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

Landmark decision on freedom of information by the European Court of Human Rights

The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union won a freedom of information case against the Republic of Hungary. For the first time, the right to access to state-held information as part of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been formally recognized, as reflected in today’s ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. The Strasbourg based Court declared that withholding information needed to participate in public debate on matters of public importance may violate the freedom of expression.

HCLU wins case against the Ministry of Finance

The case was started against the Ministry of Finance after it denied access to data on public spending deficit of a hundred billion HUF.

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.