TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
Ioannis Ktistakis (Judge): The first, on your observation before the court of last July, you mentioned in paragraph 3 the following, I quote, the attempts of a forced collection against the applicant's property and income were unsuccessful as he had no property and very limited income.
Ioannis Ktistakis (Judge): Therefore, the tax debts were temporarily declared unrecoverable on 16 November 2015.
Ioannis Ktistakis (Judge): End of the quotation.
Ioannis Ktistakis (Judge): My first question is, if this is the case, which were your expectations by publishing the name of the applicant two months later?
Ioannis Ktistakis (Judge): And my second question, does the law provide any individual assessment of the need of such publication?
Ioannis Ktistakis (Judge): And if yes, which is the competent organ for this individual assessment?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you, Vice President Turković.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): In a way, this is the follow-up to the first question by Judge Vilanova.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): I'm interested if tax evasion would be committed as an offense, and you have criminal record in Hungary.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): This tax evasion would be recorded in the criminal record.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): So what are safeguards there for how long this could be kept?
Ksenija Turković (Judge): And are there any other safeguards in terms who could access, so that we would compare criminal records with the lists that we have in front of us?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you, Section President O’Leary.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): My first question is directed to the applicants who contended that the 2017 Act was not amenable to a constitutional complaint because it essentially contained the same provisions as the 2003 Act.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): However, from your written submissions and the oral submissions today, it would appear that the creation of the search interface in 2017 was an innovative and new aspect.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): So leaving aside questions relating to the scope of the case, I would like to understand, was there an effective constitutional complaint remedy available in relation to this new aspect of the 2017 Act?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): My second question is directed principally at the government.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And I will preface the question by emphasizing that this court is not, of course, competent to apply or examine alleged violations of European Union law.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): However, in the instant case, the content of Hungarian national law on data protection includes, indeed, one could say it's determined previously by the 1995 Data Protection Directive and now by the 2016 GDPR, the Data Protection Regulation, which, of course, is a directly applicable measure of EU law.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Given that context, can you explain what, if any, examinations of the 2003 and 2017 Tax Acts occurred in the light of the relevant EU Data Protection Acts, first when Hungary acceded to the European Union, and then subsequently in 2017 when the new legislation was updated and the GDPR was already in existence?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): In addition, it might be useful if the government, or indeed the applicant, if they had this information, could inform us whether the European Commission in relation to Hungary or any other of the very many EU member states who operate a similar scheme have challenged the compatibility of such schemes in relation to the GDPR.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): My final question is really addressed to both the applicant and the government, and it is a plea which comes from a non-Hungarian lawyer.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): I, after listening to your submissions orally and reading the written submissions, I remain lacking in clarity regarding the tax identification code.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): The applicant very usefully explained to us that the reliable taxpayers' lists doesn't use a home address.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): It uses a name and a tax identification code.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Now, this follows on, I think, from a previous questioner.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): But did the applicant have a tax identification code that could have been used?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And if so, why was such a code not sufficient for the purposes of one or other of the legitimate aims sought by the publication of the list?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): In other words, was the tax identification code sufficient to identify him in the eyes of the public?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I see no further questions.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The parties have been presented with a number of questions.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I want to give the parties ample opportunity to reflect and give adequate responses to the court.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): So we will break for just over 30 minutes.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): So we will break until 10.55 sharp,
Robert Spano (JudgeP): and then we will resume.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I will grant both parties 15 minutes to give us your replies and also your rebuttal arguments.
AP1 (Applicant): Thank you very much, Your Honor.
AP1 (Applicant): We received many interesting and partly overlapping questions, so I will try to reply them all, and in, as possible, logical order.
AP1 (Applicant): So as a beginning, and as a reply to the questions of Judge O'Leary and the Guerrera-Martins, first I would like to highlight a bit the mysterious text identification called, what is it?
AP1 (Applicant): So in Hungary, everybody, every adult, has this text identification code.
AP1 (Applicant): Me, everybody, here in this table, for example.
AP1 (Applicant): This has nothing to do with the fact that someone is doing business or not.
AP1 (Applicant): So it's not a business identification feature.
AP1 (Applicant): It has everybody.
AP1 (Applicant): So this is plain and simple.
AP1 (Applicant): I'm sure that the government will also explain, but this is it.
AP1 (Applicant): So I think we can understand this legal tool as it is.
AP1 (Applicant): Now secondly, I would like to very briefly summarize again what is the case really about according to the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant's private data concerning taxation was processed and published by the tax authority.
AP1 (Applicant): Based on the clear rules of the Hungarian law, this is the first layer of the case.
AP1 (Applicant): It is undisputed between the parties, or cannot be disputed, I would say, that this part of the legal Hungarian legal background could not be challenged before the constitutional court or any other judicial body.
AP1 (Applicant): The second layer, and one of the most interesting features of the case, the role of the press.
AP1 (Applicant): It is undisputed between the parties that the press reports about the refresh list every three months.
AP1 (Applicant): It's a national playing game in Hungary that every three months the list comes out and the press reports about it.
AP1 (Applicant): And the third layer is the archive list.
AP1 (Applicant): We are of the firm view that these three layers shall be treated together, and the scope of the case extends to all these three aspects of the case.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the exhaustion of the scope, it was raised the question whether the right to protection of reputation can come into play in the present case.
AP1 (Applicant): In particular, that true facts were revealed about the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): Yes, the applicant has had tax errors.
AP1 (Applicant): It is not disputed by the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): However, we think that the crux of the case is that this publication of his personal data about his tax debts and his home address and name extends far beyond in the realm of taxation, and it casts a shadow on him as a negative person in general before his friends, colleagues, persons with whom he does sports regularly.
AP1 (Applicant): So nothing in the sphere of taxation, nothing that relates to the business life.
AP1 (Applicant): And we think that it was made through a shaming list, and this question in this form was never dealt by the court.
AP1 (Applicant): So we think this is a new element.
AP1 (Applicant): And the question was raised that can be defamatory undisputedly, truthful fact.
AP1 (Applicant): Yes, we think it can.
AP1 (Applicant): But in this respect, I think the Grand Chamber shall address this view.
AP1 (Applicant): And we identify one specific case, Keleli versus Switzerland, which concerned the classification of a French lady as a prostitute into the computer database of the Geneva Police for five years.
AP1 (Applicant): And it was not disputed in this case that what was the profession of that lady.
AP1 (Applicant): So there were also truthful facts in that case, and the court dealt with it still.
AP1 (Applicant): Judge Turkovich raised the question whether criminal records.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Mr. Karsai, could you name that Austrian case again, please?
AP1 (Applicant): Switzerland, Kelly versus- Switzerland.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Switzerland, yes.
AP1 (Applicant): Sorry.
AP1 (Applicant): Judge Turkovich raised the question whether private individuals could access criminal records.
AP1 (Applicant): Our simple answer is no, just the authorities.
AP1 (Applicant): So no such access to criminal records in Hungary as the public list of tax defaulters that we are discussing.
AP1 (Applicant): Judge Kvistakis raised the question that there was any follow-up procedure or any consequences of the local tax defaulters published list and the circular concerning it.
AP1 (Applicant): To our best knowledge, substantially nothing changed.
AP1 (Applicant): The law still allows to publish those lists, so in fact the situation not improved in this respect.
AP1 (Applicant): To answering Judge Juksa's questions, it is true that those who do business activities must act or shall act with due diligence.
AP1 (Applicant): However, we do not see how this public list serve this due diligence and nobody has to prove that he conducts a private- he conducts this business- he follows some business interest when enters the list.
AP1 (Applicant): And we repeat our related argument that there is no any follow-up mechanism showing that business risks were avoided by reading the names or certain names on the list.
AP1 (Applicant): We have to talk about a little bit more in detail about the archive database and in particular whether there was an effective remedy against the establishment of the archive database.
AP1 (Applicant): First is it has to be underlined that yes, the archive database contains the same information that the original tax defaulters list.
AP1 (Applicant): It is based on the tax defaulters list and it is accessible even today, I mean, the archive database.
AP1 (Applicant): It was raised that the applicant should have challenged before the Constitutional Court the impugn regulation because it came into force in January 2020.
AP1 (Applicant): However, in this special case, we think that the Constitutional complaint, which was as a general declared an effective remedy in the Mandrake versus Hungary case cannot be applied in the present case and I invite the courts to apply the general consideration that the obligation of exhaustion of domestic remedies cannot be applied with excessive formalism.
AP1 (Applicant): First and foremost, it shall be underlined that even if the applicant lodged a Constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court's procedure takes time.
AP1 (Applicant): And until the Constitutional Court eventually reaches its decision, the injustices the applicant suffered is not remedied.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, even if the applicant won the case before the Constitutional Court, he would not have received any financial compensation because the Constitutional Court simply does not have such power.
AP1 (Applicant): The length of the Constitutional Court is not a theoretical fear.
AP1 (Applicant): Just five days ago, in a Hungarian case, Bancsok and László Magyar versus Hungary, which was an actual live sentence case, the Honorable Court accepted that the Constitutional Court is not an effective remedy because in Mr. László's Magyar case, the procedure lasted
AP1 (Applicant): six years and did not end yet.
AP1 (Applicant): So the applicant could have a reasonable fear that in politically sensitive cases or high-profile cases, and the tax default test list I'm sure would have been a high-profile case even before the Constitutional Court, I mean the archive list, did not end in time.
AP1 (Applicant): So for these reasons, we think that not even for the archive list, the Constitutional Court should classify as an effective remedy.
AP1 (Applicant): Even in the context of the effectiveness of the remedies, the government stated that the applicant should have initiated some Hungarian court procedure, which only would have been to finally reach the Constitutional Court.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the Honorable Court in the KMC versus Hungary case expresses where we stated that merely formalistic notions should not be classified as effective remedies.
AP1 (Applicant): So national domestic proceedings whose only aim is to at the end reach the Constitutional Court shall not be exhausted before the Constitutional Court.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): And I'll turn to the government.
GR1 (Government): I tried to answer all the questions precisely.
GR1 (Government): As to the questions raised by Judge Pastor Vilanova and Judge Turkovic, drawing parallels between the list of tax defaulters and possible lists of tax offenders or other criminals, I must emphasize that inclusion in the list of tax defaulters doesn't carry any value judgment, doesn't contain any information of the culpability or criminality of a person.
GR1 (Government): It mainly informs of a fact which is relevant for third parties in determining the solvency of a potential contractual partner.
GR1 (Government): Although crime offenders are not generally included in any list, only the data of sexual offenders can be obtained with a view of protecting third parties.
GR1 (Government): It must be noted that criminal trials are conducted in public hearing, and thus public sanction is available in the case of tax criminals too.
GR1 (Government): As to the questions of Judge Kjørbyrø and Judge Guerra-Martins concerning the new search interface, the government considered that the two methods, lists and search interface, are equally intrusive as regards the scope of the data available.
GR1 (Government): And there is no significant difference in their accessibility, though possibly it would require more effort on the part of the media to create an all-inclusive list of tax defaulters from a search interface.
GR1 (Government): But it is only relevant if we do not consider this data to be of data of public interest.
GR1 (Government): It is such data, if it is such data, there is no reason to hinder access to such information.
GR1 (Government): It must also be emphasized that data published in the archives do not contain information on the amount of tax debt.
GR1 (Government): Neither did the list on which the contested media report was based.
GR1 (Government): As to the questions of Judge Guerra-Martins and Judge Liri concerning the text identification code, I would like to draw your kind attention to paragraph 9 of the government's memorial, setting out section 7 of the 2016, sorry, 17 Taxation Act.
GR1 (Government): According to it, for the purposes of this act, unless otherwise provided by law for the purposes of legislation on taxes and tax administration procedures, tax identification number is the tax number, group identification number, community tax number, and natural persons tax identification code.
GR1 (Government): There are basically two types of tax identification numbers, tax number for business entities and tax identification code for private or natural persons, not conducting business activities as such.
GR1 (Government): In the present case, the applicant didn't act as a business entity.
GR1 (Government): His tax areas concerned personal income tax.
GR1 (Government): He didn't have a tax number.
GR1 (Government): He only had a tax identification code, which is created by an algorithm based on such personal information as date of birth, similarly as the personal identity code also used in European Union law, which is not available in any public database.
GR1 (Government): In this context, I also state to question of Judge Yüksel that no other information can be obtained by third parties about the tax history of another person.
GR1 (Government): As to the question of Judge Kuris, I must emphasize that the government didn't object to measuring the effectiveness of the measures, but to the method proposed by the applicant.
GR1 (Government): The government didn't refer so-called rule breakers as the justification for the publication of the list of tax debtors, but as the general effect and the function of the law.
GR1 (Government): In the context of shaming, namely that we cannot expect the rules of law to make rule breakers feel good about their conduct, the least can be expected from a merge breaking the rules is to feel bad about their non-compliance.
GR1 (Government): The government consider that these questions are answers for the questions of Judge Christikas, and these are based on the assumption as proposed by the applicant that the purpose of the list was to shame and to promote ex post compliance.
GR1 (Government): Whereas, I have explained before, the primary aim of the provision is to give information to third parties relevant to the exercise of their rights.
GR1 (Government): An additional aim is as the aim of any legal provision to deter from non-compliance or promote compliance with tax obligations, which is the two sides of the so-called same coin.
GR1 (Government): As to the questions of Judge Christikas concerning the circular of the data protection authority, I must emphasize that it concerned local taxes on a much smaller scale that the law provided for publication in a local usual manner, which didn't include publication on the internet.
GR1 (Government): It has no relevance to the present case.
GR1 (Government): As regards the question of Judge O'Leary concerning the compatibility with European Union law, we have no information on any cases instituted by the EU Commission against other states, neither against Hungary.
GR1 (Government): EU law is part of Hungarian law, and EU law remedies are available to Hungarian citizens in Hungarian courts as well.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I turn to my colleagues or any colleagues that wish to pose any follow-up to the questions they have already posed, Judge O'Leary, please.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): I come back to the government in relation to the answer to one of my three questions.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): I asked the question about parliamentary review of this regime in the light of EU data protection requirements because of our case law, Animal Defenders, where in relation to the margin of appreciation, the court has emphasized the importance of quality parliamentary and judicial review.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Now, in the instant case, either because the applicant didn't exhaust any effective remedies or because there were no effective remedies, we have no judicial review of the questions before us.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): So, parliamentary review becomes quite important.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And therefore, I would like to know whether either when Hungary acceded to the European Union or when the GDPR regulation was adopted, which was quite a seismic occurrence throughout all EU member states, was there any review of this tax publication regime?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Judge Pastor Vilanova.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Merci, M. le Président.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): A mes questions, le représentant du gouvernement vient de nous dire qu'il y a une publicité en Hongrie en relation, donc, avec les crimes sexuels.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Cette publicité, cette information, quelle forme elle prend?
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Est-ce qu'on connaît le nom, bien entendu, le prénom de la personne condamnée?
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Est-ce que nous connaissons également l'adresse?
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Est-ce que vous pouvez donner un petit peu plus de détails sur ce point-là? Je vous remercie.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Both questions are, Judge Turković.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): To follow up, what I was interested in was, after what time the name of a person has to be erased from the criminal record.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I think all three follow-up questions are directed at the government.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Mr. Tallódi, are you in a position
Robert Spano (JudgeP): to give us your replies on these three questions, please?
GR1 (Government): Yes, thank you for the, sorry.
GR1 (Government): Sorry, I am, I tried to take the mask down, sorry.
GR1 (Government): Yes, concerning the question of the new law, after 2017, I have to inform you that new law was enacted in 2017 concerning the general subject and the EU was taken into account as it is generally part of legislation process.
GR1 (Government): So it is general legislation.
GR1 (Government): Concerning the question of the sex offenders, we do not consider that sex offenders are in the same position as the applicant, but yes, the data in connection with the sex offenders are on the internet and the names are, the surname and the family name is also on the website and it is possible to reach this data.
GR1 (Government): The third question, concerning the third question for the deletion, I will, I don't want to say any not factual information, so I will inform the court later on in writing because I don't want to give you false information.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Under the rules, you can provide us with a short written response to the question posed by Vice President Turković on the question of erasure of this information from the criminal record.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I thank both parties for their interventions and their submissions today.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The court will now deliberate on this case and we will convene a hearing for delivery of judgment.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The hearing is closed.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits of the case in Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson versus Iceland.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on 31st May, 2018, under Article 34 of the Convention by an Icelandic national, Mr. Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson .
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the second section of the court, pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of Court.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The application was communicated to the government on 19th June, 2018.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): On 12th March, 2019, a chamber of the second section delivered its judgment in the case.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): It declared the application admissible unanimously and held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Convention as regards the right to a tribunal established by law.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): On 14th May, 2019, the government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, and the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 9th September, 2019.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): On 2nd December, 2019, the President of the Grand Chamber granted leave to the government of Poland the Public Defender Ombudsman of Georgia and the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights to submit written comments in the proceedings as third parties by virtue of Rule 44, Paragraph 3 of the Rules of Court.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): On 10th December, 2019, the President also granted leave to submit written comments in the proceedings as a third party to the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Republic of Poland.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The government are represented by their Acting Agent, Mrs. Þorsteinsdóttir, the Acting Attorney General,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): who is assisted by Mr. Otty QC Counsel,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Mrs. Arnardóttir and Mrs. Thejll, Deputy Agents,