Background

In Tafzi El Hadri and El Idrissi Mouch v Spain 7557/23 [2026] ECHR 4, the applicants were working in 2011 as “social educators” at the C.V. residential centre for minors in Barcelona, which was run by a private foundation. The residents at the centre included 26 boys from Maghreb, Morocco. An article in ABC, one of the best-selling Spanish newspapers, alleged that such centres, including the C.V. residential centre, fostered Islamist radicalisation – and it named specific educators, including El Idrissi Mouch [6]. The article included a centre-page summary, as follows:

“From rootlessness to active Islamism

Educators In the recruitment, [their] ability to communicate with Moroccan minors is prioritised, so in nearly all cases Maghrebi Islamists are recruited.

Preaching Educators indoctrinate minors in the most radical form of Islam [el islamismo más radical] in order to prevent them from integrating into the ‘corrupt’ West, taking them to the most fundamentalist mosques to pray.

Ghettos In a centre in Barcelona, 24 out of 26 minors are from Tangier, and one of their educators is from Justice and Charity, one of the most radical strands of Islam.

Destination Iraq Groups of Islamists have been detected who, after leaving the centre for minors, fought in Iraq. Others frequented the circles of the perpetrators of 11-M [the terrorist attacks in Madrid on 11 March 2004]” [7].

The foundation opened disciplinary proceedings but later discontinued them, while staff publicly rejected the article as false and discriminatory. The centre’s director wrote to the Consortium of Social Services of Barcelona denying that there was any radicalism at the centre and defended the educators’ professionalism [10]. The centre’s contract was not renewed, and it closed in 2012 [11]. The applicants filed both civil and criminal complaints against ABC, but the domestic courts dismissed them, holding that the article was protected by freedom of expression and did not constitute a criminal offence [12-42].

The arguments

Before the Fifth Section ECtHR, the applicants argued that, in rejecting their civil claim against ABC and the journalist, the domestic courts had failed to protect their right to their reputations, contrary to Article 8, because they had not looked at the negative impact that the publication had had on their professional lives, that the journalist had not acted with the required diligence; and that the publication could have contributed to the emergence of hate speech [64].

The Government countered that the ABC article had not alleged that the applicants had indoctrinated minors in “jihad” or encouraged them to engage in “holy war” or carry out violent acts of any kind and, in the case of the first applicant, references had been made to his membership of a socio-political movement called “Justice and Charity” which put forward a conservative interpretation of Islamic tenets that rejected violence. That could not in itself be considered offensive, humiliating or contrary to the right to one’s reputation in domestic law. Similarly, none of the statements made about the second applicant were insulting, humiliating or offensive to the extent of damaging his reputation. Nor had the article had any noticeable impact on the applicants’ professional lives. Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against only one applicant and discontinued within a week. That remained the only effect of the publication, and otherwise, they had continued to work at the centre after the article was published. The alleged attack on their reputation did not, therefore, attain a level of seriousness required for Article 8 to be engaged [65].

Judgment

The Fifth Section dismissed the application unanimously. The domestic courts had acted within their margin of appreciation when seeking to establish a balance between the applicants’ rights under Article 8 and the newspaper’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10, and had done so in conformity with the criteria laid down in their case‑law. It could see no strong reasons to substitute its own view for that of the domestic courts. There had therefore been no breach of Article 8 [114].