JANUARY 2006
Hungarian Civil Liberties Union speaks out against proposed
law on classified data, Parliament suspends discussion A
new proposal for a restrictive classified data act was introduced
in the Parliament in December. Several NGOs, including the
Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, the Press Freedom Center,
and Protect the Future demanded that the draft be thrown
out. The future of the draft is not clear, but for now its
suspension in Parliament is a temporary victory for freedom
of information in Hungary. Read
more on HCLU website >>
Hungary establishes electronic freedom of information regime
Source: Europa, eGovernment News, 19 September 2005
In July 2005, the Hungarian Parliament passed a law on electronic
freedom of information, which according to the Ministry
of Informatics and Communication makes Hungary one of the
most progressive countries in the world with regard to the
publicity of information of public interest.
The law prescribes the list of specific data of public interest
that must be published on the Internet; the publication
of draft bills, laws, and - partially - the anonymous form
of court decisions; and finally, the creation of a search
system that makes the published data searchable and retrievable.
The law also puts an obligation on ministries and municipalities
to provide a forum on their websites where users can express
their opinion regarding the draft bills published on the
Internet, thus allowing citizens to participate in the legislative
process in an immediate manner. Read
more
In
the Republic of Hungary, everyone has the right to the
freely express his opinion, and furthermore to access
and distribute information of public interest.(1)
•
Undernourished people (% of total population),
2000/03: 99
•
Population with sustainable access to an improved
water source (%), 2002: 99
Source:
UN Development Program, Human Development Reports
Data
The
Constitutional Court ruled in 1992 that freedom of information
is a fundamental right essential for citizen oversight.(2)
In 1994, the Court struck down the law on state secrets,
ruling that it was too restrictive and infringed on freedom
of information.(3)
Act No. LXIII of 1992 on the Protection
of Personal Data and Disclosure of Data of Public Interest
is a combined Data Protection and Freedom of Information
Act.(4) The Act guarantees that all persons
should have access to information of public interest which
is broadly defined as any information being processed by
government authorities except for personal information.
Requests can be written, oral or electronic. Agencies must
respond in 15 days to requests.
State
or official secrets and information related to national
defense, national security, criminal investigations, monetary
and currency policy, international relations and judicial
procedure can be restricted if specifically required by
law. Internal documents are generally not available for
10 years.
The
Parliamentary
Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information
oversees the 1992 Act.(5) Besides acting
as an ombudsman for both data protection and freedom of
information, the Commissioner's tasks include: maintaining
the Data Protection Register and providing opinions on data
protection and information access-related draft legislation
as well as each category of official secrets. In 2004, there
was a total of 169 submissions relating to access to information,
a 20 percent increase over 2003.(6) 71
of those were complaints and 86 were requests for consultations,
5 on official secrets and 7 ex officio investigations. 26
percent were from individuals. 16 percent from journalists
and 31 percent were from public bodies asking for advice.
Those
denied access can appeal to the courts.
There
have been a number of significant amendments to the law
in the last several years. In April 2003, the so-called
"Glass Pockets Act" modified 19 different laws
including the FOI to facilitate the transparency of the
use of public funds by limiting business secrets, expanding
disclosure requirements and requiring budget organizations
to continually post updated financial information.(7)
Act XIX of 2005 expanded the definition of public interest
data, applied the law to judicial records, reduced the time
for access to internal documents from 20 years down to ten,
allowed oral and electronic requests, allowed the requestor
to set the form of access, and expanded the power of the
commissioner to investigate and issue recommendations and
opinions.
Act
XC of 2005 on the Freedom of Information by Electronic Means
imposes E-FOI requirements for the law.(8)
It requires a number of public bodies to create home pages
and sets out in an annex an extensive list of information
that needs to be released. The Minister of Informatics and
Communications must create a central list of databases and
registries and a uniform public data search engine. Ministries
must also publish information about draft legislation and
ministerial decrees and related documents. Many court decisions
must also be published. The cases should be anonymised.
The
Parliamentary Commissioner in his 2004 report noted a number
of continuing problems including access to court records
and the cost of disclosures on public bodies. Regulatory
bodies who refused to reveal their activities were also
a problem.
The
Secrecy Act of 1995 sets rules on the classification of
information.(9) It was amended in 1999
to incorporate NATO rules and substantially revised by Act
LIII of 2003. The Parliamentary Commissioner is entitled
to change the classification of state and official secrets.
The Commissioner conducted an investigation and found that
most bodies that used the act were properly classifying
information but also reported that the Government Control
Office (KEHI) has resisted following the orders of the Commissioner
on implementing the lists of secrets. The Parliament in
2006 began a review of the Act to revise it to make it conform
with EU and NATO rules. The bill was withdrawn following
public criticism.(10)
Article
221 of the 1978 Criminal Code allows for imprisonment of
up to five years for breaching state secrets. Miklos Haraszti,
the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and a former
Hungarian dissident, criticized the government in November
2004 for using the law against a journalist who quoted from
a police report on a MP under investigation. The Commissioner
ruled that the report was not be eligible to be secret and
was declassified by the police.(11)
Individuals
can have access to their own files created by the communist-era
secret police under the 2003 Act on the Disclosure of the
Secret Service Activities of the Communist Regime and on
the Establishment of the Historical
Archives of the Hungarian State Security which replaced
1994 Screening Act.(12) The Historical
Archive of the Hungarian State Security controls the files.(13)
The law was amended to allow for greater access following
revelations that Prime Minister Peter Medgyessy once worked
for the communist-era intelligence service.(14)
The law makes information about high ranking public officials
public data and allows victims to see the records of the
people who spied on them. However, the Commissioner was
critical of the new law as limiting some access rights and
not defining public figures properly.(15)
The government announced in December 2004 that it planned
to fully open the files.(16)
Under
the Act
on Public Records, Public Archives, and the Protection of
Private Archives, public authorities must transfer files
within 15 years.(17) Any individual can
access records over 30 years old. Archives can be closed
for longer in the interest of privacy, state secrets, official
secrets and confidential business data.
Hungary
signed the Aarhus Convention in December 1998 and ratified
it in July 2001. The Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer
Registers was signed in May 2003 and Hungary joined the
European Pollutant Emission Register in March 2004. Access
to environmental information is through the 1992 FOI/DP
Act. In July 2005, the European Commission announced that
it was taking legal action against Hungary and six other
countries for failing to implement the 2003 EU Directive
on access to environmental information.(18)
The
Criminal Code punishes the failure to comply with obligations
to provide public information, render it inaccessible, or
the publishing of false or untrue information.(19)
8
APRIL 2003 HUNGARY:
Public Funds to Become Transparent
A FBIS translation of a report from the Hungarian language
paper Magyar
Hirlap (Hungary) indicates that the Hungarian Parliament
has yesterday voted unanimously to adopt a transparency
["glass pocket"] law. The law will become effective
two months from now. Once in force, every organ funded by
the state budget will be required to make public the name
of any organization receiving more than 200,000 Forints-the
Hungarian currency-in support funds as well as contracts
with firms in excess of 5 million Forints.
11.
Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe Representative on
Freedom of the Media, OSCE media watchdog criticises Hungary
over arbitrary harassment of journalist, 16 November 2004.
12.
Act
III of 2003 on the Disclosure of the Secret Service Activities
of the Past Regime and the Historic Archive of the National
Security Services, 14 January 2003. http://www.th.hu/html/en/acts/ABTL_4_2003_evi_III_tv_e.pdf.
Act XXIII of 1994 on the Screening of Holders of Some Important
Positions, Holders of Positions of Public Trust and Opinion-Leading
Public Figures, and on the Office of History.
14.
For
more information on the controversy, see RFE/RL NEWSLINE
Vol. 6, No. 117, Part II, 24 June 2002.
15.
Recommendation
of the Data Protection Commissioner summarizing the results
of the investigation concerning the enforcement of freedom
of information and informational self-determination pursuant
to Act III of 2003 on the Disclosure of the Secret Service
Activities of the Past Regime and the Historic Archive of
the National Security Services, 15 December 2003.
16.
Hungary
to Open Spy Files - More communist-era spies may be revealed
when the files are opened, DW, 9 December 2004.
Act
XXIII of 1994 on the Screening of Holders of
Some Important Positions, Holders of Positions
of Public Trust and Opinion-Leading Public Figures,
and on the Office of History
1) Voice and Accountability: 1.16
2) Political Instability and Violence: 0.85
3) Government Effectiveness: 0.68
4) Regulatory Burden: 1.22
5) Rule of Law: 0.85
6) Control of Corruption: 0.65
