TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): This remedy was also available to the applicant up to the level of a constitutional complaint, but he also chose not to make use of it.
GR1 (Government): In addition to these remedies allowing indirect access to the constitutional court, the possibility to file a constitutional complaint under section 26.2
GR1 (Government): of the Constitutional Court Act directly to the constitutional court without having to have recourse to any prior judicial proceedings was clearly available to the applicant after the reenactment of the contested provisions by the new Taxation Act in 2017.
GR1 (Government): The effectiveness of this domestic remedy was acknowledged by the court in the case of Mendre versus Hungary.
GR1 (Government): The applicant chose not to avail himself of this remedy either.
GR1 (Government): It follows that the applicant's complaints relating to the period after the 1st of January 2018 must be excluded from the scope of the case as inadmissible for failure to exhaust effective domestic remedies, even if the court decided that his claims relating to the period prior to 2018 were not inadmissible because data protection or civil proceedings did not qualify as effective remedies due to the lack of interest on the part of the persons concerned in seeking such remedies.
GR1 (Government): The government also considered that the new complaints raised by the applicant in his submissions before the Grand Chamber concerning the renewed availability of the archived information on tax defaulters as from the 1st of January 2020 fall outside the scope of the present case.
GR1 (Government): This complaint was not raised before the chamber and cannot be regarded as an inherent part of the case before the chamber, since this measure had a completely different legal ground in Hungarian law.
GR1 (Government): It was a distinct administrative act based on a distinct legislative measure, and the public availability of the applicant's data was not continuous, even in time.
GR1 (Government): In any event, this complaint is inadmissible for failure to exhaust effective domestic remedies because the applicant had failed to file a constitutional complaint after the entry into force of section 264 per A of the 2016 Taxation Act.
GR1 (Government): Neither has he submitted a request for deletion under the Data Protection Act after the legal ground for such publication had allegedly been repealed in June 2021, and data handling by the tax authority had allegedly become unlawful.
GR1 (Government): Although his interpretation of the law is incorrect, as I will explain later, he could and should have raised his claims of unlawfulness before the competent domestic authorities instead of this Court.
GR1 (Government): Had his request been dismissed, he could have ultimately seized the Constitutional Court with his grievances before raising them in an international court as the principle of subsidiarity and the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies requires.
GR1 (Government): After the exhaustion of preventive remedies, having power to establish unlawfulness of data handling and to order discontinuation of unlawful data handling, compensatory remedies also would have been available to the applicant under Hungarian law, as it was shown in the government's written submissions with examples of jurisprudence.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, honorable members of the Court,
GR1 (Government): in the followings, I shall comment upon the applicant's written submissions before the Grand Chamber.
GR1 (Government): Due to the imbalance between this time and the amount of incorrect statements in the submissions, my comments will not be exhaustive, and lack of correction or specific mention cannot be automatically taken as acceptance of the applicant's statements.
GR1 (Government): As regards the constitutional complaint submitted by the applicant, referred to in paragraph 4 of his submissions, it is completely irrelevant to the present case.
GR1 (Government): It concerned complaints pertaining to the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention, none of which are covered by the present case, but raised no complaints concerning Article 8, which fall in the scope of the present proceedings.
GR1 (Government): It could not even have prevented the publication of the applicant's data as alleged because the applicant's data had already been published on the list of major tax debtors under Section 55.5 of the 2003 Tax Administration Act
GR1 (Government): when the constitutional complaint was filed.
GR1 (Government): Contrary to the applicant's submissions, the publication of the list of major tax debtors under Section 55.5 preceded the publication
GR1 (Government): of the list of major tax defaulters under paragraph 3 of the same provision, in accordance with the law as it has been explained with reference to domestic jurisprudence.
GR1 (Government): Contrary to the applicant's allegations, the amount of tax arrears was not published on the list, which served as a basis for the national map of tax defaulters, or rather tax debtors, published by an online media outlet.
GR1 (Government): The article specifically stated that information on the amount of debts was not available, and the amount of more than 36 billion forints of tax debt owed by the persons on the list was calculated on the assumption that each and every one of them owed the statutory minimum of 10 million forints qualifying for inclusion on the list.
GR1 (Government): Contrary to the applicant's allegations, the tax authority did institute enforcement proceedings which were unsuccessful due to the applicant's lack of any property or income.
GR1 (Government): Enforcement proceedings added six months to the statutory limitation period until the 30th of June, 2019, and the applicant's data had been deleted from the list of tax debtors well before that date.
GR1 (Government): The applicant correctly described the aim of the publication of the archived data in 2020, to enable third parties to exercise specific taxation rights.
GR1 (Government): While the original publication served the protection of the rights of others in a broader context, in any legal relationship, publication of the archived data served the protection of a very specific right.
GR1 (Government): However, contrary to the applicant's allegations, this aim didn't become obsolete by the amendment of Section 77 of the VAT Act as of the 10th of June, 2021, because it did not have a retroactive effect, and the information at issue continues to be relevant for taxation of past transactions until the expiry of the statutory limitation period.
GR1 (Government): Contrary to the applicant's allegations, there are domestic remedies for overdue erasure under the Data Protection Act.
GR1 (Government): The applicant's arguments concerning the admissibility and merits of the application are based on false facts and false assumptions.
GR1 (Government): Notable, he assumes that tax discipline consists of payment of taxes after the publication of one's name on the list of tax debtors.
GR1 (Government): Whereas, tax discipline consists of payment of taxes as due, declared properly and on time, before publication of one's overdue payment obligation.
GR1 (Government): As the chamber recognized, the measure was aimed at deterring from defaulting in payment of taxes.
GR1 (Government): Most people will comply with their tax obligations, but because it is the right thing to do, others to avoid publication.
GR1 (Government): It is irrelevant to the tax authority.
GR1 (Government): Most people whose tax payment might be overdue will eventually pay their taxes not in order to be removed from the list of tax debtors, but because they have a legal obligation to pay or because of a successful procedure of forced collection.
GR1 (Government): People are not expected to inform the tax authority that they do not want to comply with their tax obligation, but they have no other choice in order to be removed from the list of tax debtors.
GR1 (Government): It is also irrelevant to the tax authority, and it would not keep statistics of such motivations.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, it is no surprise that the tax authority cannot provide such statistics as a proof of the effectiveness of the measure.
GR1 (Government): The applicant's strange line of thinking about measuring effectiveness and necessity of a legal provision could also lead us to the conclusion that sanctions for homicides should be removed from criminal law, because we cannot prove how many people didn't kill how many other people because of that provision.
GR1 (Government): But the applicant's conclusions as to the effectiveness of the contested measures in achieving legitimate aim are also wrong, because they disregard the main purpose of the list of major tax debtors, that is to provide information to third parties in the exercise of their rights and obligations.
GR1 (Government): One specific example of the situations when information about tax debt is necessary to third parties was highlighted by section 2064A of the 2017 Taxation Act.
GR1 (Government): Such information may be necessary for the exercise of due diligence or to avoid financial loss in many other situations.
GR1 (Government): In paragraph 60, the applicant contests arguments about unreliability in business life, which have never been made by the government.
GR1 (Government): However, it is undeniable that access to information about potential issues of insolvency is an important precondition for the exercise of due diligence in contractual relationships.
GR1 (Government): As to the scope of the data published, the government knows that the applicant admitted that his name was not sufficient to identify him.
GR1 (Government): However, contrary to his assessment, the government considered that having regard to Hungarian social practices and legal traditions, a private person's tax identification code is more sensitive data than a home address.
GR1 (Government): And in contrast to the latter, the former is not available, thus not verifiable, to third persons from a public register or any other source of information.
GR1 (Government): Finally, the government considered that the applicant's claims for just satisfaction are excessive.
GR1 (Government): Having regard to the damage he had caused to the public by his failure to pay a significant amount of taxes due, an eventual finding of violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction for the applicant's grievances.
GR1 (Government): let me briefly sum up the government's written submissions concerning the questions raised by the court, but not substantively dealt with in the applicant's written statements.
GR1 (Government): As to the applicability of Article 8, the government did not contest that the applicant's name and address were personal data before publication by the tax authority for purposes of data protection, and the legislator had to, as it did, respect the principles of data protection when ordering publication of these data in the public interest.
GR1 (Government): However, once these data had been qualified as information subject to disclosure in the public interest, they become information of public interest, access to which is protected under Article 10 in accordance with the court's judgment in the case of Magyar Helsinki Bizotcság, Hungarian Helsinki Committee versus Hungary, and the government had no right to hinder public access to that information.
GR1 (Government): It follows that the government had no obligation under Article 8 to prevent republication of that information by the media, and thus Article 8 was not applicable to the relevant part of the complaint.
GR1 (Government): The government considered that Article 8 is applicable only as far as issues of data protection are concerned, and the present case raises no issue of loss of reputation, bringing Article 8 of the convention into play.
GR1 (Government): The information published about the applicant was factual information of him having a substantial amount of tax debt without any value judgment.
GR1 (Government): It follows from the court's jurisprudence concerning conflict between freedom of expression and the protection of the right to reputation that a person's integrity, reputation, can be compromised only by false allegations or value judgments without any factual basis or by gratuitously offensive or abusive comments.
GR1 (Government): The circumstances of the present case involved none of those factors.
GR1 (Government): As regards the margin of appreciation of the state concerning the measures necessary to protect its general economic interest, as well as the rights of others in collecting public revenue by means of public scrutiny aimed at deterring persons from defaulting on their tax obligations, as the chamber correctly understood it, it must be borne in mind that the national authorities are, in principle, better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest in light of their knowledge of their society.
GR1 (Government): At this point, it must be emphasized again that the primary aim of the relevant provisions is to deter from defaulting on tax obligations and only when that aim is not successfully achieved, they serve to protect the rights of others by providing information necessary to exercise due diligence in contractual transactions with a hoped-for side effect of promoting ex post-compliance with payment obligations.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the applicant's approach of judging the necessity of the measure by this third effect is methodically wrong.
GR1 (Government): Concerning this type of economic measures, states generally enjoy a wide margin of appreciation.
GR1 (Government): In this case, the wide consensus in Hungarian society demonstrated by the lack of constitutional challenges to this measure should be an important factor for the court to recognize, in addition to the examples of comparative law provided by the government in their written submissions.
GR1 (Government): In conclusion, the interference complained of by the applicant before the chamber was in accordance with the law, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others, as well as the general economic interests of the state.
GR1 (Government): It was proportionate since the measure complained of is generally restricted to large amounts of tax debts, and the applicant's debt, specifically, highly exceeded the statutory minimum for publication.
GR1 (Government): The principle of data minimization was also respected since there were no other less intrusive set of data that could have been used for the applicant's identification of third parties.
GR1 (Government): As regards the complaint concerning the publication of data on archive lists, it falls outside the scope of the present case since it was only raised before the ground chamber.
GR1 (Government): In any event, this measure is in accordance with the law, and its legitimate purpose is to enable third parties to exercise certain specific taxation rights.
GR1 (Government): The applicant has not contested the lawfulness and necessity of the continued publication of the archive data before the competent domestic judicial authorities.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, this concludes what
GR1 (Government): I wish to stay at this stage.
GR1 (Government): May I thank you, Mr. President and members of the court,
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Tallódi.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I now turn to my fellow colleagues, judges of the Grand Chamber, Judge Pastor Vilanova.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): J'ai 2 questions à formuler aux représentants du gouvernement.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Bien entendu, le requérant est libre d'y répondre si tel est son choix.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Selon l'exposé des motifs de la loi relative à l'administration fiscale de 2003, la publication des données personnelles des contribuables défaillants doit encourager un comportement respectueux de la loi, mais aussi de faire connaître au tiers la solvabilité des contribuables.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Mes questions sont alors les suivantes.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Quand une personne physique est débitrice de l'Etat au titre de sa responsabilité civile ou pénale, est-ce que son identité et domicile sont aussi dévoilés publiquement?
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Si tel n'est pas le cas, pouvez-vous justifier cette éventuelle différence de traitement en faveur du fisc?
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Plus précisément, est-ce que les personnes condamnées pénalement pour fraude fiscale sont-elles l'objet d'une forme de publicité sur un portail d'Internet libre d'accès?
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Je vous remercie.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, Vice President Kjølbro.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): I do have two questions.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): One is addressed to the government and the other one to the applicant.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): My question to the government concerns the search interface that was introduced as of the 1st of January 2020 based on the 2017 amendment of the Tax Administration Act.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): I'm perfectly aware that the government is objecting to the admissibility, arguing that the applicants failed to exhaust domestic remedies.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): Leave that aside for a second.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): My question is, in the view of the government, is this search interface more or less intrusive, a more serious or less serious interference with the applicant's rights compared to the Article 55, Paragraph 5 enlist, meaning that this information is not accessible, it doesn't give us the access to the full list, it requires searching, but at the same time, it also includes time-barred tax debts.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): My question to the applicant concerns the reputation.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): The applicant is, before the Grand Chamber, heavily relying upon the protection of reputation, arguing that the publication of the tax debt's list touches upon the applicant's reputation or honor.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): My question concerns what is the legal basis for that argument.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): Is there any case law supporting that view?
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): And let me explain very briefly why I'm asking that question.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): We have extensive case law concerning defamation proceedings.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): If someone disseminates subjective assessments or unproven facts or accusations concerning an individual's moral, ethical, or legal behavior, it may touch upon honor and reputation.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): On the other hand, dissemination of objective facts about an individual which are factually correct but of a private nature may touch upon private life.
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Judge): So my question is why, in the view of the applicant, does dissemination of objective facts, tax debts, about the applicant which is factually correct, how can it, and on what legal basis, touch upon honor and reputation?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Yüksel.
Saadet Yüksel (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President.
Saadet Yüksel (Judge): I have one question for the government, but of course the other party can also comment.
Saadet Yüksel (Judge): As you said it in your observations and today in the presentation, one of the legitimate aims pursued by the law is to enable potential business partners to be properly informed about the applicant's tax debts.
Saadet Yüksel (Judge): So I would like to understand whether under the national system there are any other means, ways, through which a potential business partner may find information about another person's tax history.
Saadet Yüksel (Judge): Thank you.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Judge Kūris.
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President.
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): I have two questions which were prompted by the intervention of the representative of the government, so my questions are addressed to Mr. Tallódi, but the other applicant's lawyer
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): may also comment on them.
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): My first question relates to the effectiveness of the measure in question.
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): Unless I misunderstood something, the representative of the government spoke, in fact, against measuring effectiveness of this measure, so my question would be quite theoretical, or maybe from the field of legal sociology.
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): How one can speak about the effectiveness of the measure if that effectiveness cannot be measured?
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): And if it cannot be measured, how it can then be proven, and how it can be asserted?
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): Maybe you still have some data, I don't know, opinion survey, any statistical data proving the effectiveness of the measure, and if the other party wants to answer that question, maybe you have the data to the contrary, not just general considerations, but the concrete data that we could rely upon.
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): My other question is to the representative of the government, but also to the other party, if they want to comment on that.
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): What other publicly available list of, to use the term used already in this hall, of rule breakers, what other lists exist in Hungary that would be publicly available?
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): Just to give several examples, traffic violators, drunk drivers, property misappropriators, domestic violence offenders, sexual offenders, medical malpractitioners, exam cheaters, state secret disclosures, bribe givers or takers, polygamists, whatever, criminals, and if such lists exist, in how many, or in which of them, the home address of a violator of the offender or potential offender is indicated?
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): Thank you very much.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Judge Guerra Martins.
Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Judge): Three questions, two for the government and the applicant, and the other one for the applicant, but of course the government can comment.
Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Judge): The first one is about the taxpayer identification code.
Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Judge): The government argued that the applicant had and doesn't have a taxpayer identification code because now you talk about taxpayer identification code, but as far as I understood beforehand, it was another position.
Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Judge): What I would like to understand is if the applicant has or not a tax identification code, a tax identification number, because if there is, I would like to understand why it is, as you have just said, more antisocial than the home address.
Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Judge): The second question is about the availability in the search interface.
Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Judge): I'd like to understand if it is based on the same facts, the same taxes, and the same data.
Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Judge): That means the home address and the name and the amount of the debt.
Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Judge): The third question is more for the applicant.
Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Judge): You said that the tax authority has any control mechanism on the impact or impact assessment, but the government argued that the tax authority is due to the enforcement proceedings, which were unsuccessful due to the applicant's lack of any property or income.
Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Judge): I would like to know your opinion, to have a comment on this issue.
Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Judge): Thank you very much.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you, Judge Ktistakis.
Ioannis Ktistakis (Judge): Thank you.
Ioannis Ktistakis (Judge): I have one question for both parties and two questions for the government.
Ioannis Ktistakis (Judge): My question for both the parties is about the circular mentioned in paragraph 13 of the chamber's judgment, a circular issued by the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information on February 2012 about the illegal publication of tax data of private individual in local authorities.
Ioannis Ktistakis (Judge): Did the government or the administration or the tax administration follow this circular?
Ioannis Ktistakis (Judge): And I have two questions for the government.