10 Apr The systematic publication of personal data of tax debtors violated the Convention

In the case of L.B. v. Hungary (application no. 36345/16, 09.03.2023) the European Court of Human Rights held, by 15 votes to 2, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the Hungarian legislative policy of publishing the personal data of taxpayers who were in debt. The applicant complained in particular that his name and home address had been published on a list of “major tax debtors” on the tax authorities’ website under a 2006 amendment to the relevant tax legislation. This legislation was amended in 2006 to include tax debtors in the publication scheme. In particular, section 55(5) was added to the 2003 Tax Administration Act, providing that the Tax Authority had to publish a list of “major tax debtors”, including the personal data of those whose tax debts exceeded HUF 10 million over a period of more than 180 days.

The Court found that the amended publication scheme had been systematic, without any weighing up of the public interest in ensuring tax discipline against the individual’s privacy rights. In particular, Parliament had not assessed the previous publication schemes and their impact on taxpayers or reflected as to what the additional value would be of the 2006 amended scheme. Although Contracting States had wide discretion (“wide margin of appreciation”) when assessing whether such a scheme was necessary to ensure tax collection, it was not unlimited or beyond the Court’s scrutiny. The Court noted, however, that the 2003 Tax Administration Act had not required such weighing up of the competing interests at stake. Indeed, the Hungarian Tax Authority had had no discretion to review whether it was necessary to publish taxpayers’ personal data. Where a tax debt had been outstanding for 180 days continuously, it was mandatory and systematic for the debtor to be identified by their name and home address on the list published on the Tax Authority’s website.

Moreover, little or no consideration had been given to data protection, the risk of misuse by the general public of a tax debtor’s home address, or the worldwide reach of Internet. The Court was not therefore satisfied, notwithstanding the respondent State’s wide discretion to decide on such matters, that the Hungarian legislature’s reasons for enacting the amended publication scheme, although relevant, had been sufficient to show that the interference with the applicant’s rights had been “necessary in a democratic society”.

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