Motion for revision no. JOG/57/2024

In its decision no. 29022/308/2024.bü, the Anti-Corruption Department of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division at the National Bureau of Investigation, part of the Rapid Response and Special Police Service, dismissed the complaint filed on the suspicion of misappropriation of funds, as the reported act is not a criminal offence.

The Integrity Authority has filed a motion for revision against the investigating authority’s decision dismissing the complaint, proposing the abrogation of the investigating authority’s decision and the initiation of an investigation.

An article published on an online portal, which serves as the foundation for complaint in the case, reports that a state agency extended an invitation to tender as part of an open procedure involving the renovation of a building in Budapest to a company that had been added to the company register only four months earlier, lacking a website, employees, and references. Furthermore, the author of the article found no evidence of prior professional experience or reference in similar areas of expertise in respect of the business owner either. The same company ended up winning the public procurement procedure.

According to the Authority’s motion for revision filed on 3 July 2024, the decision dismissing the complaint and the published anonymised file register indicate that the investigating authority did not carry out substantial investigative actions in the case but rather limited its investigation to the allegations in the complaint and the contents of the online article it was based on, and then proceeded to dismiss the complaint without carrying out any further substantial investigative action.

Considering also the significant amount of national wealth involved in the case, the Authority believes it is necessary to order an investigation to find out what criteria were used by the contracting authority to select the economic operators to which it issued invitations to tender, whether it verified their performance capabilities and professional reliability in accordance with the applicable legal requirements, and how the subsequent winning tenderer justified these aspects and calculated its tender price, which is rather close to the possible maximum of HUF 300 million.

The public prosecutor’s office has found the motion for revision submitted by the Authority well-substantiated, abrogated the investigating authority’s decision, and ordered an investigation.