Out of turn in legal acts according to data of public interest

HCLU, Védegylet and Energia Klub has written a letter to Mr. Zoltán Lomnici, Chairman of Supreme Court, we disapproved slowness the judicial proceedings according to the failure of Paks Nuclear Power Plant’s block nr. 2.

It is sad, that courts don’t assert with competent definiteness against governmental organizations which deny the data requests, moreover aren’t afraid of the lawsuit’s postponement. Courts are considerably forgiving to the defendants who default make the demonstrating proposals despite multiple summons. Altough by the Law of Security Guards the data requests denying organizations should prove that their data aren’t public. This case isn’t unique: our lawsuit against BRFK (Headquarter of Budapest Police) the statement of claim has arrived to the Court on 29th November 2004 and they appointed the first trial on the 5th of December 2005.

The text of our letter:                                                            
                                                                                         Budapest, 17th December 2006

Dear Mr. President,

Energia Klub, E-misszó Egyesület, Greenpeace Hungary, Haveas Corpus Munkacsoport, HCLU, Védegylet and Zöld Fiatalok began a legal action on Capital Court again Országos Atomenergia Hivatal Nukleáris Biztonsági Igazgatósága (OAH NBI) in the case of issuance (as a data of public interest) the application of reseting permit of Paks Nuclear Power Plant’s block nr. 2 on 29 September 2004 (first action at law).

Energia Klub began a legal action on Capital Court again OAH NBI in the case of issuance (as a data of public interest) the application permit (presented by Paks Nuclear Power Plant) referring prevention of damage of the breakdown happened in 2003 of Paks Nuclear Power Plant’s block nr. 2 on 29th April 2005 (second action at law).

By Act of LXVIII. 21. § (6) par about protection of personal data and data of public interest in these cases courts should have proceeded in specially prompt despatch, which is the guarantee of fruition of liberty of information (which is a constitutional right).

In the first action the proceeding court appointed the first trial on 30th March 2005 – so past 6 months from the statement of claim’s petitioner-, then –within the 5 months- advanced it for 25th February. By Act of Pp. 125. § (3) par it should take the first trial within 4 months from the statement of claim’s petitioner in every case (in the non- out of turn cases as well). Fővárosi Ítélőtábla has invalidated the judgement of first instance, stated the content of proving obligation encumbering the defendant in its warrant and instructed the court of first instance for a new proceeding.

The secondary warrant is dated on 8th September 2005, but we has come to hand it only on 27th March 2006. The defendant hasn’t presented any proving proposal neither after receiving of secondary warrant nor on the first trial of the renewed proceed on 12th July 2006. Finally the proceeding court fulfiled the defendant’s proving proposal (presented defectively and defaulted on 25th September 2006). Considering the professional verification they have postponed the appointed term of 8th December 2006 to 7th March 2007.

In the second action Fővárosi Ítélőtábla has invalidated the judgement of first instance, too. In the renewed proceed the first trial was on 27th September 2006, where the court appointed a new term for 25th October 2006. On the new term people on the corridor of the court were informed the trial was cancelled because of the illness of judge. The plaintiff hasn’t informed officially about cancelling of trial and appointing the new term since the past 60 days from the term.

Dear Mr. President,

In the first action we are wondering the information correlating the reseting, while the reseting happened. In the second action we would like to know the information correlating the prevention of damage, but it is to be feared that the process of the prevention of damage will be ending before the renewed proceeding will be closed. Specially prompt despatch is a constitutional guarantee of fruition of liberty of information- in this case to have information about our environment concerning the future generations in the right time. We are sorry to lay down that the judge’s establishment can not validate the rules of guarantee in these cases, and the cases has got too much default according to general practices.

Ada Ámon- Energia Klub
Ádám Földes- HCLU
Benedek Jávor- Védegylet

 

Share

Related articles

Report on a FOI lawsuit against the Atomic Energy Authority

The HCLU together with seven other environmental and legal defence NGOs sued the Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority (HAEA) as it has refused to present data of public interest. The first court hearing was on 25th February 2005.

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.

The state, too, can access my phone records?

In its judgement, the Court of Justice of the European Union has declared the Data Retention Directive invalid. Based on the Directive, service providers were keeping phone records and other personal data for 6 months. We have decided to undertake the lengthy process of actually eliminating this European law in Hungary.