Hungarian Civil Liberties Union www.tasz.hu

1
Hungarian Civil Liberties Unionwww.tasz.hu

• Ádám Földes
• The Constitutional Court Case

2
Chronology

• 14th March 2004 petition of the MP at the Const.
  Court
• 14th September asking for the document
• 12th October refusal
• 7th November HCLUs petition at the
  Metropolitan Court
• 13th December Decision of the CC on the petition
• 24th January 2005 Decision of the Metropolitan
  Court
• 17th February Appeal to the Metropolitan
  Appellate Court
• 5th May Decision of the Metropolitan App. Court
• 1st June Amendment of the DP FOI Act
• August Extraordinary review at
  the Highest Court
• 3rd October Decision of the Highest Court
• November HCLUs case in Strasbourg

3
First Instance

• an MP and some of his friends has sent a petition
  to the CC
• MP made public that he has written a petition
• HCLU asked for the release of the public data
• the CC refused as according to the common
  practice of the CC without the clear intention of
  the petitioner the petition is not to be sent
• DP FOI Act
• The applicant shall be notified in writing,
  within 8 days, of the refusal of his application
  and of the reasons therefor.
• The burden of proof that the refusal was lawful
  and well-founded shall lie with the data
  processing organ.

4
HCLU as plaintiff

• the petition of the MP aims to challenge several
  rules of the Criminal Code which has effect on
  everybody
• the MP is holding a public office, his actions
  should be transparent
• the CC is a public authority which falls within
  the rule of the DP FOI Act
• the communication (petition) between two actors
  of the state should be accessible by anyone
• the CC failed to call on any legal ground or
  legal Act for refusing to disclose the document

5
Constitutional Court as defendant

• the CC does not fall under the rule of the DP
  FOI Act
• the procedures of the CC are not procedures of a
  state actor which could be raise any FOI issue
• the petition is a data prepared in connection
  with decision making
• the CC is not a data controller
• the petition consists the personal views of the
  petitioner therefore it is personal data

6
First Instance Decision

• the CC falls under the rule of the DP FOI Act
• the procedures of the CC are procedures of a
  state actor which could be raise any FOI issue
• the CC is a data controller
• but, the petition is not a data
• there is no definition of data in the DP FOI Act
  and the regulations regarding access to
  documents should not be understood as access to
  data of public interest
• The first definition od data is to be found in
  the Dictionary of the Hungarian Language - data
  fact, detail helping to know or describe somebody
  or something
• It has no legal importance if the petitioner is
  an MP acting for the public, as the document is
  not a data

7
Second Instance

• the petition is a document comprising data,
  information, opinions the definition of personal
  data and data of public interest is enough
  instead of a general data definition
• the petition consists the views of the petitioner
  thus it consists personal data which can not be
  disclosed without the permission of the MP

8
Extraordinary review

• In the HCLUs petition there was a secondary
  petition if the document consists any personal
  data, then disclose the document without these
  data. None of the courts have examined this part.

9
Finale

• Interview with the MP
• Strasbourg

10
Hungarian Civil Liberties Unionwww.tasz.hu

• Thank you!