HCLU wins case against the Ministry of Finance

The case was started against the Ministry of Finance after it denied access to data on public spending deficit of a hundred billion HUF.

The plaint was submitted on 4 Sept, 2006. The Ministry’s lawyer argued that the data requested by HCLU was only an estimate regarding an indefinite future figure that is not a data, therefore does not fall within the jurisdiction of Act LXIII of 1992 (on data protection and freedom of information).

According to HCLU’s attorney on that argument any kind of information or knowledge posessed by a state institution is a public interest data according to the Hungarian Freedom of Information Act. And also referring to the press conference where the deficit was announced it was clear that the estimate was based on relevant information. And also there was a precedent court decision saying the definition of data cannot be strictly interpreted as it is defined in the dictionary but in a broader context.

The court has dismissed the defendant’s argument and obliged the Ministry to publish the requested data within 15 days from receiving the verdict.

Learn more about the case

 

 

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.

Case against the Office of the Prime Minister

The Court of Appeal declared in its final judgment on the 21th of January 2009, that the minutes of the government meetings are data of public interest. Unfortunately, much information won’t be available for the public.

Final judgement of Capital Court in favor of Freedom of Information

The HCLU was contacted by a representative of Zöld Rádió Kht. (Green Radio) after failing to gain access to data on ad hoc winning tenders from the Radio and Television Commission. Previously, the Court in its first instance decison has ordered the Broadcasting Fund to issue the requested documentation, but since the defendant was not present at the reading of the verdict, the ruling did not come into effect.