Spotlight on Hungary: Fighting Back against Pegasus, a Tool of Transnational Oppression

Media freedom in Hungary has significantly declined since the Fidesz party led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán came to power. The government exerts substantial control over the media landscape. The national public media company, MTVA has been effectively turned into a government-controlled broadcaster, while the 2018 establishment of the Central European Press and Media Foundation (KESMA), a government-influenced private foundation controlling more than 470 outlets consolidated the government’s dominance in the media. Journalists face numerous obstacles, including restricted access to government information and surveillance, as highlighted by the Pegasus spyware scandal. This scandal revealed that state actors were using advanced surveillance technology to monitor independent journalists, undermining press freedom and personal privacy in the country. It was unsurprising that the data protection authority (DPA) found everything to be in order, given that Hungarian legislation permits secret surveillance on broad legal grounds.

HCLU’s Fight against Illegal State Surveillance

In the present challenging environment, it is crucial to advocate for the rights of journalists to preserve the remaining areas of media freedom in Hungary. Consequently, the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU) extended legal support to journalists who were targeted with the Pegasus spyware.

The HCLU’s clients—Brigitta Csikász, Dávid Dercsényi, Dániel Németh, and Szabolcs Panyi—are journalists who have extensively covered stories uncomfortable for the government. These stories include corruption cases, instances of Russian influence on the Hungarian government, and details about how the Foreign Minister spent his vacation on a yacht lent to him by a billionaire, all while posting on social media as if he was doing his regular job at his office.

We pledged to explore all available legal avenues to either uncover the information collected on them or demonstrate the inadequacy of legal remedies for victims of unlawful surveillance. Moreover, we committed to escalating these cases to international bodies if necessary.

Accordingly, we began proceedings with every possible remedial institution, but it soon became clear that they were not functioning properly: The ombudsman stated that the issue was under the jurisdiction of the DPA, despite an earlier ruling by the Constitutional Court indicating otherwise. Additionally, meaningful investigation by Parliament’s National Security Committee was rejected by government MPs who hold the majority. It also emerged that the DPA did not consider fundamental rights at all when investigating surveillance cases.

The legal regulations concerning covert surveillance by national security agencies are seldom addressed in court cases, leading to ambiguity in their application. This flexible situation allows for a rights-compliant interpretation of the law but also results in unpredictable court rulings. Moreover, the independence of the Supreme Court (Curia) is questionable. We have seen progressive rulings from the lower-level courts: two judgments ordering the DPA to conduct thorough investigations, and one ruling that one of the national security agencies has to disclose whether they handle any personal data on one of our clients. However, there is reason to believe that the Curia will overturn these in these highly politicised cases.

While litigation may take a long time and the outcome is uncertain, it can be used to raise awareness about the issue. It also gives legitimacy and credibility to the HCLU when advocating, because we have the most knowledge about how national security laws are applied in practice. This is what led the European Parliament’s PEGA Committee to invite us to a hearing during its investigation.

In conclusion, despite the serious shortcomings of Hungarian remedial institutions, it is still possible for litigation to provide some form of redress for our journalist clients. Litigation also serves as a gauge of the political motivations of the Curia. Additionally, it opens up advocacy channels that can ultimately influence European legislation and legal interpretation, thereby impacting Hungary.

Article by Ádám Remport,
Legal Expert at our partner organisation, HCLU

Interested in this topic? 

Read more about HCLU’s work on Pegasus here.
Read more about Media Defence’s litigation against Pegasus Spyware here.

Read more of our free Resource Hub resources about Spyware and cybercrime here and here.

Find out more about our partners or apply to be a funded partner here.