Europe, Hungary: Wobbing is a human right recent judgement confirms

BRUSSELS -15 / 4 / 2009 - In a recent judgement by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg it is confirmed, that access to information is a human right to freedom of expression. The case was brought by a Hungarian NGO and tested the access to a court document as information of public interest.

The fight was about a complaint, a Hungarian Member of Parliament had filed with the Hungarian Constitutional Court in the course of adjustments of the criminal code on illegal drugs. The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union HCLU asked for this complaint, which was denied to the referring to the right of the author of the document to be heard.

The Constitutional Court denied the HCLU’s request, explaining that a complaint pending before the Court could not be made available to uninvolved parties without the approval of its author. The Constitutional Court never consulted the MP. In response, the HCLU pursued the case the Hungarian Supreme Court, where it was dismissed because the complaint was deemed to contain “personal data”. According to a press release of April 14th 2009 by HCLU legal advisor Tivadar Hüttl.

When the case was brought before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg alleging a breach of the human right to freedom of expression, the HCLU got the support by the judges.

In the court decision the censorial power of public authorities was emphasised - as they have an information monopoly in certain fields. This power must - the judgement states - be accompanied by a willingness to grant information to the public.

(...) the State's obligations in matters of freedom of the press include the elimination of barriers to the exercise of press functions where, in issues of public interest, such barriers exist solely because of an information monopoly held by the authorities. According to the ECHR judgement, point 36. 

And the judges continues with the balance between public figures right to privacy and the general public need for information:

(...)Court considers that it would be fatal for freedom of expression in the sphere of politics if public figures could censor the press and public debate in the name of their personality rights, alleging that their opinions on public matters are related to their person and therefore constitute private data which cannot be disclosed without consent. These considerations cannot justify, in the Court's view, the interference of which complaint is made in the present case. (point 37)

Furthermore the obligation not to discourage public watchdogs through withholding information is emphasised:

The Court considers that obstacles created in order to hinder access to information of public interest may discourage those working in the media or related fields from pursuing such matters. As a result, they may no longer be able to play their vital role as “public watchdogs” and their ability to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected. (point 38)

 Read the judgement (doc, 104 KB)

Read the press release by the ECHR (doc, 59 KB)