CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 mai 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 119 May 2009 Kenedi v. Hungary - 31475/05 Judgment 26.5.2009 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Persistent attempts by authorities to avoid compliance with court order requiring them to give unrestricted access to documents on former State Security Service: violation   Facts : The applicant, a historian, asked the Ministry of the Interior for access to certain documents as he wished to publish a study on the functioning of the Hungarian State Security Service in the 1960s. After his request had been refused on the grounds that the documents were classified as State secrets the applicant obtained an order from a regional court for unrestricted access after successfully arguing that it was necessary for the purposes of his ongoing historical research. Following the failure of its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Ministry offered access on condition that the applicant signed a confidentiality undertaking. The applicant refused and instituted enforcement proceedings in October 2000. However, following repeated court applications and appeals by the Ministry on various grounds, the applicant had still not been given unrestricted access to all the documents concerned some eight and a half years later. Law : The applicant’s complaint that he had been prevented from publishing an objective study on the functioning of the State Security Service by the Ministry’s prevarication fell to be examined under Article   10. The applicant had obtained a court order granting him access to the documents and, although a dispute had arisen over the extent of that access, the domestic courts had repeatedly found for the applicant in the ensuing enforcement proceedings and had fined the Ministry. In these circumstances, the authorities’ obstinate reluctance to comply with the execution orders, which had also led to a finding by the Court of a violation of the “reasonable-time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, was in defiance of domestic law and tantamount to arbitrariness. Such a misuse of the power vested in the authorities could not be characterised as a measure “prescribed by law”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes