Delay in the “Nuclear Trial”

The Metropolitan Court did not deliver its decision on appeal today in the lawsuit between Energy Club and the National Atomic Energy Agency’s Nuclear Safety Directorate (NAEA-NSD). The public still does not have access to the information on the expert opinions on the damage reduction process of the Paks Nuclear Power Plant.

Respondent NAEA-NSD submitted its motion to the court only yesterday, one day before the hearing, and sent it to the lawyer of Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU) only today as well.

The court held the hearing but did not want to deliver final decision without reviewing respondent’s motion.

Next hearing is scheduled on April 20, 2006, 1 pm. Location: II. District, Fekete Sas street 3. Room Nr.VIII.

 

Share

Related articles

Performance on International Freedom of Information Day

On Sepetember 28th, International Freedom of Information Day is celebrated in 40 countries worldwide. This year, it is celebrated in Hungary for the first time, organized by the HCLU during the Week of Civil Awareness.

Half the Battle Won in the “Nuclear” Lawsuit

The Court of Appeals sent the case back to the Metropolitan Court because the court of first instance was wrong in defining the expert opinions regarding the re-start of the Paks Nuclear Power Plant’s 2nd block were not public data. The Court of Appeals ruled that indeed they were public data, but it was possible that they were to be considered as trade secrets or fell under copyright laws. This however needed to be decided by the court of first instance in a re-trial.

Landmark decision on freedom of information by the European Court of Human Rights

The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union won a freedom of information case against the Republic of Hungary. For the first time, the right to access to state-held information as part of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been formally recognized, as reflected in today’s ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. The Strasbourg based Court declared that withholding information needed to participate in public debate on matters of public importance may violate the freedom of expression.