FTC Support Group Association vs. Hungarian Football Federation 1:0

The FTC SGA initiated proceedings because the HFF rejected its request to access the list of members serving on the Licensor’s Committe. In 2006, the Committee decided on the exclusion of the FTC from the first division. Read on for the details.

Today, the Capitol Court handed down its first instance decision in the lawsuit initiated by the FTC SGA. The Group initiated prceedings to find out the names of members of the Licensor's Committee responsible for excluding the FTC from the first division.

In its decision –deemed groundbreaking by the HCLU – the Capitol Court ordered the HFF to make public the requested data, since the list of Committee members is considered public interest data.
The FTC SGA was represented by the HCLU legal-aid service.

Share

Related articles

Proposed constitution is serious threat to right to information

In yet another assault on freedom of expression and information, the Hungarian government adopted a new Constitution on Monday 18 April which will abolish independent oversight of the public’s right to know.

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.

HCLU Wins Landmark Freedom of Information Case

The Hungarian Ministry of Development and Economics is ordered to disclose data, which reveal what investments worth 200 billion Hungarian forints – nearly 800 million euros - were carried out by Swedish companies in exchange for the purchase of Gripen fighter-jets by the Hungarian Air Force. The journalist of on-line newspaper, origo.hu – with legal representation provided by the HCLU - has initiated a Freedom of Information lawsuit in December, 2007, because the Ministry has previously rejected to provide information to the journalist’s FOI request. According to the September 8th ruling of the Regional Court of Appeals, the defendant Ministry acted unlawfully.