Wyrok Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka z 20 czerwca 2024 r. w sprawie Boronyák przeciwko Węgrom, skarga nr 4110/20
The Applicant concluded an agency contract with the company M. to play a role in a TV series financed by the state and to not disclose any confidential information concerning his contract. Several years later, he gave an interview to an internet...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Jagiellonian University Press
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | Przegląd Konstytucyjny |
| Online Access: |
https://ejournals.eu/czasopismo/przeglad-konstytucyjny/artykul/wyrok-europejskiego-trybunalu-praw-czlowieka-z-20-czerwca-2024-r-w-sprawie-boronyak-przeciwko-wegrom-skarga-nr-4110-20
|
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The Applicant concluded an agency contract with the company M. to play a role in a TV series financed by the state and to not disclose any confidential information concerning his contract. Several years later, he gave an interview to an internet portal where he disclosed information about the fees that he had received. The company deemed it a breach of contract’s conditions, therefore demanding the contractual penalty. The civil proceedings were initiated, in which the domestic courts recognized the company’s claims. The Applicant decided to apply to the European Court of Human Rights accusing the domestic courts of violating his freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by the European Convention on the Human Rights. He pointed out that the purpose of his actions was to provide information about managing the public funds which Hungarian law classifies as data of public interest. The Court has pointed out that in certain cases the state is obligated to protect conventional rights and freedoms also when the violating party is a private entity. Therefore, the domestic courts had to balance the business interests of the Company M. and the Applicant’s freedom of speech. Moreover, the Court deemed itself proper to examine if the states had fulfilled such an obligation. Eventually the Court pointed out that the law did not oblige the Applicant to disclose the relevant information whereas the public interest the applicant referred to, had a doubtful importance due to the fact that the information was concerning only the individual conditions of his contract. At the same time it pointed out that concerning the size of the project, which was the production of the TV series, the Company had a relevant interest in keeping the business information confidential. On the basis of the above analysis, the Court decided that the domestic courts had fulfilled their obligation and there was no violation of the Convention.
|
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2544-2031 2956-3623 |