CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 18 October 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 36345/16 L.B. against Hungary lodged on 7 June 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the publication of the applicant’s name and home address on the website of the National Tax Authority. This measure was foreseen by section 55 (3)-(5) of Act no. XCII of 2003 on Tax Administration, which obliges the National Tax Authority to publish the name, address and taxpayer identification number of tax debtors who owe a   tax debt to the Tax Authority exceeding 10,000,000 Hungarian forints (approximately 33,000 euros). Subsequently, an online news portal, using the information from the Tax Authority’s website, produced an interactive map called “national map of debtors”. The applicant’s home address, similarly to the addresses of other tax debtors, was indicated with a red dot and upon clicking on the mark the personal information (name and home address) of the applicant appeared, making these data available to all readers. The applicant’s personal data are still available on the Tax Authority’s website.     QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?     2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? If so, has the applicant availed himself of it?