Liberties submitted a joint third-party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights in Mediarey Hungary Services Zrt. v. Hungary, concerning the relationship between data protection, privacy, access to information and freedom of expression.

The intervention was submitted on behalf of the Civil Liberties Union for Europe, Civil Rights Defenders, the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation, Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, the Italian Coalition for Civil Liberties and Rights, and Ligue des Droits Humains.

Download the submission from here.​

At the centre of the case is a Forbes magazine article about the 100 wealthiest people in Hungary, including Hell Energy, a Hungarian energy drink manufacturer. Hell Energy objected under the GDPR and obtained a temporary court order stopping Forbes from publishing identifiable personal data.

The Hungarian Data Protection Authority later found that Forbes had breached the GDPR and fined the magazine. The Hungarian courts upheld the decision, saying that Hungarian law did not provide a specific journalistic exemption under Article 85 of the GDPR.

The case raises an increasingly urgent question: when can personal data protection and privacy interests outweigh restrictions on public-interest journalism, access to information and free expression? We have identified uneven implementation of Article 85 of the GDPR, and, in some EU member states, the silencing of journalists on data protection grounds. Our submission emphasises the need for recognising economic journalism as a core form of public-interest reporting.

Our core message is straightforward: data protection must not be applied in a way that disables public-interest journalism. Where reporting is proportionate and contributes to a debate of general interest, access to information and freedom of expression must prevail over privacy and data protection claims.

1. The journalistic exemption under Article 85 GDPR

The right to data protection is not absolute. The reconciliation of data protection with freedom of expression and information is derived from the GDPR. This includes the exemption to allow processing personal data for journalistic purposes.

We argue that the relevant test is whether the processing of personal data serves the purpose of informing the public and contributing to a debate of general interest.

This is particularly important for investigative, data-driven, and economic journalism, where reporting often requires collecting and publishing personal data.

2. Data protection claims must not silence journalists

Our second argument is that data protection law is increasingly used to silence public participation.

GDPR-based claims may be even more attractive to powerful actors because they allow claimants to avoid engaging with the truth, accuracy or public-interest value of the reporting. Instead, they can argue that the journalist lacked a lawful basis for processing personal data, failed to comply with data subject rights, and should remove or redact published material.

Our intervention asks the Court to recognise that GDPR-based claims may function as SLAPPs. Therefore, the chilling effect, procedural burden, proportionality, and the risk of abusive litigation should be taken into account by courts and Data Protection Authorities.

3. Economic journalism is public-interest journalism

A central point in the intervention is that economic journalism deserves the same level of protection as other forms of public-interest journalism.

Reporting on wealth, ownership, business influence and economic power is not gossip. This is especially true in contexts where business interests and political power are closely connected. Journalism that explains wealth accumulation, public procurement, ownership structures or the influence of major economic actors contributes to public debate in the same way as reporting on political office-holders or public institutions.

4. DPAs need safeguards when dealing with journalistic cases

Finally, we argue that Data Protection Authorities need to create institutional safeguards to avoid becoming vehicles for SLAPPs.

Our intervention calls for safeguards such as clear guidance on Article 85 of the GDPR, protection against orders requiring the disclosure of journalistic sources, and careful scrutiny of requests for removal or redaction.

You can download the submission from here.

More of our work to support amicus interventions and strategic litigation:

Defending EMFA: Liberties Responds to Hungary’s Lawsuit With a Third-Party Observation

Unofficial Third Party intervention with the Court of Justice of the EU:  Third Party Observations to the Case C-486/24

Liberties’ third-party intervention in the ECtHR case Mándli and others v Hungary

Liberties’ third-party intervention in the ECtHR case Yordanovi v Bulgaria