ECtHR / Application no. 18030/11 / Judgment

Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding body type
European Court of Human Rights
Deciding body
Court (Grand Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
08/11/2016
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1108JUD001803011
  • ECtHR / Application no. 18030/11 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

     

    1) The case originated in an application (no. 18030/11(link is external)) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a non‑governmental organisation registered under Hungarian law, Magyar Helsinki Bizottság (“the applicant NGO”), on 14 March 2011.

    ...

    3) The applicant NGO alleged under Article 10 of the Convention that the Hungarian courts’ refusal to order the disclosure of the information to which it had sought access amounted to a breach of its right to freedom of expression.

    ...

    10) The applicant, Magyar Helsinki Bizottság (Hungarian Helsinki Committee), is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) that was founded in 1989. It monitors the implementation of international human-rights standards in Hungary, provides legal representation to victims of alleged human-rights abuses and promotes legal education and training both in Hungary and abroad. Its main areas of activity are protecting the rights of asylum seekers and foreigners in need of international protection, and monitoring the human-rights performance of law-enforcement agencies and the judicial system. In particular, it focuses on access to justice, conditions of detention, and the effective enforcement of the right to defence.

    11) Between 2005 and 2007 the applicant NGO conducted a project “Model Legal Aid Board Programme” aimed at developing and testing a model to overcome shortcomings in the system for the ex officio appointment of defence counsel. The study summarising the outcome of the project was published in 2007 under the title “Without Defence”, suggesting that there should be a standard set of criteria developed to assess the quality of defence counsel’s work.

    12) In 2008, as a follow-up to its 2005-2007 survey, the applicant NGO launched a new project entitled “The Right to Effective Defence and the Reform of the ex-Officio Appointment System”. Together with the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement and various bar associations, the applicant NGO developed a questionnaire aimed at evaluating the performance of defence counsel. It also assessed the quality of legal representation provided by ex officio appointed and retained defence counsel, by examining the case files in 150 closed criminal cases. In parallel, the applicant NGO made a contribution in respect of Hungary to the comparative research project “Effective Defence Rights in the European Union and Access to Justice: Investigating and Promoting Best Practices” carried out in nine European countries and funded by the European Commission and the Open Society Justice Initiative. The results of the two projects were presented at a conference in April 2009, the conclusions of which were summarised in the report “In the Shadow of Suspicion: A critical account of enforcing the right to an effective defence”.

    13) In addition, the applicant NGO carried out continuous advocacy activities for reform of the ex officio appointments system; in cooperation with the Budapest Bar Association, it also drew up recommendations for a proposed code of professional ethics for ex officio defence counsel.

    14) In the applicant NGO’s assessment, its research showed that the system of ex officio appointed defenders did not operate adequately, essentially because the investigative authorities, in particular the police, were free to choose defence counsel from a list compiled by the relevant bar associations. This gave rise to distrust on the part of defendants. Furthermore, according to the applicant NGO’s findings, many police departments had recourse to the same lawyers or law firms in the majority of cases, resulting in defence counsels’ dependency on ex officio appointments to earn their living. The applicant NGO also concluded that the selection system lacked transparency.

    15) In 2009, in the framework of the project “Steps Towards a Transparent Appointment System in Criminal Legal Aid”, an experimental method was put in place, in cooperation with the applicant NGO, the county bar associations and certain county police departments. A key facet of this method was replacement of the existing system of discretionary appointments by a randomised computer-generated one.

    16) As a feature of the project, the applicant NGO requested the names of the public defenders selected in 2008 and the number of assignments given to each lawyer from a total of twenty-eight police departments, situated in the seven Hungarian regions. The aim of the data request was to demonstrate whether there existed discrepancies in police departments’ practice in appointing defence counsel from the lists provided by the bar associations. These requests were made under section 20 (1) of Act no. LXIII of 1992 (“the Data Act”). The applicant NGO maintained that the number of defence counsel appointments was public-interest data (közérdekű adat) and that thus the names of defence counsel were data subject to disclosure in the public interest (közérdekből nyilvános adat).

    17) Seventeen police departments complied with the request; a further five police departments disclosed the requested information following a successful legal challenge by the applicant NGO.

    18) On 18 August 2009 the applicant NGO addressed the same request to the Hajdú-Bihar County Police Department, seeking access to information concerning the names of defence counsel appointed in the police department’s area of jurisdiction and the number of appointments given to each defence counsel.

    19) In its response of 26 August 2009 the Hajdú-Bihar County Police Department refused the applicant NGO’s request, stating that “the names of the defence counsel are not public-interest data nor information subject to disclosure in the public interest under section 19(4) of the Data Act, since defence counsel are not members of a body performing State, municipal or public duties. Thus their names constitute private data, which are not to be disclosed under the law”. The police department also referred to the disproportionate burden the provision of the data would impose on it.

    20) A similar request by the applicant NGO was rejected by the Debrecen Police Department on 27 August 2009.

     

    Outcome of the case:

    For these reasons, the Court

    1. Joins the Government’s preliminary objection to the merits and dismisses it, by a majority;
    2. Declares, by a majority, the application admissible;
    3. Holds, by fifteen votes to two, that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
    4. Holds, by fifteen votes to two,
      (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant NGO, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
      • (i) EUR 215 (two hundred and fifteen euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
      • (ii) EUR 8,875 (eight thousand eight hundred and seventy-five euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant NGO, in respect of costs and expenses;

      (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.