The case concerned a fine imposed by the national courts on the claimant for disclosing confidential information relating to the terms of his contract with a private company. In November 2011, Boronyák, a professional actor, signed an indefinite contract with a production company to play one of the main roles in a television series. The programme was to be a co-production between the private company in question and the public broadcasting company MTVA (the media institution responsible for the management and financing of public broadcasters in Hungary). The agreement stipulated that the television programme would form part of the assets of public television. In addition, the contract contained a confidentiality clause, according to which the claimant agreed not to disclose information relating to the activities of the production company. In 2013, after the premature end of the programme, a group of investigative journalists from the website Atlatszo.hu obtained a court order to access information relating to the financial management of the production of the programme. In 2014, the complainant gave a video interview to the website about the remuneration he received from the production company. Atlatszo.hu then published an article about the non-payment of severance pay to the claimant.
The production company filed a lawsuit against Boronyák for violation of trade secrets. As a result of the court proceedings, the plaintiff was ordered to pay 10 million forints and cover the production company’s legal costs. In his complaint to the court, he alleged a violation of the right to information under Art. 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In its introductory observations, the ECtHR noted that the right to freedom of expression also applies in the context of the employment relationship. It applies to relationships governed not only by public law but also by civil law. On this basis, States parties to the Convention have a positive obligation to take appropriate measures to protect individuals against interference with their right to freedom of expression by other private persons in the context of employment relationships governed by private law. The degree of compliance with this obligation is therefore subject to the assessment of the court.
