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

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.