A case against Ministry of Finance

HCLU filed a case on 4 September against the Ministry of Finance for not releasing information on a billion HUF deficit in the budget of 2006.

Dr. Tamás Katona, under-secretary was referring to this information as „trade secret” on a press conference, on 18 July, 2006. But after receiving our official request for public interest data, he referred to it as it was only a „forecast” that, in his opinion, was not being data.

Both of the arguments are quite interesting since the Civil Code clearly defines that state or municipal budget and data related to them cannot be considered trade secret. According to the data protection act, all the information recorded by state institutions is public interest data. This rule is obviously covers budget deficit related information.

HCLU cannot accept that the Ministry of Finance conceals information on utilization of a billion HUF and arbitrarily overwrites the fundamental norms of freedom of information. The Ministry’s denial is illegal and decreases the trust in the Hungarian State by intentionally neglecting the principles of a transparent state.

Share

Related articles

There is No Effective Control Over National Security - Three Civil Organizations File Complaints with the Constitutional Court

The Eötvös Károly Institute, the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, and Transparency International Hungary seek to jointly challenge the new Act on the protection of classified information, promulgated on April 1st, and several provisions of the Act on national security before the Constitutional Court.

Metropolitan Court Returns Decision on HCLU vs. National Police Headquarters (ORFK); The HCLU Plans to Appeal

Today, the HCLU has claimed partial victory in the lawsuit against the ORFK. The court has ordered the ORFK to make public such orders and practices which are of public interest. The HCLU will appeal the decision. Read the premise and the verdict!

Supreme Court Decision – Data on Budapest’s CCTV Is to Be Made Public

The important lesson in this case is that even though hundreds of cameras are monitoring our lives day and night, the police still do not have any evidence backing up the effectiveness of the CCTV in crime prevention. At least the Supreme Court, in it’s decision, has given back a piece of our right to personal privacy by making public when and where CCTVs are watching, thus we will be less at the mercy of those watching us. On the basis of public interest data, it will be easier to judge the price we have to pay for the promise of public safety.