Communicated on 21 June 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 4782/18 Aba LEWIT against Austria lodged on 18 January 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention by a Holocaust survivor. In 2015, he had initiated civil injunction proceedings against the periodical “ Aula ”, which had published an article entitled “ Mauthausen – The liberated as mass murderers” ( “ Mauthausen – Befreite als Massenmörder ” ), calling those liberated from that concentration camp a “rural plague” ( “ Landplage ” ). The article further stated that “the criminals, robbing and plundering, murdering and defiling, plagued the country that was suffering of the liberation [from the Nazis]” ( “ Raubend und plündernd , mordend und schändend plagten die Kriminellen das unter der Befreiung leidende Land” ). After the domestic courts had granted an interim injunction, finding that the applicant ’ s reputation had been damaged by the periodical ’ s statements, the main proceedings were terminated by a court settlement ( Vergleich ), by which the periodical committed to revoke the impugned statements in its next issue (which it did).

In its February 2016 issue, the periodical published another article by the same author, in which he cited the impugned statements in connection with reporting about the fact that respective criminal investigations against him had been discontinued. The applicant ’ s request to the Vienna Regional Criminal Court ( Straflandesgericht Wien ) to sentence the periodical to pay damages under sections 6 and 8a of the Media Act ( Mediengesetz ) was dismissed. On 21 June 2017 the Vienna Court of Appeal ( Oberlandesgericht Wien ) dismissed his appeal against that decision, holding that the quotation of the impugned statements in the context of the report of the criminal proceedings did not amount to their reiteration. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the domestic courts have incorrectly weighed his right to respect of his private life against the periodical ’ s rights under Article 10 of the Convention. The article of February 2016 did not merely report about the criminal investigations in a distanced manner, but rather were a triumphant repetition of the impugned statements.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?