CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 mai 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   413 26.5.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KENEDI v. HUNGARY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Kenedi v. Hungary (application no. 31475/05). The case concerned Mr Kenedi’s complaint about the Hungarian authorities’ protracted reluctance to enforce a court order granting him unrestricted access to documents which he wanted in order to write a study on the Hungarian State Security Service in the 1960s.   The Court held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the excessively long proceedings with which Mr Kenedi sought to gain and enforce his access to documents concerning the Hungarian secret services; and, a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 10, on account of the continued resistance of the Ministry of Interior to grant Mr Kenedi access to those documents.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 6,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   7,000 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, János Kenedi, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Budapest. He is a historian, specialising among other things in dictatorships and their secret services.   In September 1998, with a view to publishing a study on the Hungarian State Security Service of the Ministry of the Interior, Mr Kenedi requested access to some documents in the Ministry’s possession. In November 1998, the Ministry denied his request, which he then challenged in court. In January 1999, the court ruled in his favour granting him access for research purposes to all documents requested.   In November 1999 the Ministry proposed access if Mr Kenedi signed a confidentiality undertaking. He found this unacceptable and requested the enforcement of the court ruling in his favour. Execution of the judgment was eventually ordered and initiated in December 2000.   Having attempted subsequently to restrict Mr Kenedi from publishing the accessed information, the Ministry was ordered to pay two fines for not complying with the enforcement order. In December 2003, all but one document were transferred to the National Archives and thus became public.   Mr Kenedi has not had unrestricted access to the remaining document to date.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 August 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar ,   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Kenedi complained of not being able to have access, within a reasonable time, to all documents he wanted despite the domestic court’s ruling in his favour.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 §1   The Court noted that the proceedings have so far lasted some ten and a half years for three levels of jurisdiction and the execution phase. Referring to its repeated case law on the matter, the Court held that that length of proceedings had been excessive, in violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 10   The Court noted that Mr Kenedi had obtained a court judgment granting him access to the documents in question, following which the domestic courts had repeatedly found in his favour in the ensuing enforcement proceedings. The authorities had persistently resisted their obligation to comply with the domestic judgment thus hindering Mr Kenedi’s access to documents he had needed to write his study. The Court concluded that the authorities had acted arbitrarily and   in defiance of   domestic law. Their obstructive actions had also led to the finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   The Court held, therefore that the authorities had misused their powers by delaying Mr Kenedi’s exercise of his right to freedom of expression, in violation of Article 10.   Article 13   Given the Ministry of the Interior’s persistent resistance to the enforcement of Mr Kenedi’s rights, the Court found that the procedure available in Hungary at the time and designed to remedy the violation of Mr Kenedi’s Article 10 rights had proven ineffective. There had, therefore, been a violation of Article 13 read in conjunction with 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.