CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 9 mars 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s945796C9 { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s8565C3AF { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF13A94BC { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s695099B3 { width:10.89pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEAB539EC { width:7.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3F015572 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s833B1EA7 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4859184F { width:7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s554D0A64 { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC15FC45D { width:3.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s35B94E0 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC0FFF6FB { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 68.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sD46FFE5D { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s70E0A597 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 85.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s5336AA44 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 102.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s8E0B8B88 { width:8.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF53451E7 { width:5.9pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBB31CFFC { width:3.67pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA98EF83E { width:3.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s72A8FB50 { width:5.34pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s1F7F12F1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE9B40630 { width:19.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s268C7FF6 { width:6.17pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE01501FE { width:2.52pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sFC1F2909 { width:0.52pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF1DA7A37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .s5CD64447 { width:5.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9B452C60 { width:229.84pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sEB4DEF1F { font-family:Arial; color:#161616 } .s92AD4DF8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8.5pt } .s1E2B8B97 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6F528BB2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s29C78118 { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9B8A8274 { font-family:Arial; color:#231f20 } .s971D46EF { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#231f20 } .sB9541D82 { font-family:Arial; color:#212121 } .sF023082F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s48FC6C54 { width:23.87pt; display:inline-block } .s446E0F47 { width:141.09pt; display:inline-block } .sA8208715 { width:9.2pt; display:inline-block } .s7BF29C1E { width:139.76pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s41FA6267 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:6.9pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sFFA96132 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:15.99pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:2.46pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE0506AC6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; text-transform:uppercase } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s43BAAE22 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:16.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.78pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF L.B. v. HUNGARY (Application no. 36345/16)   JUDGMENT Art 8 • Private life • Unjustified publication of applicant’s identifying data, including home address, on tax authority website portal for failing to fulfil his tax obligations • Legitimate aims of enhancing tax system’s efficiency, improving tax discipline and providing insight to third parties into tax debtors’ fiscal situation • Wide State margin of appreciation in establishing scheme for dissemination of personal data of taxpayers who fail to comply with tax obligations • Legislature’s failure to strike fair balance between competing public and private interests at stake • No requirement of an individualised proportionality assessment by tax authority • No assessment of the necessity to publish tax debtor’s home address in order to achieve deterrent effect • No assessment of the impact on the right to privacy, especially in light of the medium used for dissemination (Internet) • Legislature’s failure to devise appropriately tailored responses in light of data minimisation principle and other data protection considerations   STRASBOURG 9 March 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION PROCEDURE THE FACTS I.   BACKGROUND II.   THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.   Tax inspection proceedings B.   Publication of the applicant’s data C.   Subsequent developments RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE I.   RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW II.   OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL III.   RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIAL AND EUROPEAN UNION LAW A.   Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data B.   Directive 95/46/EC C.   Regulation 2016/679 D.   CJEU case-law on data protection IV.   Comparative-law material THE LAW I.   SCOPE OF THE CASE BEFORE THE GRAND CHAMBER A.   The Government’s preliminary objection ratione materiae concerning the alleged loss of reputation 1.   The parties’ submissions 2.   The Court’s assessment B.   The Government’s preliminary objection concerning the search interface 1.   The parties’ submissions 2.   The Court’s assessment C.   The Government’s preliminary objection concerning the republication of the applicant’s personal data 1.   The parties’ submissions 2.   The Court’s assessment D.   The Grand Chamber’s conclusion on the scope of the case II.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.   The Chamber judgment B.   The parties’ submissions before the Grand Chamber 1.   The applicant 2.   The Government C.   The Court’s assessment 1.   Existence of an interference 2.   Lawfulness 3.   Legitimate aim 4.   Necessary in a democratic society (a)   Preliminary remarks (b)   Scope and operation of the margin of appreciation (i)   General considerations (ii)   Data protection principles (iii)   General measures and the quality of parliamentary review (iv)   The degree of consensus at national and European level (v)   Conclusions 5.   Application of the above principles and considerations to the present case (a)   Legislative and policy framework (b)   Conclusion III.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage B.   Costs and expenses C.   Default interest OPERATIVE PROVISIONS CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE KŪRIS PARTLY CONCURRING AND PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF   JUDGE SERGHIDES JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES WOJTYCZEK AND PACZOLAY   In the case of L.B. v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary,   Robert Spano,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Ksenija Turković,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Valeriu Griţco,   Egidijus Kūris,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Péter Paczolay,   Ivana Jelić,   Raffaele Sabato,   Saadet Yüksel,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   Ioannis Ktistakis , judges , and Søren Prebensen, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 December 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the publication of the applicant’s personal data on a list of major tax debtors on the website of the National Tax and Customs Authority, for failure to comply with his tax obligations. The applicant alleged that the publication infringed his right to respect for private life as protected by Article 8 of the Convention. PROCEDURE 2.     The case originated in an application (no. 36345/16) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Hungarian national, Mr L.B. (“the applicant”), on 7 June 2016. The President of the Grand Chamber acceded to the applicant’s request not to have his name disclosed (Rule   47   §   4 of the Rules of Court). 3.     The applicant was represented by Mr D. Kiss and Mr D. Karsai, lawyers practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, from the Ministry of Justice. 4.     On 18 October 2017 the Government were given notice of the application. 5.     The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule   52 § 1). On 12 January 2021 a Chamber of that Section composed of Yonko Grozev, President, Iulia Antoanella Motoc, Branko Lubarda, Carlo   Ranzoni, Georges Ravarani, Jolien Schukking and Péter Paczolay, and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar, delivered its judgment. The Chamber unanimously declared the applicant’s complaint concerning Article 8 of the Convention admissible, and the remainder of the application inadmissible. It held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The dissenting opinion of Judges Ravarani and Schukking was annexed to the judgment. 6.     On 8 April 2021, in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, the applicant requested the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber. The panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request on 31 May 2021. 7.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule   24. Robert   Spano’s   term as President of the Court came to an end.   Síofra O’Leary succeeded him in that capacity and took over the presidency of the Grand Chamber in the present case (Rule 9 § 2).   Robert Spano, Ksenija Turković , and Valeriu Griţco continued to sit following the expiry of their terms of office, in accordance with Article   23   §   3 of the Convention and Rule   24   §   4.   By virtue of   Rule 24   § 3,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, who was prevented from sitting,   was replaced by Raffaele Sabato. 8.     The applicant and the Government each filed written observations (Rule 59 § 1) on the merits of the case. 9.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 3 November 2021. There appeared before the Court:   (a)     for the Government Mr   Z. Tallódi , Agent , Ms   M. Weller , Co-Agent ,   Ms   H. Vizi, Adviser ;   (b)     for the applicant Mr   D.B. Kiss , Mr   D. A. Karsai, Counsel ; Ms   E. Mihály,   Ms   E. Frank, Mr     J. Nagy   Advisers.   The Court heard addresses by Mr Tallódi and Mr Karsai, as well as their replies to questions put by the Court. THE FACTS BACKGROUND 10 .     Since 1996 the Hungarian tax administration system has allowed limits to be placed on taxpayer confidentiality in the public interest, requiring the National Tax and Customs Authority ( Nemzeti Adó és Vámhivatal , hereinafter “the Tax Authority”) to publish data which would otherwise be subject to taxpayer confidentiality. The first publications concerned taxpayers whose tax arrears exceeded 10 million Hungarian forints (HUF), or in the case of legal entities HUF 100 million (corresponding to approximately 28,000 euros (EUR) and EUR 280,000 respectively) ( nagy összegű adóhiánnyal rendelkező adózók , hereinafter “list of major tax defaulters”), and those who engaged in business activities without registering with the Tax Authority (section 48(3)(a) of Act no. XCI of 1990 on Tax Administration). 11 .     On 10 November 2003 Parliament passed Act no. XCII of 2003 on Tax Administration (hereinafter “the 2003 Tax Administration Act”), which was then promulgated on 14 November 2003 and entered into force on 1   January 2004. The 2003 Tax Administration Act left the obligation to publish the data of taxpayers with tax arrears unchanged: section 55(3) prescribed the publication of a list of major tax defaulters containing the data of taxpayers whose tax arrears exceeded HUF 10 million (in the case of private individuals). This provision required the Tax Authority to publish the taxpayer’s name, home address, commercial premises (where applicable) and tax identification number, as well as the amount of the tax arrears and the legal consequences for taxpayers in respect of whom a final decision established that they had taxes in arrears for the previous quarter and that they had failed to fulfil their payment obligations within the time prescribed by the decision. 12 .     According to the explanatory note to the Draft Bill concerning sections 53 to 55 on “taxpayer confidentiality”, the text incorporated the provisions on taxpayer confidentiality contained in the previous legislation and explained the exceptional circumstances in which disclosure of tax data was permissible. The explanatory note stated as follows: “The purpose of strict regulation of taxpayer confidentiality is to protect the right to privacy and business confidentiality. There is a fundamental interest in the protection of the private sphere of taxpayers and in the prevention of dissemination of their private data to unauthorised persons. The detailed and – even by international standards – strict regulation of taxpayer confidentiality, and the inaccessibility of tax data to the public or third persons, serve as a guarantee, since the tax authority is necessarily in possession of vital information obtained through tax returns and tax inspections, among other sources. The legislation obliges both the tax authority and any persons who have accessed tax data for the fulfilment of their tasks to preserve the confidentiality of tax data. Breaches of taxpayer confidentiality are sanctioned by criminal law. The protection of taxpayer confidentiality is an obligation for tax officials, experts and anybody else who obtains knowledge of confidential tax information, for instance during the processing of tax data, tax deduction or advance tax deduction. The unauthorised use or publication of data, or rendering the data accessible to unauthorised persons, constitute a breach of taxpayer confidentiality ... Section 54 regulates the conditions for authorised use and the obligation to provide information. Section 55 regulates exceptional situations in which the tax authority is entitled to disclose tax data. This is only possible if the taxpayer has provided false information or provided accurate information in a misleading manner, or if the tax authority has assessed a particularly high amount of unpaid tax. Furthermore, the preconditions for the tax authority to be authorised to publicly refute false information are that the information is capable of undermining public confidence in the work of the public administration, that the Minister of Finance has given his or her authorisation and that the person concerned has been heard.” 13 .     On 10 July 2006 Parliament passed Act no. LXI of 2006 amending certain pieces of financial legislation ­ – twenty legislative acts in total – including the 2003 Tax Administration Act (“the 2006 Amending Act”). Section   114 of the 2006 Amending Act added to section 55 of the 2003 Tax Administration Act a new subsection (5), which prescribed the publication of a list of major tax debtors containing the personal data – the name (company name) and home address (registered office) – of tax debtors ( nagy összegű adótartozással rendelkező adózók ) whose tax debts exceeded HUF 10   million over a period longer than 180 days (hereinafter the “list of major tax debtors”, see paragraph   30 below). 14 .     The explanatory report to the Act contained the following passage concerning section 55(5) of the 2003 Tax Administration Act: “With a view to strengthening the clarity and reliability of economic relations and encouraging law-abiding conduct by the taxpayer, for years the tax authority has followed the practice of publishing the data of tax defaulters who have fallen behind in paying a significant amount of tax which has been established in a final decision. Since significant debts may originate not only from tax arrears revealed during a tax inspection, and ... regular non-payment may constitute extremely important information for contractual parties about a taxpayer’s solvency, the Act also makes it possible to publish the data of taxpayers who have owed a large debt for a long time.” 15.     The background document submitted by the Minister of Finance to Parliament pointed out, under the heading “Whitening the economy”, that the amendments broadened the categories of taxpayers whose personal data could be published by the Tax Authority. 16 .     During the general debate held on 20 June 2006, the Minister of Finance explained to Parliament, regarding the amendments to the 2003 Tax Administration Act, that further steps were necessary in order to “whiten the economy” and to reinforce the capacities of the tax and customs authorities to collect State revenue efficiently. 17 .     A further amendment to the 2003 Tax Administration Act in 2010 required the Tax Authority to publish a list of taxpayers in respect of whom a final administrative or court decision had established that they had employed undeclared employees (section 55(6)). This list included the taxpayer’s name, registered office, tax identification number (in the case of business entities) and address (in the case of private individuals), as well as the date of the final decision. In 2017 the categories of taxpayers subject to disclosure were extended to include those persons who had failed to submit their tax returns for two consecutive years (section 55(8)). 18 .     After the events which are the subject of the present case, a further change to the regulation of tax administration came into effect on 1   January 2018 with the entry into force of Act no. CL of 2017 (“the 2017 Tax Administration Act”). It maintained the publication obligation in respect of tax defaulters and tax debtors. Under the current system the Tax Authority also publishes a list of taxpayers against whom enforcement proceedings have been initiated (section 266(d)), a list of employers who have failed to declare their employees to the tax authorities (section 265), a list of taxpayers who have failed to declare their value-added tax for two consecutive years (section   266(l)) and a list of taxpayers whose tax number has been revoked as a sanction, making it unlawful for them to continue the business activities for which registration is required under the fiscal legislation (section 266(c)). In addition, the Tax Authority makes available on its website a list of taxpayers who have no tax debts vis-à-vis the public revenue (section 260) and a list of so-called “reliable taxpayers” (section 261). Since the enactment of the amendments to the 2017 Tax Administration Act (in force since 1   January 2020) the Tax Authority is furthermore under an obligation to create a search interface that allows access to the data of tax debtors from previous years (dating back to 31 December 2014). This database does not provide access to the full tax debtors’ lists from previous years, but enables users to search for information about taxpayers by their names. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 19.     The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Budapest. Tax inspection proceedings 20.     In 2013 the Tax Authority carried out a tax inspection in respect of the applicant concerning the 2008-2010 fiscal years, assessing the applicant’s income tax liability. By a decision of 3 July 2013 the Tax Authority found that the applicant had a tax deficit of HUF 290,738,542 (approximately EUR   800,000) which was classified as tax arrears. It established that between 5   January and 29 December 2010 the applicant had withdrawn HUF   715,025,000 (approximately EUR 2,018,000) from the bank account of a limited liability company of which he had previously been the founder and managing director, but with which he no longer had a legal relationship at the material time. There had been no trace of these financial operations in the company’s tax documents and the applicant had paid no income tax on that revenue. The Tax Authority fined the applicant HUF   219,948,110 (approximately EUR 603,000) and ordered him to pay an additional HUF   67,531,880 (approximately EUR 185,000) in interest. On appeal the second-instance Tax Authority found that the applicant’s tax arrears amounted to HUF 227,985,686 (approximately EUR 625,000), and reduced the fine to HUF 170,883,486 (approximately EUR 490,000) and the interest to HUF 52,999,572 (approximately EUR 145,000). 21 .     The applicant sought judicial review of the second-instance administrative decision. By a decision of 15 October 2014 the Budapest Surroundings Administrative and Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action. According to the court’s findings the applicant had established a limited liability company on 24 February 2009, of which he had been managing director until 12 November 2009. Subsequently, the company had been sold within short intervals to different foreign and Hungarian owners. The company had neither the personnel nor the material resources necessary to carry out any meaningful activity. In 2010 the applicant and the company’s accountant had issued invoices for fictitious supplies in a total amount of approximately HUF 100 million. The payment for those fictitious invoices had been made into the company’s bank account, from where the applicant, between 5 January and 29 December 2010, had withdrawn HUF 715,025,000 (approximately EUR 2,018,000) in cash, on which he had paid no income tax at all. The court found that, although the applicant maintained that he had transferred the amount in question to various business partners, the invoices he had submitted to the court as evidence had been fabricated. 22.     The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Kúria. 23 .     The Kúria upheld the first-instance judgment on 11 June 2015. It endorsed the reasoning of the administrative authorities and the first-instance court, according to which the applicant had not paid income tax and could not substantiate his allegations with evidence that he had passed on the HUF   715,025,000 that he had withdrawn from the company’s bank account to the company’s business partners. 24.     The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint alleging a violation of his right to a fair trial and right to equal treatment, and a violation of the principle of rule of law. In the Constitutional Court’s understanding the applicant was challenging in essence the facts established by the tax authorities and was seeking the reassessment of evidence, both of which lay outside the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. The complaint was therefore declared inadmissible on 7 November 2017. Publication of the applicant’s data 25 .     In the last quarter of 2014 the Tax Authority published the applicant’s personal data, including his name and home address, on the list of major tax defaulters on its website. This measure was provided for by section 55(3) of the 2003 Tax Administration Act; see paragraphs 11 above and 30 below) . 26 .     Subsequently – in the applicant’s submission, as of 27 January 2016 – the applicant appeared on the list of “major tax debtors” which was also made available on the Tax Authority’s website, pursuant to section 55(5) of the 2003 Tax Administration Act (see paragraphs 13 above and 30 below). The applicant’s name and home address were published on the list. 27.     On 16 February 2016 an online media outlet produced an interactive map called “the national map of tax debtors”. The applicant’s home address, along with the addresses of other tax debtors (altogether 3,624 persons), was indicated with a red dot, and if a person clicked on the dot the applicant’s personal information (name and home address) appeared, thus making the data available to all readers. 28 .     On 5 July 2019 the applicant’s personal data were removed from the list of major tax debtors when his tax arrears became time-barred.   Subsequent developments 29 .     Following the entry into force of the amendments to the 2017 Tax Administration Act on 1 January 2020 (see paragraph 18 above), the applicant’s personal data, together with information on which fiscal years his tax debts related to, became accessible through the search interface on the Tax Authority’s website. The applicant provided no information as to whether he had sought the erasure of his personal data in accordance with the relevant provisions of domestic and EU law (see further below). RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 30 .     The relevant parts of the 2003 Tax Administration Act, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: Section 53 “(1) Taxpayer confidentiality covers any information, data, facts, ruling, decision, certificate or document concerning taxation. ... ... The tax authority should keep confidential all documents, data, information and circumstances of which it acquires knowledge in the course of its official proceedings.” Section 55 “... (3)     Within 30 days following the end of the quarter, the tax authority shall publish on its website, on the list of major tax defaulters ( nag   összegű adóhiánnyal rendelkező adózók közzétételi listája ), the names, places of residence, commercial premises, places of business and tax identification numbers of taxpayers in respect of whom a final decision has assessed that they have tax arrears ( adóhiány ) in excess of 10 million Hungarian forints – in the case of private individuals – or in excess of 100   million Hungarian forints – in the case of other taxpayers – for the previous quarter, along with the amount of tax arrears and the legal consequences of the taxpayer failing to fulfil his or her payment obligation prescribed in the relevant final decision by the deadline also prescribed in that decision. For the purposes of this subsection, a decision of the Tax Authority may not be considered final if the time-limit for judicial review has not yet expired, or if court proceedings initiated by the taxpayer for a review of the decision have not been concluded. ... (5)     Within thirty days following the end of the quarter, and on a quarterly basis, the tax authority shall publish on its website, on the list of major tax debtors (those who owe a large amount of tax, nagy összegű adótartozással rendelkező adózók közzétételi listája ), the names (corporate names),   home addresses, registered offices, places of business and tax identification numbers of those taxpayers who have owed tax debts ( adótartozás ) to the tax authority exceeding 100 million Hungarian forints in total, minus any overpayment, or 10 million Hungarian forints in total in the case of private individuals, for a period longer than 180 consecutive days. ...” Section 170 “(1) Tax arrears shall be sanctioned by tax penalties. Unless otherwise provided for by this Act, the tax penalty shall be 50 % of the tax arrears on which it is imposed. The tax penalty shall be 200 % of the tax arrears if it relates to the concealment of revenues or the falsification or destruction of documents, books or records. The tax authority shall also impose a tax penalty on taxpayers who apply for tax exemptions, subsidies or tax refunds without being eligible or who file declarations concerning tax exemptions, subsidies or refunds, and whose ineligibility is established by the tax authority prior to disbursement. The penalty in such cases shall be based on the amount claimed for which the taxpayer was not eligible. (2) A tax deficit established in respect of a taxpayer shall be regarded as tax arrears; in the case of self-assessment, it shall be regarded as such only if the tax deficit has not been paid by the due date or if central subsidies have been claimed. Any overpayment existing on the due date can be considered as a payment in respect of tax liability only if the overpayment exists on the day when the tax compliance proceedings are opened. ...” Interpretative provisions Section 178 “For the purposes of this Act and – unless otherwise prescribed by law – other legislation on taxes: ... 3. ‘tax deficit’ shall mean the difference between the amount of tax or central subsidy, whether or not declared (reported), and the amount assessed on the basis of a tax return (declaration) and subsequently levied by the tax authority, or any tax revenues unpaid owing to tax evasion, as established by the final decision of a criminal court, or a central subsidy received for which the taxpayer was not eligible; 4. ‘tax debt’ shall mean the amount of tax unpaid when due and any central subsidies received for which the taxpayer was not eligible; ...” 31 .     The explanatory report to the Act contained the following passage concerning section 55(5) of the 2003 Tax Administration Act: “With a view to strengthening the clarity and reliability of economic relations and encouraging law-abiding conduct by the taxpayer, for years the tax authority has followed the practice of publishing the data of tax defaulters who have fallen behind in paying a significant amount of tax which has been established in a final decision. Since significant debts may originate not only from tax arrears revealed during a tax inspection, and ... regular non-payment may constitute extremely important information for contractual parties about a taxpayer’s solvency, the Act also makes it possible to publish the data of taxpayers who have owed a large debt for a long time.” 32.     The relevant parts of Act no. CXII of 2011 on the right to informational self-determination and freedom of information (hereinafter “the Data Protection Act”), as in force at the material time, provided as follows: 5. Legal basis for data processing Section 5 “(1)     Personal data may be processed under the following circumstances: (a)     when the data subject has given his or her consent; or (b)     when processing is ordered in the public interest by an Act of Parliament or by a local authority as authorised by an Act of Parliament (hereinafter referred to as ‘mandatory processing’). ...” 13. Rights of data subjects Section 14 “The data subject may request from the data controller: (a)     information on his or her personal data which are being processed; (b)     the rectification of his or her personal data; and (c)     with the exception of   mandatory processing, the erasure or blocking of his or her personal data.” Section 17 “... (2)     Personal data shall be erased if: (a)     they are processed unlawfully; (b)     the data subject requests this in accordance with subsection (c) of section 14; (c)     they are incomplete or inaccurate and cannot be lawfully rectified,   provided that erasure is not prohibited by a statutory provision of an Act; (d)     the processing no longer has any purpose, or the legal time-limit for storage has expired; or (e)     a court or the Data Protection Authority orders erasure. ...” Section 19 “The rights of the data subject under sections 14-18 may be restricted by law for reasons of external and internal State security, and in particular for reasons of national defence, national security, the prevention or prosecution of criminal acts and the security of penal institutions, as well as in the economic and financial interests of the State or local governments and the major economic and financial interest of the European Union, and to prevent and expose disciplinary and ethical offences and labour law-related and occupational safety infringements – including in each case the relevant control and supervision – and to protect the rights of the data subject or others.” Section 22 “(1) In the event of an infringement of his or her rights the data subject, and in the cases referred to in section 21 the data recipient, may take court action against the controller. The court shall hear such cases in priority proceedings. (2) The burden of demonstrating compliance with the law shall lie with the data controller ... If the data subject so requests, the action may be brought before the court in whose jurisdiction the data subject’s home address or temporary residence is located. ... (4) Any person otherwise lacking legal capacity to be a party to legal proceedings may also be involved in such actions. The Authority may intervene in the action on the data subject’s behalf. (5) Should the court decision be in favour of the plaintiff, the court shall order the controller to provide the information, to rectify, block or erase the data in question, to annul the decision adopted by means of automated data-processing systems, to allow the data subject’s objection, or to disclose the data requested by the data recipient referred to in Section 21. ...” Section 23   “(1) Data controllers shall be liable for any damage caused to a data subject as a result of unlawful processing or by any breach of data security requirements. The data controller shall also be liable for any damage caused by a data processor acting on its behalf. The data controller may be exempted from liability if it proves that the damage was caused by reasons beyond its control. (2) No compensation shall be paid where the damage was caused by intentional or serious negligent conduct on the part of the aggrieved party.” 33.     The Constitutional Court   Act, in force as of 1 January 2012, provides as follows: Section 26 “(1) Under Article 24 § 2 (c) of the Fundamental Law individuals or organisations involved in a particular case may lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court where, owing to the application of a piece of legislation allegedly contrary to the Fundamental Law in the court proceedings conducted in the particular case (a)   their   rights enshrined under the Fundamental Law have been violated, and (b)   they   have exhausted the available legal remedies or no remedies are available. (2) In exceptional cases, and by way of divergence from subsection (1), Constitutional Court proceedings may also be initiated under Article 24 § 2 (c)   ...   of the Fundamental Law where (a) the grievance has occurred directly, without a court ruling, as a result of the application or the taking effect of a provision of the law [allegedly] contrary to the Fundamental Law, and (b)   no remedy is available for redressing the damage, or the complainant has already exhausted the available remedies.” OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL 34.     Decision no. 26/2004 (VII.7.) AB of 7 July 2004 of the Constitutional Court concerned the publication of a list of taxpayers who had failed to comply with certain registration requirements. It contained the following relevant passages: “As to section 55(4) of the Tax Administration Act [Act no. XCII of 2003], it can be established that in order to protect persons who duly pay their taxes, this provision obliges the tax authorities to continuously publish the data of those who, through their unlawful conduct, might cause damage to other persons who enter into business relations with them. Persons who carry out activities without the necessary registration, or who operate sham companies, may not issue bills, invoices or any other replacement invoice that another taxpayer could make use of. Thus, through [the] publication [of data], the tax authority contributes to isolating those who are engaged in such activities, and to whitening the economy. The rule which requires the tax authorities to publish the available identifying data of those taxpayers who do not fulfil their obligations in relation to registration does not in itself infringe the right to protection of personal data (Article 59 § 1 of the Constitution). Section 2(5) of Act no. LXIII of 1992 on the protection of personal data and the public accessibility of data of public interest (hereinafter ‘the [1992] Data Protection Act’) provides that data subject to disclosure in the public interest means any data, other than public-interest data, that by law are to be published or disclosed for the benefit of the general public. Pursuant to section 3(4) of the [1992] Data Protection Act, an Act of Parliament can order the publication of personal data in the public interest in relation to a certain type of data.” 35 .     Judgment no. P.23.608/2012/34 of 13 November 2014 of the Budapest High Court ( Fővárosi Törvényszék ) concerned an action for damages by the claimant on account of the publication of his name and address on the list of major tax debtors under section 55(5) of the 2003 Tax Administration Act between April 2010 and 29 June 2011 and subsequently – following new administrative proceedings – for four days as of January   2012. The Tax Authority had conducted tax compliance proceedings in respect of the claimant and had established tax arrears in the amount of HUF   28,438,544. Since the claimant had failed to pay this amount within the prescribed fifteen days, the Tax Authority had registered the amount as an overdue tax debt. When the claimant failed to pay his tax debts within 180   days, the Tax Authority automatically published his personal data. The claimant argued that the publication of his personal data on the list had been unlawful since it took place while the judicial proceedings for review of the Tax Authority’s decision on his tax debts were still ongoing. Furthermore, he argued that the publication in January 2012 had been unlawful, since his tax debts for the relevant period had not exceeded HUF 10 million. The Tax Authority, as respondent, argued that the conditions of publication under section 55(3) and section 55(5) of the 2003 Tax Administration Act differed. Publication under section 55(5) was the automatic consequence of tax debts outstanding for more than 180 days, irrespective of their origin. Publication under section 55(3) served to sanction persons in respect of whom the Tax Authority – during tax compliance proceedings – had established tax arrears exceeding HUF 10 million. The precondition for publication in such cases was that no judicial review proceedings were ongoing or that the courts upheld the administrative decision. 36.     The Budapest High Court dismissed the claimant’s action. It found that his data had been published under section 55(5), which provided for the automatic publication of personal information once the 180-day period had expired. It explained, referring to the definition of tax debts and tax arrears, that such publication could take place irrespective of the origin of the tax debts, that is, also in cases where the tax debts were the result of unpaid tax arrears established by the Tax Authority. It held that although judicial proceedings had been ongoing at the time of publication, this could only be relevant in relation to publication under section 55(3) on the list of major tax defaulters and not for publication under section 55(5) on the list of major tax debtors. The court thus concluded that publication had been lawful and dismissed the claimant’s action. 37.     The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Budapest Court of Appeal on 19 January 2016 (no. 1.PF.20.168/2015.II). 38 .     Judgment no. 8.Pf.20.406/2017/3 of 25 May 2017 of the Budapest Court of Appeal concerned a claimant’s civil action requesting the court to order the anonymisation of an online article which linked him to a set of criminal proceedings conducted some seven years previously and which had ended with his acquittal. The claimant maintained that some three years after his acquittal he had started practising as a lawyer and that the article was still accessible and appeared on the list of results following a Google search. The Budapest Court of Appeal held that the claimant’s personal data published in the online article could only be processed if the preconditions of either section   4(1) or section 6(1)(b) of the Data Protection Act were met. It held that there was a particular public interest in the prosecution of very serious crimes and that the public had the right to receive information on such matters. However, when balancing the claimant’s interest against that of the public the court concluded that seven years after the criminal proceedings and the claimant’s acquittal, he had very weighty reasons not to be identifiable in an article linking him to criminal acts. The court also emphasised that the anonymisation of the articles would not jeopardise the substance of the article. The court thus ordered the anonymisation of the article in question. 39 .     Judgment no. P.22422/2015/21 of 3 February 2016 of the Budapest High Court originated in a civil action by the claimant, a businessman and moderately successful sportsman, seeking the deletion from the search results of links that led to content, including videos, pictures and written texts, depicting his sexual life and containing negative comments about him. The claimant also sought compensation for damage. Prior to lodging a civil action, the claimant had requested the operator of the search engine to remove the links in question, to no avail. In the course of the proceedings the respondent company operating the search engine had removed the links in question from the search results. 40.     Relying on the case of Google Spain and Google (judgment of 13   May 2014, C ‑ 131/12, EU:C:2014:317) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter “the CJEU”), the Budapest High Court noted that as the operator of the search engine the respondent company qualified as a data processor and could be held liable for unlawful data processing under the Data Protection Act. The