred to three of its earlier decisions emphasising that I.T. could be regarded as a ‘public figure’ (but not a ‘special public figure’) only in relation to his significant role in economic life, his wealth and his interest in matters involving public funds and public procurement. In the context of the article in question, it held that I.T. was not even a ‘public figure’ because of the absence of a connection between the sequence of sales and the use of public funds. Accordingly, the degree of tolerance he needed to display in relation to the press was limited to being asked questions in public on matters of public interest pertaining to him. 8. The Kúria considered that the second-instance court had failed to assess the veracity of the disputed statements. It held that the news report provided a factually correct account of the press conference held by B.T. As regards the estimated sales price of the hotel, the Kúria held that the applicants were under an obligation to give I.T. the opportunity to refute the statements intended to be published, in view of the Constitutional Court’s decision no. 34/2017. (XII.11.) AB. It further held that the company’s publicly available balance sheets did not prove the amounts for which the hotel was purchased and then resold. It consequently ordered the first applicant to publish a retraction of its statements concerning the purchase and resale of the hotel and the second applicant to pay I.T.’s legal costs and court fees in the total amount of 322,200 Hungarian forints. 9. On 28 June 2022 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint. It considered that the article gave a truthful account of the statements made by B.T. at the press conference. For the court, I.T. was a businessperson who did not discuss issues of politics or affairs of general interest in public; and he could not be qualified as a public figure solely by considering his business interests or his family ties. Therefore, he could not be expected to reply to criticism against him or press reports on such criticism by his own means. The fact that the applicants had not given him the opportunity to have a refutation published was not acceptable. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicants’ legal representative on 4 July 2022. 10. The applicants complained that the obligation to publish a retraction and to bear the costs of proceedings, including the plaintiff’s legal expenses and the court fees, amounted to a violation of their right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 10
Outcome: violation