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

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.