CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 avril 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   309 14.04.09   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT TÁRSASÁG A SZABADSÁGJOGOKÉRT v. HUNGARY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary (application no. 37374/05).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the applicant organisation having been denied access to a complaint lodged by a parliamentarian with the Constitutional Court asking it to review recent legislative amendments.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered. The applicant association was awarded 3,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért (the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union), is an association founded in 1994 and registered in Hungary with its seat in Budapest. It is a non-governmental organisation which aims to promote fundamental rights as well as to strengthen civil society and the rule of law in Hungary; it is active in the field of drug policy.   The case concerned the claim of the applicant organisation that it was refused access to a complaint which was pending before the Constitutional Court and in which a parliamentarian requested constitutional review of amendments to the Criminal Code with regard to drug-related offences.   In October 2004, after the Constitutional Court denied the applicant organisation access to the above-mentioned complaint, the organisation brought proceedings in which it sought to oblige the Constitutional Court to change its decision. While those proceedings were pending, on 13 December 2004 the Constitutional Court publicly delivered a decision on the constitutionality of that complaint; the decision contained a summary of the complaint itself.   More than a month after the Constitutional Court’s decision, the court dealing with the proceedings brought by the applicant organisation dismissed its request; this dismissal was confirmed on appeal. The courts considered in particular that the information requested by the applicant was personal and could not be accessed without the author’s approval. Such protection of personal data could not be overridden by other lawful interests, including the accessibility of public information.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 October 2005 and declared admissible on 13 November 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Francoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), Andras Sajo (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria, judges , and also Sally Dollé, Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért alleged that the refusal with regard to the constitutional complaint breached its right to have access to information of public interest.   Decision of the Court   The Court first noted that the case essentially concerned an interference with the functioning of a social watchdog, such as the press, and was not to be examined as a denial of a general right of access to official documents. It emphasised that the State’s obligations under Article 10 included the breaking down of barriers to the press exercising its right to freedom of expression on matters of public interest, especially when such barriers existed solely because of an information monopoly held by the authorities. The information sought by the applicant had been ready and available and had not required the collection of any data by the Government; consequently, the State had had an obligation not to impede the flow of information sought. If public figures were allowed to censor the press and public debate in the name of their own personal rights, it would be disastrous for freedom of expression in the sphere of politics. Therefore, in this case, the obstacles that had been created in order to hinder access to information of public interest had been capable of discouraging those working in the media or related fields from pursuing such a matter. The Court held accordingly that the applicant organisation had been prevented from exercising its role of a public watchdog, and from providing accurate and reliable information to the public, in violation of Article 10.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.