Endre Hann’s request was rejected by the Kúria, so the personal rights lawsuit launched against the distributor of the film Elkúrtuk failed, writes the Hungarian Nation. The Court justified the decision by saying, among other things, that the film is considered a work of art, the production of which is part of the constitutional freedom of expression.
“The defendant’s film is a feature film, and it is obvious to the average informed viewer that in this type of film, real events are not repeatedly presented with the actors playing, but rather the work is a visual and audio reproduction of the creators’ imagination.”
photo_camera Photo: Bence Kiss/444
The head of the Median public opinion poll sued Kálomista’s production company in March 2022 due to the film Elkxrtuk, which was released in the fall of 2021, for violating his personal right to a good reputation.
The film was made on the occasion of the events in Budapest in the fall of 2006, and was an important part of Fidesz’s 2022 campaign: both politicians and media figures close to the government promoted the film.
One of the main characters of the story is “Endre”, the consultant-researcher who revolves around the Gyurcsánys, who manipulates the characters and public opinion at the same time. For example, he deliberately underestimates Fidesz and overestimates the socialists, at other times he gives advice to ministers on who is worth observing or following.
In one of the scenes of the film, “Endre” also takes part in a meeting, in the parliament, during which Klára Dobrev decides that the police will deliberately push the radical protesters on the Fidesz commemorations near the Astoria.
photo_camera Gábor Kálomista Photo: Bence Kiss/444
Hann was invited to the screening, he was referred to as a consultant in the announcement, and the film’s website made it clear that the film’s character was based on him. (The creators advertised the film as “fiction based on true events.”)
At first instance, the court ruled in favor of Endre Hann, but not on all points. In December, the Metropolitan Court ruled that the Kálomists violated Hann’s personal right to protect his reputation, but not with the depiction in the film, but only with the communication, announcement, and website of the work.
In the second instance, however, the court ruled not for Endre Hann, but for Kálomista. The final decision was justified by the fact that “the creative and artistic freedom of the film Elkúrtuk is stronger than the personal rights and protection of the plaintiff. Especially considering that during that period, the plaintiff’s personal legal situation as a public figure presupposes a higher level of tolerance than in the case of an average person”.
After the publication of our article, Endre Hann indicated in a letter that he would turn to the Constitutional Court and, if necessary, take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
