Published on 19 April 2021

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 4222/18 Christa ZÖCHLING against Austria lodged on 18 January 2018 communicated on 31 March 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a journalist working for a well-known weekly news magazine.

The 1848 Medienvielfalt Verlags GmbH (“the company”) is the publisher of an internet news portal (“the portal”). The portal allows registered users to post comments relating to articles published by the company.

On 11 September 2016 the company published an article about the applicant ’ s work on the portal, along with an image of her. On 12 September 2016 a user posted that he had printed out the applicant ’ s image, had shot on her face and encouraged others to do the same. Another user posted a comment calling the applicant a “plague”, a “dumb person” and a “larva” and stated that he regretted that gas chambers no longer existed.

On 23 September 2016 the applicant requested the company to delete the comments and to disclose the users ’ data. The company deleted the comments within a few hours and informed the applicant of the users ’ e-mail addresses. Subsequently, the applicant failed to obtain information on the users ’ identities from the e-mail providers.

The applicant lodged an application with the Regional Criminal Court pursuant to section 6 of the Media Act claiming non-pecuniary damage for the publication of insulting statements. On 20 January 2017 the Regional Criminal Court granted the applicant ’ s request, considering among other things, the content of the comments which contained incitements to violence against the applicant.

On 20 July 2017 the Court of Appeal granted the company ’ s appeal. It held that the company had not been obliged to monitor all comments posted on its website and that – by immediately deleting the comments upon the applicant ’ s request and by providing her with the users ’ e-mail addresses – it had acted with the required due diligence.

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the respondent state had not fulfilled its positive obligation to protect her private life and reputation when balancing her rights under Article 8 against the rights of the company under Article 10 of the Convention.

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 (see Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, ECHR 2015; Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary , no. 22947/13, 2 February 2016; H øiness v. Norway , no. 43624/14, 19 March 2019; and Pihl v. Sweden ( dec. ), no. 74742/14, 7 February 2017)?.