Published on 17 February 2025
 
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 55231/22
Dalma DOJCSÁK
against Hungary
lodged on 4 November 2022
communicated on 29 January 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the refusal to delete the applicant’s personal data stored by a mobile phone operator. On 11 April 2014 the applicant requested the telecommunication service provider Telenor Hungary Ltd to provide information about her personal data retained by the company and whether and for what reasons access had been granted to third parties to her personal data. She also requested the deletion of her personal data. Her request was partially granted in that the phone operator informed the applicant that her personal data had not been transferred to third parties. However, the applicant has not received information about the personal data retained by the company, neither were such data deleted on the grounds that under section 159/A of Act no. C of 2003 on Electronic Communications (Electronic Telecommunications Act), the retention of the applicant’s personal data was required by law.
The applicant lodged a civil action with the Budapest High Court for the protection of her personal data. In the course of the proceedings the mobile telecommunication service provider granted the applicant’s request as to the information on her personal data processed by the company. The remainder of the applicant’s action, concerning the deletion of her personal data, was dismissed on 16 June 2015. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 7 April 2016 by the Budapest Court of Appeal.
The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint on 7 July 2016, challenging the constitutionality of section 159/A of the Electronic Telecommunications Act. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint on 28 June 2022 (decision served on the applicant on 5 July 2022), finding that the alleged unconstitutionality could not be remedied by repealing the impugned legislative provision.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts. She further complains under Article 8 of the Convention that her personal data was stored by her telecommunication service provider due to the legal obligation provided by the Electronic Telecommunications Act.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Bieliński v. Poland, no. 48762/19, § 47, 21 July 2022)?
 
2.  Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life or correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
 
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Breyer v. Germany, no. 50001/12, §§ 83-110, 30 January 2020)?