Search

Search Results

• Opinion or statement of fact?

  48-68

  László Pribula

  Views:

  254

  Press correction is a special way to defend personality rights on the basis of civil law. Its main objective is that if someone states or rumours a false fact or makes a fact appear untrue about a person in a given publication, the affected person has the right to submit his claim – as soon as possible – in order to have a rectifying communication be given out in the particular publication showing which part of the injurious publication states false, unfounded facts or makes a fact appear untrue and what is the reality. If the publisher does not satisfy its duty to correct the injurious publication voluntarily, the affected person – in a short period – has the right to enforce his claim for press correction in an accelerated judicial procedure which allows only restricted production of evidence.

  The most frequent question of the press correctional lawsuits is whether the content of the publication turns out to be a statement of fact or an opinion. The opinion, assessment, critique and debates about society, politics or art cannot serve as a basis for press correction. The statement of fact is a declaration about a given momentum of reality, the assertion or rumour that something has happened in a certain way or that something really exists. In opposition to the statement of fact, the opinion expresses a value judgement or critique, and false facts cannot be concluded from it even indirectly. It is hard to define on an objective basis if a declaration is a statement of fact or an opinion. As life creates a wide range of various situations, the developing legal interpretation by the judicial practice has a great impact especially as regards the distinction between a statement of fact and an opinion, the interpretation of the publication or the determination of the content and form of the press correction.

• Likeness of Police Officers: Freedom of the Press and the Right to Facial Likeness at the Crossroads of Civil and Fundamental Rights

  110-128

  Zoltán Tóth J.

  Views:

  162

  The Constitutional Court of Hungary, proceeding in its new competence regarding the „real” constitutional complaint obtained from 1 January 2012, is allowed to adjudicate the motions initiated against concrete judicial decisions which are deemed to be contrary to the Fundamental Law of Hungary. Within this procedure the Constitutional Court places the protection of the freedom of expression and freedom of the press above the protection of personality rights. The Court consistently annuls judicial decisions that declare infringement of personality rights on grounds that a press agency published recognizable facial likeness of police officers being on duty during demonstrations. The present paper analyses the course during which the Constitutional Court does enforce the constitutional requirements elaborated in its former practice and, thereby, repeals the ordinary courts’ decisions if those favour the personality rights of police officers over the freedom of the press.