Decision of the public prosecutor’s office concerning the investigation launched in reponse to motion for revision no. JOG/86/2023 of the Authority

In its decision no. 01000/2771/2023.bü., the Economic Fraud Division of the Budapest Police Headquarters terminated the proceedings against unknown person initiated for the suspicion of misappropriation of funds resulting in particularly substantial financial loss, as the act is not a criminal offence.

On 8 November 2023, the Integrity Authority submitted motion for revision JOG/86/2023 against the decision of the investigating authority terminating the proceedings and proposed that the decision of the investigating authority be abrogated and the proceedings be resumed.

On 24 November 2023, the Economic Crimes Department of the Chief Prosecution Office of the Capital informed the Authority that the Department had examined the motion for revision partially as a complaint and sent it to competent investigating authority for assessment concerning the new criminal offences referred to therein (environmental damage and violation of waste management regulations).

On 12 April 2024, the District Prosecution Office of Gyöngyös sent its decision no. B.284/2024/10 of 5 April 2024 to the Authority in which it abrogated decision no. 182-64/2024.bü. of 7 March 2024 of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Police Headquarters of Gyöngyös – which the investigating authority, according to the public prosecutor’s office, failed to deliver to the Authority as complainant in violation of the law – and ordered the resumption of the proceedings.

The decision of the public prosecutor’s office shows that the investigating authority initiated criminal proceedings for the misdemeanour of negligent violation of waste management regulations based on a complaint filed by the Authority, as data emerged showing that, in several cases, waste, including hazardous waste had been left behind on certain sections of the railway line after renovation works in 2022 as part of a railway development programme, which led to complaints from local authorities and residents to the state company concerned. Regarding the complaints, the investigating authority contacted the state company, which, upon request, revealed that the contractor had been requested to remedy the reported deficiencies and that the documentation of the remediation of the deficiencies was underway. Subsequently, the investigating authority terminated the proceedings because, in its view, no criminal offence could be ascertained based on the available data and evidence.

In reviewing the investigating authority’s decision and the case files, the public prosecutor’s office has found several violations of the law. One of such violations is that the investigating authority did not deliver the decision to the Authority. Furthermore, it based its decision solely on the information provided by the state company in question and did not investigate the sites concerned by the complaints. Furthermore, the classification of the criminal offence is also unlawful, taking into account that during construction works, where the management of the generated waste is regulated in detail, the questions of negligence cannot be raised.

In light of the above, the public prosecutor’s office abrogated the decision of the investigating authority and ordered the resumption of the proceedings.

There is no right of complaint against the decision of the public prosecutor’s office.