Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that there had been no violation of the right to respect for private life, finding that the domestic courts had appropriately balanced that right against freedom of expression. The case concerned a civil defamation claim brought by two social educators following the publication of a newspaper article which identified them by name and alleged that, in the course of their work at a centre for unaccompanied and vulnerable minors, they had exposed children to religious practices and forms of Islamic indoctrination associated with Islamist fundamentalism. The Court accepted that the article contributed to a debate of public interest, as it addressed the management of centres for unaccompanied minors and wider societal concerns about radicalisation. It recalled that freedom of expression protects not only information that is favourably received, but also expressions that may offend, shock, or disturb. In reviewing the domestic judgments, the Court noted that the national courts examined the content and context of the publication, assessed whether the language used was unnecessarily offensive, and considered whether the journalist had acted with the diligence required by responsible journalism. It reiterated that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects journalistic reporting on matters of public concern when carried out in good faith, even where such reporting may adversely affect an individual’s reputation. The ECtHR concluded that the domestic courts conducted the required balancing exercise in line with the criteria established in its case-law and acted within their margin of appreciation. Accordingly, it held that the State had not failed in its positive obligation to protect the applicants’ private life under Article 8 of the ECHR.

---

Facts

Mr Khalil Tafzi El Hadri and Mr Omar El Idrissi Mouch are Spanish nationals born in 1966 and 1969, respectively. At the time of the events of the case, they were employed as social educators at the C.V. residential centre for minors in Barcelona. The centre accommodated unaccompanied foreign minors, the majority of whom were of Moroccan origin, and operated under the supervision of public authorities. The C.V. centre was managed by a private entity, the M.F. Foundation, which provided residential and educational services for minors pursuant to agreements with the public administration.

In 2011, public debate in Spain included discussions concerning immigration, unaccompanied foreign minors, and the risk of Islamist radicalisation. Within this context, Tafzi El Hadri and El Idrissi worked as social educators at the C.V. centre, where their duties included caring for, supervising, and providing educational support to resident minors.

On 27 September 2011, newspapers DIARIO ABC published an article entitled “Centres for minors, seedbeds of fundamentalism” (Los centros de menores, semilleros del integrismo) in both its print and online editions. The article addressed what it described as the risk of Islamist radicalisation of Muslim minors housed in residential centres across Spain.

The article alleged that certain residential centres for minors had become environments in which educators transmitted Islamist ideology to minors. It further claimed that such centres could serve as an early stage in a process leading to later involvement in extremist networks, linking these allegations to broader concerns relating to terrorism and national security.

A section of the article headed “Prelude to jihad” specifically referred to the C.V. centre in Barcelona and identified both applicants by their full names, describing them as educators at that centre. In relation to El Idrisi, the article stated that:  “[he] indoctrinates the pupils in Islamist fundamentalism.”  [para. 6]

The article also alleged that El Idrisi took minors to pray at the Tariq Ibu Ziyad Mosque, which is named after the Berber general who led the Muslim invasion of the Iberian Peninsula. Regarding Tafzi, the article stated that: “Another educator at the centre is Khaliltafzi El Hadri, a member of Justice and Charity, one of the most radical strands of Islam”. [para. 6]

The article further asserted that minors who passed through such centres could later be recruited by Islamist networks once they reached adulthood.

Following publication of the article, on 30 September 2011, the M.F. Foundation initiated disciplinary proceedings against Tafzi in relation to the allegations reported in the newspaper. The proceedings were aimed at examining whether the statements attributed to him in the article were compatible with his professional duties. After hearing Tafzi’s explanations, the disciplinary proceedings were discontinued on 7 October 2011, without any sanctions.

During the same period, more than thirty employees of the C.V. centre, including Tafzi and El Idrissi, issued a communiqué rejecting the allegations published in ABC’s article. The communiqué described the information as false, criticised the newspaper for failing to verify the facts, and requested a public retraction in order to restore the reputation of the centre and its staff.

Shortly after publication of the article, the director of the C.V. centre sent a letter to the Consortium of Social Services of Barcelona. In that letter, the director denied that any form of radicalisation had occurred at the centre, stated that Tafzi ¿and El Idrissi had good professional and work records, and emphasised that the centre’s educational project complied with the guidelines approved by public authorities. The director further indicated that staff members denied having provided information to the media.

Both Tafzi and El Idrissi continued to work as social educators at the C.V. centre until 31 May 2012, when the centre ceased operations following the non-renewal of its contract with the public authorities.

Criminal Proceedings

On 24 September 2012, the Tafzi and El Idrissi lodged a criminal complaint against ABC and the journalist who authored the article, alleging damage to their reputation as a result of the published statements. On 5 March 2013, an investigating court in Madrid dismissed the complaint. The court considered there was no criminal offence and emphasised the “eminently informative purpose” [para. 13] of the article. It held that the publication fell within the scope of freedom of expression, while noting that the complainants could pursue their claims through civil proceedings. They did not appeal this decision.

Civil Proceedings

On 25 September 2015, Tafzi and El Idrissi brought a civil action for breach of their right to honour (reputation) against ABC and the journalist. They argued that the aforementioned article contained false and unverified allegations, attributing their employment exclusively to their proficiency in Moroccan dialects, explicitly identifying them by name, and associating them with Islamist fundamentalism.

The plaintiffs maintained that the statements were presented as factual assertions rather than value judgments, that they lacked an adequate factual basis, and that their publication had seriously damaged their professional reputations as social educators working with minors.

On 26 February 2018, the Court of First Instance of Hospitalet de Llobregat dismissed the claim. The court argued that the article dealt with matters of general and public interest, including immigration, the management of centres for minors, and the prevention of Islamist radicalisation and terrorism. It considered that these issues were the subject of legitimate public debate and that the press played a central role in informing the public about them.

The court also argued that the contested statements fell within the scope of freedom of expression as protected under domestic law. It held that the article did not constitute a gratuitous personal attack against the applicants, but rather formed part of a broader journalistic report addressing systemic concerns related to residential centres for minors. The court further considered that the language used in the article, while critical, did not exceed the limits of permissible journalistic expression. It found that the plaintiffs had been referred to in their professional capacity as educators working in a public-interest context and that the publication did not employ expressions that were manifestly insulting or unnecessary, considering the context of the public debate. On that basis, the court concluded that the interference with the applicants’ right to reputation did not outweigh the interest in protecting freedom of expression and freedom of information, and therefore dismissed the civil claim in its entirety.

Appeal Proceedings

Tafzi and El Idrissi appealed the first-instance judgment. On 6 February 2019, the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision. The appellate court considered that the contested article was part of a broader public debate concerning immigration, unaccompanied minors, and Islamist radicalisation. It found that the expressions used were not manifestly insulting, that the applicants had been mentioned in connection with a matter of general interest, and that the journalist’s statements did not amount to an unlawful interference with the plaintiffs’ right to reputation.

Proceedings before the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court

Tafzi and El Idrissi lodged a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court of Spain, arguing that the lower courts failed to strike a proper balance between freedom of expression and their right to honour. On 24 March 2021, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal. It held that the article concerned issues of general interest and that the journalist exercised sufficient diligence in the preparation of the report.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amparo appeal before the Constitutional Court of Spain. On 7 October 2022, the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal arguing that it lacked special constitutional significance.

Application before the European Court of Human Rights

Following the conclusion of the domestic proceedings, Tafzi and El Idrissi lodged an application before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on 24 March 2023. They complained that the domestic courts’ alleged failure to protect their reputations in the context of the contested publication amounted to a violation of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In particular, the applicants alleged that the dismissal of their civil claims, despite the publication of statements associating them by name with Islamist fundamentalism, constituted a disproportionate interference with their right to respect for private life and reputation, as protected by Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Privacy). They further argued that domestic courts failed to strike a fair balance between their Article 8 rights and the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the ECHR.

---

Decision Overview

The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment on 8 January 2026. The main issue it examined was whether Spanish courts had complied with their positive obligations under Article 8 of the ECHR when dismissing a civil defamation action brought by two social educators after the publication of an article in a national Spanish newspaper concerning the alleged radicalisation of minors housed in a residential care centre for unaccompanied foreign minors. The case required the Court to assess whether domestic courts struck a fair balance between the applicants’ right to respect for their private life and reputation and the respondents’ right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR.

The applicants argued that the article contained false and highly damaging allegations, explicitly naming them and associating them with Islamist fundamentalism and, by implication, jihadism. They submitted that domestic courts failed to take sufficient account of the seriousness of these accusations, the lack of an adequate factual basis, and the impact of the publication on their professional reputations. They further maintained that the journalist did not act with the required diligence and that the article could contribute to stigmatisation and discrimination.

For its part, the Government of Spain argued that the article addressed a matter of clear public interest—namely, the risk of radicalisation of vulnerable minors and the functioning of residential care centres. It submitted that the domestic courts carefully examined the language and context of the article and correctly concluded that it did not accuse the applicants of terrorism or violence. The Government further maintained that the journalist who authored the contested article relied on official and reliable sources and acted in accordance with professional standards, and that the applicants did not demonstrate there was serious harm to their private or professional lives.

As a preliminary matter, the Court examined the applicability of Article 8 of the ECHR to this case. It reiterated that a person’s reputation forms part of their private life and is protected by Article 8, where an attack on reputation attains a sufficient level of seriousness and affects the enjoyment of private life. On this point, the ECtHR noted that the applicants were identified by their full names, that their place of work and perceived religious affiliations were disclosed, and that the article alleged that they exposed minors to Islamist fundamentalist indoctrination under the subheading “Prelude to jihad.” In light of the article’s content and wide dissemination, the Court concluded that the applicants’ private lives were affected to a sufficient degree for Article 8 to apply.

Turning to the merits, the ECtHR recalled that in cases of conflict between Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR, its role is not to substitute its own assessment for that of domestic courts, but to determine whether those courts applied the relevant principles correctly to strike a fair balance in line with the criteria established in the ECtHR’s jurisprudence. The Court emphasised that this approach applies particularly where domestic courts have carried out an explicit balancing exercise between competing Convention rights.

The ECtHR observed that Spanish courts consistently identified the case as involving a conflict between the right to reputation and freedom of expression—and expressly relied on both domestic constitutional standards and the ECtHR’s case-law. In particular, the appellate court (Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona) recalled that freedom of expression protects not only information that is favourably received but also expressions that may “offend, shock or disturb,” citing the Court’s judgments in Handyside v. the United Kingdom, Éditions Plon v. France, and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France. The ECtHR considered this reliance on Strasbourg jurisprudence to be a relevant factor in assessing the adequacy of the domestic balancing exercise.

Upon examining the content of the contested article, the Court attached weight to the domestic courts’ conclusion that the publication contributed to a debate of general interest. National courts considered that the article addressed issues regarding the integration of unaccompanied foreign minors, the management of residential care centres, and the prevention of radicalisation, all of which were matters of heightened public concern at the time of publication. The Court accepted that these considerations were relevant under its case law on Article 10.

The ECtHR further noted that domestic courts carried out a detailed analysis of the language used in the article. They concluded that the references to “Islamic fundamentalism” did not, in themselves, imply violence, terrorism, or criminal conduct. The Supreme Court endorsed the lower courts’ assessment that the statements related to the applicants concerned the practice or promotion of a particular strand of Islam and did not amount to allegations of dishonourable or unlawful behaviour. In this regard, the Supreme Court stated: “The facts attributed to the applicants do not in themselves undermine [the applicants’] dignity or reputation in the eyes of others.”

With respect to the veracity requirement, the ECtHR argued that truthfulness does not require proof of absolute accuracy regarding every detail. Rather, it requires that journalists act with reasonable diligence to verify information before publication. The Court observed that the Supreme Court expressly applied this standard and examined whether the journalist took reasonable steps to verify the information, including reliance on official sources and attempts to obtain the centre’s version of events.

The Court accepted the domestic courts’ conclusion that the journalist acted in accordance with professional standards. It noted that national courts considered the sources relied upon were credible and that the journalist’s failure to obtain a response from the centre did not, in itself, undermine the diligence of the verification process. The ECtHR concluded there was no indication that the domestic courts’ assessment of journalistic conduct was arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.

Finally, the Court examined whether domestic courts had exceeded their margin of appreciation. It emphasised that national courts identified the relevant ECHR rights, relied on the Court’s case-law, examined the public interest in the subject matter, analysed the language and context of the article, and assessed the journalist’s diligence. In light of this comprehensive balancing exercise, the Court concluded that domestic courts acted within their margin of appreciation.

The Court therefore held that Spain did not fail to fulfill its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention. It concluded that there had been no violation of the applicants’ right to privacy, as the domestic courts’ dismissal of the civil defamation claim resulted from a balancing exercise that was compatible with the requirements of the ECHR.

---