Scroll To Top
Home \Litigation \  Advanced Search

Country: Hungary

Litigation SearchRefine/Modify Search

Find decisions that have...

(E.g., Keywords, citations, decision titles, or parties)
OrOr

But don't show pages that have...

Other Search Criteria:

from:to:

Search Results Results 1-3 of 3

Vekony v. Hungary [Hungary] [January 13, 2015]

A tobacco retailer was forced to apply for a new license after a national law created a state monopoly on tobacco sales. The retailer’s application for a tobacco license was denied and, as a result of the lost sales, his shop was forced to close. The retailer claimed that the loss of his tobacco license unjustly deprived him of his property. The court found that the government’s decision not to grant the tobacco license interfered with the “peaceful enjoyment of possessions” guaranteed in the European Human Rights Convention. The court also found that the retailer had to suffer an excessive burden and awarded him 15,000 Euros to compensate for the lost business, plus 6,000 Euros for attorney costs. 

Reklámtevékenységr [Hungary] [October 30, 2000]

Information about this decision coming soon.

DP & FOI Commissioner v. Philip Morris Hungary Ltd. [Hungary] [December 00, 0000]

In 2006, the DP&FOI Commissioner started an investigation of Philip Morris Hungary Ltd. regarding the processing of personal data related to a direct marketing campaign. The collected personal data was further used to send personalised brochures providing information on tobacco products. The Commissioner requested an opinion from the Hungarian Competition Authority whether such direct marketing methods can be considered as advertising of tobacco products, which – according to Act LVIII of 1997 on Business Advertising Activity – is forbidden in Hungary. Since the Hungarian Competition Authority confirmed that it was "advertising of tobacco products," the Commissioner came to the conclusion that personal data shall not be collected and further used for the purpose of sending personalised brochures advertising those products, even with the consent of the data subject. Therefore, the Commissioner advised the data processor to cease the operation and ordered, by resolution, that unlawfully processed data be blocked, deleted, or destroyed. Philip Morris Hungary Ltd. brought a lawsuit against the resolution before the competent Court. According to the decision of the Court "as the addressee requested the information himself/herself to be sent in a closed envelope, therefore the information cannot be considered as an advertisement." Having regard to the decision of the Court the Commissioner revoked the resolution and the case was dismissed by the Court.

Later on, the Commercial Advertising Activities Act came into force.  In light of the new act, the Commissioner deemed it necessary to reopen the case and examine the data processing activity. According to the new act, information sent unequivocally to the addressee is considered to be forbidden advertising of a tobacco product; therefore, the collected data is further processed in a way which is incompatible with the specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes. As a consequence, the Commissioner banned the processing activity by resolution. This time Philip Morris Hungary Ltd. did not appeal the decision.

The materials and analysis available at this website are for informational and educational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice.