Communicated on 9 June 2016

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 15428/16 Illés SZUROVECZ against Hungary lodged on 12 March 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Illés Szurovecz , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1993 and lives in Mezőberény . He is represented before the Court by Mr T. Hüttl , a lawyer practising in Budapest.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a journalist at abcug.hu, an Internet news portal. On 7 May 2015 he contacted a civil society organisation with a view to covering their activities at the Vámosszabadi Reception Centre for asylum-seekers and refugees. He was informed that a request for authorisation to enter the Reception Centre should be addressed to the Office of Immigration and Nationality.

The applicant ’ s request was dismissed by the Office ’ s press department on 12 May 2015 relying on the personality rights of the people accommodated in the Reception Centre.

On 14 September 2015 the applicant lodged a new request with the Office of Immigration and Nationality. He sought permission to enter the Debrecen Reception Centre to interview the people staying there and prepare a report on the living conditions, including pictures. He specified that photographs would only be taken with the permission of the persons concerned and should it be necessary he would acquire a written statement each time. The applicant submits that his reason for choosing the Debrecen Reception Centre was to provide an objective account of the living conditions there, in particular since in April 2015 the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights had issued a report in accordance with the Optional Protocol to UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment condemning the living conditions which amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Furthermore, the Centre was constantly presented in the State-owned media as part of the Government ’ s anti-immigration campaign.

On 14 September 2015 the Office of Immigration and Nationality rejected his request relying on Article IV § 1 of the Fundamental Law and section 2(5) of Regulation no. 52/2007 (XII.11) of the Ministry of Justice and Law-Enforcement. The Office noted that there was constant media interest in asylum-seekers and regular visits to the Reception Centre would infringe their private lives. Moreover, many people accommodated in the Centre had fled some form of persecution and information about them appearing in the press could endanger both their and their families ’ security. It was the domestic authorities ’ responsibility to ensure that persecutors could not receive information about the asylum-seekers ’ whereabouts through the press.

The applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of his request. On 12 November 2015 the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court declared his action inadmissible since the Office of Immigration and Nationality ’ s reply had not been an administrative decision within the meaning of section 12 of the Administrative Procedure Act no. CXL of 2004, thus it was not subject to judicial review.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that by refusing his request to enter the premises of the Debrecen Reception Centre with a view to writing a report on the living conditions of asylum-seekers the domestic authorities interfered with his right to impart information. He also submits that contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, he did not have an effective remedy to contest the grievance of his right to freedom of expression.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the refusal of access to the premises of the Debrecen Reception Centre constitute an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?

2. If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?

3. Did the applicant have an “arguable claim” that there had been a violation of his rights under Article 10 of the Convention so as to bring Article 13 into play? If so, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaint, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?