Court order in response to motion for revision no. JOG/7/2024 of the Authority

In its decision no. 01000/4377-14/2023.bü, the Department of Economic Protection of the Economic Fraud Division of the Budapest Police Headquarters rejected the complaint filed against unknown person for the suspicion of misappropriation of funds resulting in particularly substantial financial loss due to the lack of suspicion of a criminal offence.

The Integrity Authority submitted motion for revision no. JOG/7/2023 on 23 January 2024 against the decision of the investigating authority rejecting the complaint and proposed that the decision of the investigating authority be abrogated and an investigation be ordered.

In its order of 19 March 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 deemed the Authority’s motion for revision to be thorough and found that, from its standpoint, the facts established in the decision rejecting the complaint in relation to the investigation of the offence of misappropriation of funds indicated in the complaint by the investigating authority had been left partially unexplored. The investigating authority did not consider the suspicion of the criminal conduct and intentional misconduct to be ascertainable in relation to the procurement of the PCR tests. However, its conclusion was unfounded from the court’s standpoint due to the lack of investigation of the facts. The court also pointed out that the investigating authority had not clarified the basis on which the number of PCR tests required was determined when collecting data during the investigation to supplement the complaint.

Furthermore, the investigating authority did not consider the outcome of the criminal offence and the resulting financial loss to be ascertainable, while its conclusion, according to the court, is also unfounded, taking into account that the investigating authority did not clarify, when investigating the facts, the basis on which the contractor for the procurement of PCR tests was selected, what sort of data collection or request for quote, if any, preceded the conclusion of the contract, or whether the omission of any of these was justified by extreme urgency. The court pointed out that, without this information, whether the contract price was favourable in the market at the time cannot be ascertained, especially taking into account that the management of the budgetary body entrusted with the management of state assets was subject to completely different requirements compared to private individuals concluding the contract.

According to the court, it is not possible to determine the reasons for the conclusion of the contract with the company in question, or the price at which the PCR test kits could be obtained most efficiently in accordance with the requirements of regular management because the facts of the case were not explored. Therefore, it is not possible to make a substantiated statement as to whether the procurement resulted in a financial loss.

According to the court, the absence of suspicion of the criminal offences referred to in the complaint and the motion for revision cannot be reasonably inferred without such information.

In light of the above, the court has found that the unexplored nature of the facts included in the decision of the investigating authority rejecting the complaint had a susbtantial impact on the complaint being rejected. Considering these factors, the court has abrogated the decision of investigating authority 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.