Court order in response to motion for revision no. JOG/27/2024 of the Authority

In its decision no. 7.Nyom.87/2023, the Investigative Prosecution Office of the Capital rejected the complaint filed for the offence and suspicion of passive corruption of public officials due to the lack of suspicion of a criminal offence.

The Integrity Authority submitted motion for revision no. JOG/27/2024. against the decision of the investigating public prosecutor’s office rejecting the complaint, proposing that the decision of the investigating public prosecutor’s office be abrogated and an investigation be ordered.

In its decision of 9 April 2024, the Central District Court of Buda acting in the case in response to the Authority’s motion for revision admitted the motion for revision put forward and abrogated the above decision of the investigating public prosecutor’s office rejecting the complaint.

In its decision, the court admitted the Authority’s motion for revision and pointed out that, from its standpoint, the investigating public prosecutor’s office had not conducted any substantive investigative act, nor had it identified and interviewed the complainant or ordered the completion of the complaint but dismissed the complaint without taking any of these actions. The court noted that at least a small-scale investigation of the contents of the complaint was essential to make a substantive decision, especially because the complainant – who had filed their complaint through the client gate, making their identity likely identifiable – had referred to the act of corruption as fact, which may concern substantial amounts of public funds, and explicitely named the individuals implicated in suspected cases of corruption.

The court also pointed out that the Authority had had at its disposal no data other than the anonymised decision and the also anonymised list of documents at the time when the motion for revision was submitted, which makes it unrealistic for the investigating authority or the public prosecutor’s office to expect the Authority to provide further information, new facts or evidence.

In light of the above, the court has found that the unexplored nature of the facts included in the decision of the public prosecutor’s office rejecting the complaint had a susbtantial impact on the complaint being rejected. Considering these factors, the court has abrogated the decision of public prosecutor’s office rejecting the complaint, having deemed it unfounded.

There is no right of appeal against the court order, the investigation is opened without a separate decision.