CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 janvier 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 10 February 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 46862/22 Blanka ZÖLDI against Hungary lodged on 24 September 2022 communicated on 20 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the unsuccessful attempts of the applicant, an investigative journalist, to obtain information on the suppliers contracted by a company that won public procurement procedures financed by funds of the European Union. On 20 April 2018 the applicant submitted a freedom of information request to a company – owned by a close friend of the Hungarian Prime Minister – regarding ten public procurement procedures won by that company. She asked for data regarding the material supplied for the projects: the type, the quantity and the price of the supplied goods and the name of the suppliers. In the absence of a reply, the applicant turned to court. The first instance court dismissed her action in January 2021. The second-instance court reversed the judgment and ordered the disclosure of the requested data. It found that the data in question related to the use of EU funding, therefore constituted data subject to disclosure in the public interest under section   27   (3) of Act no. CXII of 2011 on Informational Self-determination and Freedom of Information (“the Data Protection Act”). It ordered their disclosure based on section 27 (3a) of the Data Protection Act which obliges all legal persons that entered into a financial or business relationship with a person or entity belonging to the subsystem of public finances to provide information on data that relate to that relationship and are subject to disclosure in the public interest. The Kúria quashed the judgment of the appellate court. In its opinion the data requested did not fall under the scope of section 27 (3) of the Data Protection Act as the financial or business relationship between the company and the entity belonging to the subsystem of public finances did not extend to the company’s relationship with its subcontractors involved in a given project. On 17 May 2022 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the Kúria ’s decision. It found that maintaining the non-public nature of this category of data did not disproportionately restrict the right to access and disseminate data of public interest guaranteed by Article   VI (3) of the Fundamental Law. The applicant complains, under Article 10 of the Convention, that the denial of access to the requested information was in breach of her right to receive and impart information. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the criteria set out in the Court’s case-law (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 156-170, 8   November 2016), was Article 10 of the Convention applicable to the applicant’s information request? 2.     In the affirmative, has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular her right to receive and impart information, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? 3.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság , cited above, §§ 181-200)?