Index – National – A letter was lost, Cecilia Müller is denounced for abuse of power



[ad_1]

They report misconduct against the National Medical Director. According to Bernadett Szél, Cecília Müller’s misleading letter is proof that she parliamentary about this monday In your Facebook post wrote.

The background to the whole case was that Ákos Hadházy would have been interested in the documentation of an EU project worth 17,000 million HUF, for which he wrote a letter to the National Center for Public Health (NNK). However, the institute did not pass it on, only extended the response time from 14 to 45 days. According to the official justification, because compliance with the request would compromise epidemiological control.

As reported by the Index, Cecília Müller likely felt it was problematic that the member had been abducted for this reason, so her colleagues wrote a letter.

But he also accidentally forgot Ákos Hadházy among the recipients, who later published the email. Müller wrote:

Dear colleagues! Don’t we have a better text for this? This compromises the performance of the task, why write it? We simply do not refer to the legislation to extend the supply of data by 45 days and you are done. Thank you very much! Cili

In this sense, Bernadett Szél considers that the regulation that provides for the possibility of extension “was not theoretically invented and that the data could only be retained if compliance with the request could” endanger the performance of the public functions of the public body ” By comparison, for Cecília Müller, the extension is not only automatic, without taking into account the risk, but in fact knowing that there are no legitimate reasons for the extension ”.

According to him, the case proves that the regulation that allows the conservation of data of public interest is unconstitutional and does not offer any guarantee that it will not be abused by public bodies in a way that empties the right to information.

Bernadett Szél also filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court because, according to him, the regulation does not guarantee that state bodies do not abuse it.



[ad_2]