"The subject of the article was the quality of a well-known Hungarian wine variety, a product of T. Zrt, a State-owned corporation, which was, in the applicant's view, bad and its popularity with Hungarian consumers unjustified."Im Detail klang das allerdings noch ein wenig deutlicher (hier - auszugsweise - in der Übersetzung des EGMR):
"1,000 [Hungarian forints] per bottle, that represents the world's best wine region, the Hungarian National Pride and Treasure... [and that could make me cry]. Not only because of the taste – although that alone would easily be enough for an abundant cry: sour, blunt and over-oxidised stuff, bad-quality ingredients collected from all kinds of leftovers, grey mould plus a bit of sugar from Szerencs, musty barrel – but because we are still there ...: hundreds of thousands of Hungarians drink [this] shit with pride, even devotion... our long-suffering people are made to eat (drink) it and pay for it at least twice ([because we are talking about a] State-owned company); [...] This is how the inhabitants (subjects) of the country are being humiliated by the skunk regime through half a litre of alcoholised drink. [...]"Das Weingut stellte einen Strafantrag wegen Verleumdung [EGMR: "defamation (rágalmazás)"]; in zweiter und schließlich auch dritter Instanz wurde Peter Uj dann wegen übler Nachrede [EGMR: libel (becsületsértés)] verurteilt, als Strafe wurde nur eine Ermahnung ausgesprochen (die juristischen Konzepte sind nicht immer ganz klar bzw eindeutig zu übersetzen, daher habe ich die englischen und ungarischen Fachbegriffe, wie sie der EGMR angibt, in Klammer ergänzt; auch in letzter Instanz handelte es sich um eine strafgerichtliche Verurteilung, der aber - anders als in erster Instanz - keine unrichtige Tatsachenbehauptung, sondern ein Werturteil zugrundegelegt wurde, das allerdings das Recht des Weinproduzenten auf seinen guten Ruf beeinträchtigte).
Das kurze und einstimmige Urteil des EGMR kommt zum Ergebnis, dass die Verhältnismäßigkeit des Eingriffs nicht belegt werden konnte, zumal die nationalen Gerichte die vom EGMR angeführten Umstände - kein Recht der im Staatseigentum stehenden juristischen Person auf guten wirtschaftlichen Ruf, satirischer Charakter des Artikels und öffentliches Interesse - nicht abgewogen hatte. Dass der Autor vulgäre Phrasen verwendet habe, sei für sich nicht entscheidend, da dies auch bloß stilistischen Zwecken dienen könne. Wörtlich heißt es im Urteil:
Wen es interessiert: laut Website der Ungarischen Bürgerrechtsunion handelt es sich bei dem vom EGMR anonymisierten Weingut um das Gut Tokaj Kereskedőház Zrt., das auf seiner Website - wohl nicht ganz ohne Grund - Wert darauf legt, dass es in den letzten Jahren wesentlichen Reformen unterworfen war:20. The Court would add that offence may fall outside the protection of freedom of expression if it amounts to wanton denigration, for example where the sole intent of the offensive statement is to insult (see, e.g. Skałka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 34, 27 May 2003); but the use of vulgar phrases in itself is not decisive in the assessment of an offensive expression as it may well serve merely stylistic purposes. For the Court, style constitutes part of the communication as the form of expression and is as such protected together with the content of the expression.21. [...]22. In the present case, the Court observes that the impugned criminal charges were pressed by a company which undisputedly has a right to defend itself against defamatory allegations. In this context the Court accepts that, in addition to the public interest in open debate about business practices, there is a competing interest in protecting the commercial success and viability of companies, for the benefit of shareholders and employees, but also for the wider economic good. The State therefore enjoys a margin of appreciation as to the means it provides under domestic law to enable a company to challenge the truth, and limit the damage, of allegations which risk harming its reputation (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-II; Kuliś and Różycki v. Poland, no. 27209/03, § 35, ECHR 2009-...). However, there is a difference between the commercial reputational interests of a company and the reputation of an individual concerning his or her social status. Whereas the latter might have repercussions on one's dignity, for the Court interests of commercial reputation are devoid of that moral dimension. In the instant application, the reputational interest at stake is that of a State-owned corporation; it is thus a commercial one without relevance to moral character.23. The Court notes that the expression used by the applicant is offensive. Nevertheless, the subject matter of the case is not a defamatory statement of fact but a value judgment or opinion, as was admitted by the domestic courts. The publication in question constituted a satirical denouncement of the company within the context of governmental economic policies and consumer attitudes[...]. Taking the above facts into account, the Court finds that the applicant's primary aim was to raise awareness about the disadvantages of State ownership rather than to denigrate the quality of the products of the company in the minds of the readers. The opinion was expressed with reference to government policies concerning the protection of national values and the role of private enterprise and foreign investment. It dealt therefore with a matter of public interest.24. The Court considers that the domestic courts failed to have regard to the fact that the press had a duty to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest and in so doing to have possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation, or in other words to make somewhat immoderate statements (see Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, § 25, ECHR 2006–XIII, and Dąbrowski v. Poland, no. 18235/02, § 35, 19 December 2006). For the Court, the wording employed by the applicant was exaggerated but made in a public context; the expression used is, regrettably, a commonly used one in regard of low-quality wine and its vulgarity thus constituted a forceful part of the form of expression." [Hervorhebung hinzugefügt]
"Tokaj Kereskedőház has undergone a significant transformation over the course of the past few years. [...] During the more than half-decade past, Tokaj Kereskedőház Zrt. has been transformed completely compared to previous years, even previous decades. This Kereskedőház is not 'that' Kereskedőház anymore."
Posts
Feedburner
No comments :
Post a Comment