The purpose of the amendments to the Act on the Right to Information Autonomy and the Freedom of Information is to make changes that further reinforce the independence of the Chair of the National Data Protection and Freedom of Information Authority. The amendments take account of the concerns raised by the European Commission and propose their entry into force within the shortest possible time.

The proposed amendments would, inter alia, remove the power of the head of state to terminate the mandate of the Chair of the National Data Protection and Freedom of Information Authority, based on the Prime Minister’s recommendation, if he/she is unable to perform his/her duties for more than three months.

According to the proposed amendments, the Prime Minister would only have the power to initiate the removal of the chair of the data protection authority on account of the emergence of a conflict of interests or due to the violation of the rules regarding the issuance of financial disclosure statements; in the latter case, if the chair wilfully provides material facts or data incorrectly. At the same time, the chair of the authority would be able to contest the Prime Minister’s motion before a court of law within 30 days. The chair of the authority would be required to institute a lawsuit against the Prime Minister before the Metropolitan Labour Court, which must proceed without delay. The President of the Republic would only have the power to terminate the mandate of the chair of the data protection authority if the court finds the proposed removal well-founded.

Another proposed amendment prescribes ten years’ relevant experience, in contrast to the present five, for the appointment of the chair of the authority, and maintains fives years’ experience in the case of his/her deputy.
Additionally, the Government would enable the chair of the data protection authority to attend and address the meetings of the parliamentary committees, and consequently to review bills presented to the House in person.

The proposed amendments would enter into force on the day following their promulgation. Tibor Navracsics argues this is necessary on account of the ongoing EU proceedings.

The passage of a new data protection law was made necessary by Hungary’s new Fundamental Law taking effect in 2012. The new data protection regulations confirmed that the Government and Parliament were committed to the effective safeguarding of fundamental rights and the Government regarded the protection of the basic constitutional rights of citizens as a fundamental element of guarantee.

Hungary’s Fundamental Law constitutionally guarantees the monitoring by an independent authority of the enforcement of the right to the protection of personal data and the right of the individual to obtain access to data of public interest.

The Hungarian Authority is independent; it is only subjected to the rule of law, may not be instructed within the sphere of its responsibilities and does not form part of the hierarchical system of public administration. Parliament passed the Act on the Right to Information Autonomy and the Freedom of Information as a cardinal law on 11 July 2011. The purpose of the legislation is to define the actual content of information rights in the interest of the enforcement of fundamental rights and to guarantee the effective enforcement of these rights. By virtue of the passage of the law, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Data Protection has been replaced by the National Data Protection and Freedom of Information Authority.

The European Commission announced on 7 March that it is continuing the accelerated infringement proceedings instituted against Hungary on 17 January on the independence of the data protection supervisor and the retirement age of judges, and requests the Hungarian Government to provide additional information on the central bank’s independence.

The EU’s central recommendatory and executive institution will send two reasoned opinions to Budapest on the first two topics. In accordance with the relevant EU procedures, if the Commission does not accept the given Member State’s replies to its reasoned opinion, the case may be taken to the Luxembourg-based European Court. The European Commission has repeatedly given Hungary one month to respond to the opinions, in contrast to the time limit of two months that is customary in proceedings of this kind.

Source: kormany.hu