Voorhoof, Dirk

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

IRIS 2015-1/1European Court of Human Rights: Matúz v. HungaryIn its judgment in the case of Matúz v. Hungary, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed the importance ofwhistleblower protection, in this case for a journalist who alarmed public opinion regarding censorship within thepublic broadcasting organisation in Hungary. The case concerned the dismissal of a television journalist, GáborMatúz, working for the State television company Magyar Televízió Zrt., after having revealed several instances ofalleged censorship by one of his superiors.Matúz first contacted the television company’s president and sent a letter to its board, informing them that thecultural director’s conduct in modifying and cutting certain programme content amounted to censorship. A shorttime later, an article appeared in the online version of a Hungarian daily newspaper, containing similar allegationsand inviting the board to end censorship in the television company. A few months later, Matúz published a bookcontaining detailed documentary evidence of censorship exercised in the State television company. Subsequently,Matúz was dismissed with immediate effect. Matúz challenged his dismissal in court, but he remained unsuccessfulin his legal action in Hungary. After exhausting all national remedies, he lodged a complaint in Strasbourg, arguinga violation of his rights under Article 10 of the Convention. He submitted that he had the right and obligation toinform the public about alleged censorship at the national television company. The Hungarian government arguedthat by publishing the impugned book without prior authorisation and by revealing confidential information in thatbook, Matúz had breached his duties, leading to his summary - and justified - dismissal.The European Court accepted that the legitimate aim pursued by the impugned measure was the prevention ofthe disclosure of confidential information, as well as “the protection of the reputation or rights of others” withinthe meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. Once more, the central question was whether the interferencewas “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court referred to its standard case law on freedom of expression andjournalistic reporting on matters of public interest and also observed that the present case bears a certain resem-blance to the cases of Fuentes Bobo v. Spain (see IRIS 2000-4/1) and Wojtas-Kaleta v. Poland (see IRIS 2009-9/1),in which it found violations of Article 10 in respect of journalists who had publicly criticised the public televisionbroadcaster’s management.The relevant criteria regarding the balancing of the right to freedom of expression of a person bound by pro-fessional confidentiality against the right of employers to manage their staff have been laid down in the Court’scase-law since its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Guja v. Moldova (§§74-78) (see IRIS 2008-6/1). Thesecriteria are: (a) public interest involved in the disclosed information; (b) authenticity of the information disclosed;(c) the damage, if any, suffered by the authority as a result of the disclosure in question; (d) the motive behindthe actions of the reporting employee; (e) whether, in the light of the duty of discretion owed by an employeetoward his or her employer, the information was made public as a last resort, following disclosure to a superioror other competent body; and (f) the severity of the sanction imposed. The Court emphasised that the contentof the book essentially concerned a matter of public interest and it confirmed that it was not in dispute that thedocuments published by Matúz were authentic and that his comments had a factual basis. The Court also notedthat the journalist had included the confidential documents in the book with no other intention than to corroboratehis arguments on censorship and that there was no appearance of any gratuitous personal attack either (par. 46).Furthermore, the decision to make the impugned information and documents public was based on the lack of anyresponse following his complaint to the president of the television company and letters to the board. Hence theCourt was “satisfied that the publication of the book took place only after the applicant had felt prevented fromremedying the perceived interference with his journalistic work within the television company itself - that is, forwant of any effective alternative channel” (par. 47). The Court also noted that “a rather severe sanction wasimposed on the applicant”, namely the termination of his employment with immediate effect (par. 48).The Court was of the opinion that the approach by the Hungarian judicial authorities neglected to sufficiently applythe right of freedom of expression. The Court concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedomof expression was not “necessary in a democratic society”. Accordingly, the Court unanimously found that therehas been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.• Judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), case of Matúz v. Hungary, Appl. No. 73571/10 of 21 October 2014http://merlin.obs.coe.int/redirect.php?id=17320ENIRIS 1Dirk VoorhoofGhent University (Belgium) & Copenhagen University (Denmark) & Member of the Flemish Regulator for theMediaThe objective of IRIS is to publish information on legal and law-related policy developments that are relevant to theEuropean audiovisual sector. Despite our efforts to ensure the accuracy of the content, the ultimate responsibilityfor the truthfulness of the facts on which we report is with the authors of the articles. Any opinions expressedin the articles are personal and should in no way be interpreted as representing the views of any organisationsrepresented in its editorial board.© European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg (France)IRIS 2

European Court of Human Rights: Matúz v. Hungary

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/5826442/file/5826443.pdf

European Court of Human Rights: Matúz v. Hungary

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography