18 Oct Refusing journalist to interview asylum seekers in Hungary violated freedom of expression

In the case of Szurovecz v. Hungary (application no. 15428/16, 08.10.2019.) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The case concerned media access to reception facilities for asylum-seekers. The applicant in the case, a journalist for an Internet news portal, complained about the authorities’ refusal of his request to carry out interviews and take photographs at the Debrecen Reception Centre, thus preventing him from reporting on the living conditions there. Mr Szurovecz sought a judicial review, without success. The administrative court declared his action inadmissible because the refusal was not an administrative decision under the relevant domestic law and was not therefore subject to judicial review.

The Court stressed that research work was an essential part of press freedom and had to be protected.

The interference had been lawful, as it was based on section 2 of Decree no. 52/2007 (XII.11) of the Ministry of Justice, and its aim, protecting the private lives of asylum-seekers, had been legitimate. However, the Court found that the reasons given for such a restriction on the applicant’s freedom of expression, although relevant, had not been sufficient. 

First, concerning the need to protect asylum-seekers’ private lives, the immigration authorities had not apparently taken any notice of the applicant’s argument that he would only take photographs with prior and, if need be, written consent. The Court also noted that reporting on the living conditions at the centre, although necessarily touching upon asylum-seekers’ private lives, had not sought to sensationalise, but to report on a matter of public interest. 

Secondly, neither the domestic authorities nor the Government had indicated how exactly asylum-seekers’ safety could be jeopardised in practice, especially if the research only took place with their consent. 

Thirdly, the Court disagreed with the Government that the applicant could just as easily have taken pictures and conducted interviews outside the Reception Centre. Those alternatives could in no way replace face-to-face discussions and first-hand impressions on living conditions.

Lastly, the courts had not been able to carry out any balancing exercise of the various interests involved, given that the decision to refuse access was not subject to judicial review.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights