Hungary's Government Withholds Data on Transparency Review, Critics Cite Lack of Openness

Hungarian government ministries are facing criticism for withholding public information related to a transparency review of the government's structure. Despite promises of openness, several ministries have responded to data requests by stating they have no relevant documents or contracts concerning such reviews.

“

If they promise transparency, they should also show public data.

This stance creates a significant contradiction, particularly with the Ministry of Economic and Energy Affairs. While other ministries claim no documentation exists, this ministry has referred to ongoing reviews as a reason to deny access to information. This selective withholding of data prevents the public from scrutinizing the process, the individuals involved, and the contractual basis of these reviews.

The core principle of public data requests is to allow citizens to monitor the activities of public bodies, especially when public funds or governmental decisions are involved. However, the current responses suggest a lack of transparency, leaving the public unable to ascertain who was commissioned for the reviews, how they were selected, what documents were produced, or the terms of their contracts.

“

The essence of a public data request is precisely that the public can check what is happening in bodies performing public duties, especially when it has public financial or governmental significance.

Notably, the Prime Minister's Office itself has emphasized the importance of "transparent operation" and the proper use of public funds. Yet, in practice, obtaining information about the very reviews intended to ensure this transparency has proven difficult. The ministries have indicated that individuals denied information can appeal to the courts or the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, but the initial obstruction raises concerns about the government's commitment to genuine openness.

“

Based on the current responses, the public cannot know who was commissioned for the review, by what procedure they were selected, what documents were produced, and on what basis they are working.