The Metropolitan Court of Budapest rejects the claim filed by the Budapest-based Cseppkő Children’s Home, in which it requested that the Court conclude that the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights violated the children’s home’s fundamental right to reputation

Acting in his capacity as the National Preventive Mechanism, i.e. the independent visiting body appointed for the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights conducted an on-site inspection on the circumstances of the residents of the Cseppkő Children’s Home on March 1-2, 2016 and April 26, 2016. In the report on this visit, the National Preventive Mechanism disclosed the experience gained from the document reviews, the experience gained during the visit, the personal interviews, as well as, among others, his recommendations concerning drug abuse, overcrowdedness, the threat of child prostitution, as well as the prevention and handling of violence against and between children. 

According to the representatives of Cseppkő Children’s Home, the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights violated the children’s home’s fundamental right to reputation by publishing this report. Cseppkő Children’s Home claimed that the court prohibit the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights from any further violations of rights, furthermore, it claimed that the Court oblige the Office to pay a grievance fee of 3,000,000 Forints, a compensation amount of 1,500,000 Forints, as well as the respective interests on these amounts. The claim was rejected by the Metropolitan Court of Budapest, justifying its decision, among others, by that the fact that the procedure conducted by the National Preventive Mechanism “brought a result that was unfavorable for the claimant does not mean that the claimant is entitled launch a case for coercing a report with a content that is favorable for them, or for the court to establish that the report with the undesired conclusions contains statements that violate the law”. 

The judgment is non-binding.