Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously held that Hungary violated Blanka Zöldi’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because it denied her access to information of public interest. The case originated from Zöldi’s attempts to access information regarding the allocation of public funds by two publicly funded foundations established by the Hungarian National Bank. Zöldi, an investigative journalist, requested details on grant recipients, the amounts awarded, and the purposes of the grants, to report on the transparency of public spending. The Hungarian authorities denied partially her requests, citing personal data protection laws. Domestic courts upheld these decisions, prioritizing data protection. After exhausting domestic remedies, Zöldi brought her case to the ECtHR, arguing that the denial violated her right to access information of significant public interest. The ECtHR held that Hungary failed to balance the journalist’s right to freedom of expression with the need for data protection. It emphasized that the requested information pertained to the use of public funds, which has a high level of public interest. The Court concluded that the authorities’ refusal to disclose the information was not necessary or proportionate, violating Article 10 of the ECHR.

---

Facts

On 25 February 2015, Hungarian investigative journalist Blanka Zöldi submitted freedom-of-information requests to two foundations established by the Hungarian National Bank (MNB)—namely the Pallas Athéné Geopolitikai Alapítvány (PAGEO) and the Pallas Athéné Domus Scientiae Alapítvány (PADS). Mrs. Zöldi sought details about the identities of grant recipients, the amounts awarded, the purposes of the grants, and the subsidized activities, intending to publish an article based on the information obtained. The organizations, which were funded with public money and established to support public activities such as education and research, denied her requests, citing the absence of a legal provision authorizing the disclosure of personal data. Zöldi’s requests were made amidst a public debate over the transparency in the use of these public funds.

Following this, Zöldi initiated judicial proceedings. On 1 December 2015, the Budapest High Court, in its judicial review of PAGEO’s decision, ruled partially in favor of Zöldi, ordering PAGEO to disclose information as far as “the identity of the successful grant recipients in the various calls for funding, the amounts received by them and the funded activities.” [para. 9] However, on appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s ruling regarding the disclosure of names—citing the lack of a specific legal provision allowing for the disclosure of personal data such as the names of grant recipients. The court invoked Section 3(6) of the Hungarian Act CXII of 2011 (Data Protection Act) on informational self-determination and freedom of information, which regulates the disclosure of personal data in Hungary.

On 7 December 2015, in the judicial review of PADS’ decision, the Budapest High Court ordered the foundation to disclose information about the amounts awarded and the activities funded. Yet, it allowed the anonymization of the grant recipients’ names. The High Court, relying on Section 3(6) of the Data Protection Act, considered that “in its view the protection of personal data took precedence over the right to transparency in the use of public funds.” [para. 10] Thus, it ruled that the names of the recipients did not constitute “data of public interest” under the Data Protection Act. This decision was upheld on appeal.

Mrs. Zöldi appealed these decisions to the Constitutional Court. Although this tribunal upheld the lower courts’ rulings and rejected her request to annul parts of the Data Protection Act, it acknowledged that the Hungarian legislation inadequately addressed issues regarding the transparency of public funds. As a result, it ordered the legislature to amend the laws to ensure public access to such information in the future.

In July 2019, the parliament amended Act CLXXXI of 2007, extending the scope of data subject to public disclosure. However, the amendments were not retroactive, so they did not apply to Zöldi’s original request.

After exhausting domestic remedies, Zöldi lodged an application before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), arguing that the Hungarian domestic courts’ refusal to disclose the grant recipients’ identities violated her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

---

Decision Overview

On July 4, 2024, the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights issued a decision on the matter. The ECtHR had to determine whether the refusal of the Hungarian authorities to disclose the names of grant recipients from publicly funded foundations violated Mrs. Zöldi’s right to freedom of expression, as protected by Article 10 of the ECHR.

Mrs. Zöldi argued that the information she sought, under section 28(1) of the Data Protection Act, pertained to the use of public funds and was of significant public interest—particularly as it concerned transparency in the spending of state resources.  The applicant further argued that the refusal to disclose the names of the grant recipients violated her right to access information under Article 10 of the ECHR. She highlighted a domestic legislative gap that prevented the assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the restriction on her right to free speech. Mrs. Zöldi contended that no proper balancing exercise between her right to access information and the grant recipients’ right to personal data protection had taken place. Moreover, she highlighted the Constitutional Court’s finding that the legal framework at the time failed to provide adequate mechanisms to address this balance, resulting in a violation of her right to access information.

For its part, the Hungarian Government argued that the interference was lawful and aimed at protecting personal data and the rights of others until the relevant legal regulations could be amended. Hungary also contended that Mrs. Zöldi had sufficient information to contribute to the public debate on the use of public funds without needing to identify the grant recipients.

1. Compatibility ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention

At the outset of its analysis, the Court studied whether the facts of the case raised an issue under Article 10 of the ECHR. The ECtHR noted that while Article 10 does not automatically guarantee a right to access information held by public authorities, such a right arises when access is essential for the individual to exercise their right to freedom of expression, especially in matters of public interest.

Subsequently, the ECtHR applied the principles established in Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary to determine whether Mrs. Zöldi’s request for information fell within the scope of Article 10. The criteria outlined in this case take into consideration “(a) the purpose of the information request; (b) the nature of the information sought; (c) the role of the applicant; and (d) whether the information was ready and available.” [para. 34]

Regarding the purpose of the information request, the Court emphasized that the applicant sought the information to inform the public about how public funds were being allocated—a matter of significant public interest. As for the nature of the information, the Court highlighted that the requested information concerned public funds. The ECtHR considered that the names of the beneficiaries of the grants were a critical element of the applicant’s investigation, as they would reveal which individuals were receiving public money. About the role of Mrs. Zöldi, the Court argued that she was “a journalist who sought access to the information, in order to relay it to the public in her capacity as a ‘public watchdog’” [para. 37]—a role recognized as critical to public debate. Regarding the availability of the information, the ECtHR noted that the requested data was ready and available but was denied solely on privacy grounds without an adequate balancing exercise.

These factors led the Court to conclude that access to the information was instrumental for Mrs. Zöldi’s freedom to receive and impart information under Article 10 of the ECHR. Moreover, the ECtHR stressed the importance of transparency in the use of public funds, especially when they are managed by state-owned or state-funded organizations. It reiterated that “the disclosure of the requested data had the potential of contributing to transparency in the allocation of taxpayers’ money and to transparency in public life. The setting up and financing of the National Bank’s foundations, and their calls for funding applications, were at the centre of public debate at the time of the information request.” [para. 36] The Court also pointed out that, despite the absence of a specific legal provision allowing the disclosure of grant recipients’ names under Hungarian law, the public-interest nature of this information was evident.

In light of this, the Court considered that Article 10 of the ECHR applied to the case at hand.

2. Merits

First, the Court observed that by denying the applicant access to the requested information, the Hungarian authorities had interfered with Mrs. Zöldi’s rights under Article 10 of the ECHR. Subsequently, the Court applied the three-part test laid out in the aforementioned article to examine whether the interference was (i) prescribed by law, (ii) pursued a legitimate aim, and (iii) was necessary in a democratic society.

The Court accepted that the refusal was prescribed by law and sought to protect personal data—a legitimate purpose for the Court. However, it held that Hungary failed to demonstrate that the interference was necessary and proportionate in a democratic society.

Referring to its jurisprudence in Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom, Delfi AS v. Estonia, and Magyar Helsinki Bizottság, the Court reiterated that any interference on freedom of expression must be convincingly established and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

To the Court, Hungary failed to provide sufficient reasons to justify the refusal to disclose the names of the grant recipients. Moreover, the ECtHR held that domestic authorities did not adequately consider the public interest in transparency nor did they conduct a meaningful assessment of Mrs. Zöldi’s rights and the privacy rights of the grant recipients.

Upon assessing the proportionality of the restrictions, the Court referenced several key factors derived from its previous jurisprudence (Magyar Helsinki Bizottság and Centre for Democracy and the Rule of Law v. Ukraine). According to the Court, these included: “(i) whether the individuals concerned by the information request were public figures of particular prominence; (ii) whether they had themselves exposed the impugned information to public scrutiny; (iii) the degree of potential harm to the individuals’ privacy in the event of disclosure; (iv) the consequences for the effective exercise of the applicant’s freedom of expression in the event of non-disclosure; (v) whether the applicant had put forward reasons for the information request; (vi) the degree of public interest in the matter; and (vii) whether the possibility of a meaningful assessment of the restrictions on the applicant’s rights was possible under domestic law and if so, whether such an assessment was carried out by the domestic authorities” [para. 52]

Applying these factors, the Court said that “[i]t would be difficult to argue that the grant recipients – when availing themselves of any of the foundations’ calls for applications for funding – could not expect that their names, as recipients of public money, might be publicly disclosed.” [para. 50] Citing Magyar Helsinki Bizottság, the Court emphasized that individuals who receive public funding should have a lower expectation of privacy when the disclosure of their identities relates to the allocation of this kind of funds.

The ECtHR considered that domestic authorities failed to conduct a proper balancing assessment between Mrs. Zöldi’s rights under Article 10 of the ECHR and the personal data protection of the grant recipients. According to it, this absence resulted from the legislative gap identified by the Constitutional Court of Hungary—which noted a lack of laws guaranteeing a proper balancing exercise of competing rights in access to information requests. Although the Court recognized that personal data benefits from protection under Article 8 of the ECHR (right to privacy), it concluded that the privacy interests of the grant recipients were minimal in this case, as the requested information related only to their status as recipients of public funds. The ECtHR ultimately found that national authorities did not provide sufficient reasons for the interference, failing to strike a fair balance and undermining the proportionality of the restriction.

Conclusively, the Court unanimously held that Hungary’s refusal to disclose the names of grant recipients violated the applicant’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR. Thus, the ECtHR ordered Hungary to pay Mrs. Zöldi 1,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 3,600 euros for costs and expenses.

---