EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

309
14.04.09

Press release issued by the Registrar

CHAMBER JUDGMENT
TÁRSASÁG A SZABADSÁGJOGOKÉRT v. HUNGARY

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment1 in
the case of Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary (application no. 37374/05).

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of
expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the applicant
organisation having been denied access to a complaint lodged by a parliamentarian with the
Constitutional Court asking it to review recent legislative amendments.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that the finding of a
violation constituted sufficient just compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered.
The applicant association was awarded 3,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The
judgment is available only in English.)

1. Principal facts

The applicant, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért (the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union), is an

association founded in 1994 and registered in Hungary with its seat in Budapest. It is a
non-governmental organisation which aims to promote fundamental rights as well as to
strengthen civil society and the rule of law in Hungary; it is active in the field of drug policy.

The case concerned the claim of the applicant organisation that it was refused access to a
complaint which was pending before the Constitutional Court and in which a parliamentarian
requested constitutional review of amendments to the Criminal Code with regard to drug-
related offences.

In October 2004, after the Constitutional Court denied the applicant organisation access to the
above-mentioned complaint, the organisation brought proceedings in which it sought to
oblige the Constitutional Court to change its decision. While those proceedings were pending,
on 13 December 2004 the Constitutional Court publicly delivered a decision on the
constitutionality of that complaint; the decision contained a summary of the complaint itself.

1 Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to
the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the
Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the
interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in
which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will
reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on
the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to
refer.
 -2-

More than a month after the Constitutional Court’s decision, the court dealing with the
proceedings brought by the applicant organisation dismissed its request; this dismissal was
confirmed on appeal. The courts considered in particular that the information requested by
the applicant was personal and could not be accessed without the author’s approval. Such
protection of personal data could not be overridden by other lawful interests, including the
accessibility of public information.

2. Procedure and composition of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 October 2005
and declared admissible on 13 November 2008.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Francoise Tulkens (Belgium), President,

Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal),
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy),
Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania),
Dragoljub Popović (Serbia),
Andras Sajo (Hungary),
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,

and also Sally Dollé, Section Registrar.

3. Summary of the judgment2

Complaint

Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, Társaság a

Szabadságjogokért alleged that the refusal with regard to the constitutional complaint
breached its right to have access to information of public interest.

Decision of the Court

The Court first noted that the case essentially concerned an interference with the functioning
of a social watchdog, such as the press, and was not to be examined as a denial of a general
right of access to official documents. It emphasised that the State’s obligations under Article
10 included the breaking down of barriers to the press exercising its right to freedom of
expression on matters of public interest, especially when such barriers existed solely because
of an information monopoly held by the authorities. The information sought by the applicant
had been ready and available and had not required the collection of any data by the
Government; consequently, the State had had an obligation not to impede the flow of
information sought. If public figures were allowed to censor the press and public debate in
the name of their own personal rights, it would be disastrous for freedom of expression in the
sphere of politics. Therefore, in this case, the obstacles that had been created in order to
hinder access to information of public interest had been capable of discouraging those
working in the media or related fields from pursuing such a matter. The Court held
accordingly that the applicant organisation had been prevented from exercising its role of a

2 This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

 -3-

public watchdog, and from providing accurate and reliable information to the public, in
violation of Article 10.

***

The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Press contacts
Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)
Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30)
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70)
Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe
Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on
Human Rights.