The Supreme Court has dismissed the HCLU vs. Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement lawsuit

Today, the Supreme Court reached its verdict in a second instance decision. The decision was to dismiss the lawsuit. You can find the details by clicking on!

The HCLU requested public interest data relating to the issueing of the draft of the Constitution. The HCLU appealed the final verdict and asked for a review proceeding at the Supreme Court.

During today’s review proceedings, the court has dismissed previous verdicts, stating that proceedings should have been initiated against the person of József Petrétei and not József Petrétei, then Minister of Justice and Law Enforcement.

It is the HCLU’s opinion that no substantive verdict was reached, and that the object of the lawsuit still awaits to be answered.

 

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.