Decision by the public prosecutor’s office 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 dismissed the complaint filed on the suspicion of passive and active corruption of public officials, citing the lack of suspicion of a criminal offence as the reason for the decision.

On 28 February 2024, the Integrity Authority submitted motion for revision no. JOG/27/2024. against the decision of the investigating public prosecutor’s office dismissing the complaint, proposing the abrogation of the decision of the investigating public prosecutor’s office and the initiation of an investigation.

In its order issued on 9 April 2024, the Central District Court of Buda, acting in the case in response to the Authority’s motion for revision, admitted the Authority’s motion for revision and abrogated the above decision of the investigating authority dismissing the complaint, thereby initiating an investigation without a separate decision.

Subsequently, the Investigative Prosecution Office of the Capital, endowed with competent jurisdiction, issued a decision on 9 July 2024 to terminate the ongoing proceedings concerning active corruption of public officials and other criminal offences aimed at misconduct, stating that the action does not constitute a criminal offence.  The public prosecutor’s office explained in its decision that the complainant had been placed under conservatorship by the competent district court, meaning that a lack of capacity in criminal procedures renders his or her hearing as a witness impossible. It presented that the complainant’s statement did not express any allegation or opinion claiming that the benefit of HUF 100 million accepted by the mayor from a contractor constituted an advantage or was unlawful, which are necessary elements of the offences of active and passive corruption of public officials, in addition to the fact that the advantage must be capable of influencing the official.

Considering that it was not possible to hear the complainant and that the other investigative actions carried out by the public prosecutor’s office – analysis of responses to requests for information, hearing the legal counsel of the body submitting the motion for revision and the notary of the district mayor’s office as witnesses – did not support the contents of the complaint, the public prosecutor’s office terminated the proceedings.

No legal remedy against the decision of the public prosecutor’s office will be entertained. The Authority is not submitting a repeated motion for revision in the case.