Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság – CJEU Judgment (Hungary, 2025)

CJEU Judgment
Court of Justice of the European Union13 March 2025Hungary
final
CJEU Judgment

CJEU judgment — not a DPA enforcement action

This is a Court of Justice ruling, not an enforcement action by a data protection authority. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

The data subject is a trans person who was granted refugee status in Hungary. When applying for this status, they pointed out that they identified as male and relied on their transsexuality as the ground for their recognition as a refugee. However, the Hungarian National Directorate-General for Immigration Policing (Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, the controller) recorded them in the register as female. In 2022, the data subject, pursuant to Article 16 GDPR, submitted a request to the controller to rectify the asylum register in two particulars: a change of the name under which they had been registered and a change of gender from female to male. On 11 October 2022, the controller rejected the request, arguing that the documents provided by the data subject did not prove that they had undergone gender reassignment surgery and that the applicant’s gender had changed. Therefore, the data subject brought proceedings before the Budapest High Court (Fővárosi Törvényszék). This court, having doubts regarding the interpretation of Article 16 GDPR, stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions to the CJEU: # Must Article 16 of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that, in connection with the exercise of the rights of the data subject, the authority responsible for keeping registers under national law is required to rectify the personal data relating to the gender of that data subject recorded by that authority, where those data have changed after they were entered in the register and therefore do not comply with the principle of accuracy established in Article 5(1)(d) of the GDPR? # If the answer to the first question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 16 of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that it requires the person requesting rectification of the data relating to his or her gender to provide evidence in support of the request for rectification? # If the answer to the second question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 16 of the GD

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 16 GDPR
Art. 23(1)(e) GDPR
Decision AuthorityCJEU
Reviewed AuthorityFővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary)
Full Legal Summary

The data subject is a trans person who was granted refugee status in Hungary. When applying for this status, they pointed out that they identified as male and relied on their transsexuality as the ground for their recognition as a refugee. However, the Hungarian National Directorate-General for Immigration Policing (Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, the controller) recorded them in the register as female. In 2022, the data subject, pursuant to Article 16 GDPR, submitted a request to the controller to rectify the asylum register in two particulars: a change of the name under which they had been registered and a change of gender from female to male. On 11 October 2022, the controller rejected the request, arguing that the documents provided by the data subject did not prove that they had undergone gender reassignment surgery and that the applicant’s gender had changed. Therefore, the data subject brought proceedings before the Budapest High Court (Fővárosi Törvényszék). This court, having doubts regarding the interpretation of Article 16 GDPR, stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions to the CJEU: # Must Article 16 of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that, in connection with the exercise of the rights of the data subject, the authority responsible for keeping registers under national law is required to rectify the personal data relating to the gender of that data subject recorded by that authority, where those data have changed after they were entered in the register and therefore do not comply with the principle of accuracy established in Article 5(1)(d) of the GDPR? # If the answer to the first question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 16 of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that it requires the person requesting rectification of the data relating to his or her gender to provide evidence in support of the request for rectification? # If the answer to the second question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 16 of the GD

Outcome

CJEU Judgment

A judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union, typically on a preliminary reference from a national court.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság in HU

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Judgment Date

13 March 2025

Authority

Court of Justice of the European Union

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság - Hungary (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: