We asked for a Review of the Supreme Court in our legal proceedings against the Constitutional Court

In the litigation against the Constitutional Court, we have approached the Supreme Court to overrule the legally binding decision of the Court of Appeals.

We have decided to use this extraordinary legal redress, because in our opinion the Court of Appeals made an unlawful decision in our litigation against the Constitutional Court. We wanted the courts to decide whether the Constitutional Court is required to share the motion of a Member of Parliament and his/her colleagues as public data. According to the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the motion reflects the personal opinion of the people putting it forward, so that data is defined as personal in nature and thus cannot be shared without the prior consent of the people in question.

The Court of Appeals could not come to a decision during this proceeding since the court of first instance came to an opposing decision and there was no proof given to the effect that the required data were trade secrets or would fall under the category of copyright.

For this reason the Court of Appeals asked the Court of First Instance for a re-trial, in which they had to decide whether the Constitutional Court was right in refusing sharing the information with the reasoning that these data were trade secrets or fell under the category of copyright. In the new proceedings the question has to be decided according to the guidelines of today’s decision.

Share

Related articles

Supreme Court Decision – Data on Budapest’s CCTV Is to Be Made Public

The important lesson in this case is that even though hundreds of cameras are monitoring our lives day and night, the police still do not have any evidence backing up the effectiveness of the CCTV in crime prevention. At least the Supreme Court, in it’s decision, has given back a piece of our right to personal privacy by making public when and where CCTVs are watching, thus we will be less at the mercy of those watching us. On the basis of public interest data, it will be easier to judge the price we have to pay for the promise of public safety.

A case against Ministry of Finance

HCLU filed a case on 4 September against the Ministry of Finance for not releasing information on a billion HUF deficit in the budget of 2006.

Secret Microsoft-Ministry Contracts Worth Billions

In the summer of 2006, the HCLU turned to the Ministry of Economy and Transportation and the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement requesting public interest data on the billions worth of contracts between the ministries and Microsoft.