HCLU on the Corruption Package

The HCLU sent its opinion to the Members of Parliament on the draft amendment submitted by the government, which aims to establish new institutions in its fight against corruption.

Considering that within the current legal frame competent authorities are unable to reach results in the fight against corruption, we believe it is necessary to establish a strong, legally authorized institution to better this bitter situation. We especially welcome regulation on the protection of those who report malpractices, as this will lead to more citizens disclosing information on behalf of the public.

Besides its many positive elements, the package does need supplementation. In its opinion sent to MPs, the HCLU suggested to extend the legal range of territories, as it currently excludes many territories where corruption is flourishing. The HCLU also have strong concerns about the regulation on the election of the director of the new institution, which foreshadow that the director may not be politically unattached.

It is a regrettable, that despite the thorough amendment on laws regulating lobbying being present in the original draft, it was excluded from the text submitted to the Parliament. In 2009, only 33 substantive reports reached the competent Ministry of Justice. This reflects the malfunctions of the lobby regulations, even though it is clear that the number of those trying to validate their business interests through contacting decision makers is much higher.

Share

Related articles

Farmsubsidy.org is holding a conference in Budapest- publicity of farm subsidies in focus

The European Union spends 43.5 billion Euros yearly on farm subsidies, which is 40% of the budget. From this amount 100 Euros per year could be alluded to each European Union citizen. Would you like to know who receives this money?

Nuclear case - still no access to details of the damage reduction process in the Paks Nuclear Plant

The Capital Court of Appeal has made a decision on 20 April about the lawsuit of Energy Club and National Atomic Energy Agency’s Nuclear Safety Directorate (NAEA-NSD) in the second instance court. The judiciary overruled the judgement of the first instance court and ordered to initiate a new proceeding. In the lawsuit HCLU represents the suitor. The appeal does not lie against this decision which is, though favourable, still does not result the access to the demanded data.

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.