CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 19735/25 Miklós RÁCZ against Hungary lodged on 25 June 2025 communicated on 28 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE At the end of 2021, demolition of a building in the Buda Castle District was announced. The building was located on a UNESCO World Heritage site in Budapest. On 21 March 2022, the applicant, member of a group of architects active in cultural heritage protection, requested access to the expert opinion of the Prime Minister’s Office concerning the demolition plan. On 5 May 2022 the Prime Minister’s Office declined, referring to section 27 § 6 of Act no.   CXII of 2011 on informational self-determination and freedom of information, according to which access to official public information may be restricted when it relates to the operational preparation of the authorities’ decisions. The applicant challenged the refusal before the Data Protection Authority, which ordered the disclosure of the requested document. Since the Prime Minister’s Office failed to comply with the decision, the applicant started judicial proceedings. In a final judgment of 19 June 2024, the Kúria dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant’s constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on 18 February 2025 (served on the applicant’s representative on 26   February 2025). The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention of a breach of his freedom-of-expression rights as a result of his lack of access to public information. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart information, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention (see, in particular,   Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary   [GC], no.   18030/11, 8 November 2016; Cangi v.   Turkey , no. 24973/15, §§ 30-37, 29 April 2019; and Association Burestop   55 and Others v. France , no. 56176/18, § 83, 1   July 2021)?   If so, was the interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim?