The succesfully campaigning civilians against the incinerator have been sued

According to the sue filed to the Pest County Court the civilians did damage to the reputation of Utilis LTD, in the way that they claimed the planned incinerator to be toxic and hazardous to health. The civilians claimed that they just practiced their right to freedom of opinion and expression as it is guaranteed in the Constitution.

The gist of the case in Pusztazámor is that Utilis LTD wanted to have a initiative role in the construction of the sewage sludge incinerator . Opponents found that letting the regional landfill site to be constructed in Pusztazámor has already been a sacrifice from the settlement and they did not welcome another plant that puts pressure on the environment. The case led to a referendum, which turned out to be valid and succesful, and thelocals voted against the planned plant. The company sued the three civilians after this.

HuMuSz holds the sheer existence of this case rather worrying, while accepting the right to protect one's reputation. The most important part of democracy lies in the cooperation of the civil society, the involvement of citizens into the decision making process and the right to freedom of opinion and expression.  If citizens have the feeling that this right to freedom of opinion is not entirely respected, ie. there is a threat of being sued, they will become reluctant to express their opinion and the democratic system will be distorted.

Besides Pusztazámor civils were sued in the Szentgotthárd incinerator case as well, but they were forced to reach a compromise outside the court because of the unpredictability and huge costs. Similarly, civilians against the planned cement factory were threatened to be sued in Nyergesújfalu, and also in Hajdúböszörmény against another incinerator. Among the sued people we often find disadvantaged citizens who fight for the community but often can not afford the costs of law expenses. They can easily feel that the basic question relies not in protecting good reputation; it has more to do with deterring them from social responsibility.

Giving verdict on the case is in charge of the Independent Hungarian Court. Up to now, the predecedent decisions and  the legal interpretation of the Constitutional Court have concluded that the main question in these kind of cases is  whether the dissaproved  parts of the text were expressions of opinion or not. If so; the court investigates whether the opinion unduly damages reputation or not, as in the Republic of Hungary everybody has the right to speech in public matters as long as  it does not hurt anybody.

This interpretation of law is very important, as if it is not applicable  without specific evidences it would be impossible to give opinion in public in a case with general interest.

In this specific case before the decision of the Independent Hungarian Court HUMUSZ do not want to give its opinion directly, but what we could see as a fortunate outcome of the whole case is that the company would solve the problems through negotiations outside the court.