CASE OF L.B. v. HUNGARY
Hearing: L.B. v. Hungary (no. 36345/16) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-11-03 00:00:00)
Application no.: 36345/16
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2023-03-09 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0309JUD003634516
Respondent state: HUN
Articles of the Convention: 35;35-3-a;8;8-1;8-2;41
Represented by: KISS D. ; KARSAI D.
Issue: Act no. XCII of 2003 on Tax Administration ; 2006 amendment of the 2003 Tax Administration Act ; Section 26 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act ; Act CXII of 2011 in the right to informational self-determination and freedom of information ; Act no. CL of 2017 (2017 Tax Administration Act)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009;Alkaya v. Turkey, no. 42811/06, 9 October 2012;Anchev v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos. 38334/08 and 68242/16, 5 December 2017;Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, ECHR 2013;Armonienė v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 42, 25 November 2008;Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, 7 February 2012;Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 58170/13 and 2 others, 25 May 2021;Biriuk v. Lithuania, no. 23373/03, § 43, 25 November 2008;Cemalettin Canlı v. Turkey, no. 22427/04, 18 November 2008;Centrum för rättvisa v. Sweden [GC], no. 35252/08, § 151, 25 May 2021;Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, § 117, 4 April 2018;Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, ECHR 2015;Denis and Irvine v. Belgium [GC], nos. 62819/17 and 63921/17, § 98, 1 June 2021;Editorial Board of Pravoye Delo and Shtekel v. Ukraine, no. 33014/05, § 63, ECHR 2011 (extracts);G.S.B. v. Switzerland, no. 28601/11, § 93, 22 December 2015;Karabeyoğlu v. Turkey, no. 30083/10, § 118, 7 June 2016;Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan, nos. 65286/13 and 57270/14, § 147-49, 10 January 2019;Khelili v. Switzerland, no. 16188/07, § 64, 18 October 2011;L.B. v. Hungary, no. 36345/16, § 16, 12 January 2021;Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, § 108, 11 December 2018;Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 99, ECHR 2005-XI;Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom, nos. 31417/96 and 32377/96, § 82, 27 September 1999;M.A. v. Denmark [GC], no. 6697/18, 9 July 2021;M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, nos. 60798/10 and 65599/10, §§ 99 and 106, 28 June 2018;M.S. v. Sweden, 27 August 1997, Reports 1997 I;Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary, no. 22947/13, 2 February 2016;Mendrei v. Hungary (dec.), no. 54927/15, 19 June 2018;Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 297, 28 November 2017;O’Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, § 199, ECHR 2014;Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 163, ECHR 2015;Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, 4 December 2007;Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007;Pihl v. Sweden (dec.), no. 74742/14, 7 February 2017;Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 44, ECHR 2000 V;S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECHR 2008;S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, § 97, ECHR 2011;S.M. v. Croatia [GC], no. 60561/14, §§ 216-19, 25 June 2020;Samoylova v. Russia, no. 49108/11, §§ 100-01, 14 December 2021;Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, 27 June 2017;Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, ECHR 2004 VIII;Sinan Işık v. Turkey, no. 21924/05, §§ 42-53, ECHR 2010;Sõro v. Estonia, no. 22588/08, § 62, 3 September 2015;Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, § 211, 10 September 2019;Surikov v. Ukraine, no. 42788/06, § 89, 26 January 2017;Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 47621/13 and 5 others, § 273, 8 April 2021;Vukota-Bojić v. Switzerland, no. 61838/10, § 52, 18 October 2016;Węgrzynowski and Smolczewski v. Poland, no. 33846/07, § 58, 16 July 2013;White v. Sweden, no. 42435/02, § 26, 19 September 2006;Z v. Finland, 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 I;Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, §§ 112-15, ECHR 2006 IV
External sources: Sections 5 (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data
Conclusion: Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE