Sometimes it is good to remind ourselves that the asset of the state is our common asset, and the state funds its operation by our taxes so that it can manage our common affairs sensibly, efficiently and according to the needs and interests of the society. This is our state, we, its citizens own it, its operation is funded by our money and its fundamental obligation is to account for the use and spending of that money.
Without any prior social consultation, Minister of Justice proposed an amendment to the act on the freedom of information, which would further limit the access to public information. In addition, Deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semjén initiated the exclusive (accelerated) debate of the amendment in the Parliament.
Once again, the government explains that in certain cases the fulfilment of data requests exceeds the available capacities of data owners or controllers. We do not dispute that this is a possibility, however, we are sure that not providing data, or charging for data service is not the right solution.By the proactive disclosure of all public data there would be a need for significantly fewer data requests. We don’t have to go far to find examples: for a couple of years, it has been obligatory to disclose contracts on public spending in an electronic database in Slovakia, while Estonia has refounded its public administration on an entirely electronic basis - practically, paper is only used in toilets.
In contrast, the Hungarian government’s reaction to the increased need of citizens and the press for data is making access to data harder.
- Data owners can more easily and arbitrarily charge data requesters for the copying and sending of data.
- Almost anything can be claimed a “preparatory document” that could also be used in the future during the preparation for a certain decision, so can be kept not public (so far this could not have been a point of reference after the decision has been made). For example, with the acceptance of the ruling in question, data of the Daimler-investigation could not have become public either.
- Copyrighted documents (e.g.: a government-funded study from the government close Századvég institute or an overpriced study for the Budapest Public Transport Company) can only be looked into in person, and there is no obligation of making them electronically available. As these materials are not resold, the limitation is totally groundless.
- Anonymous data requests can be rejected.
- Repeated data requests can be rejected (even if remaining unanswered).
- For the release of data produced in the EU or in any other member state there is a need for the approval of the EU or the member state in question (this leads to the infinite retardation of providing data, moreover, in these days, there is hardly anything made of non-EU money, so this passage could be easily referred to in almost every case).
In our common letter, we drew the attention of the parties concerned with the amendment to the above-mentioned problems and we asked them to desist from the modification of the legislation in this spirit. In case of the maintaining of the planned amendment, we will surely take further action as the proposed modifications extraordinarily violate the fundamental rights of every Hungarian citizen, and go straight against the principles of transparency and open government.
Further information:
Anita Koncsik, koncsik.anita@k-monitor.hu
Sandor Lederer, lederer@k-monitor.hu
Miklós Ligeti, miklos.ligeti@transparency.hu
Fanny Hidvégi, hidvegi.fanny@tasz.hu
