Motion for revision no. JOG/58/2024

In its decision no. 29022/337-6/2024.bü, the Major Crimes 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 the complaint in the case, reports that the total cost of renovating the facade of a city hall is constantly rising, the contract’s technical content and completion deadline have been modified, and the technical supervisor has detected numerous defects on the facade plaster’s finished sections. The article gives considerable weight to the fact that because the technical supervisor and other individuals reported the issues deriving from the faulty construction technology to the competent individuals verbally, in official documents, and in the e-construction log, competent officials refused to certify the current progress of the completed works and approve a related payment of around HUF 330 million. Citing official information, the article states that employees who refused to sign were sacked, and the certificate of completion and payment approval were eventually signed by someone else. Plaster from the facade section can detach at any moment, as it has happened on numerous occasions. Therefore, standing in the vicinity of the wall section can result in accidents and life-threatening scenarios. Payment for the completion of the faulty facade sections has already been disbursed to the contractor.

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 any investigative action in the case, having confined its investigation to the allegations in the complaint, the contents of the online article, and the public procurement procedure’s documents stored in the Electronic Public Procurement System before proceeding 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 determine whether the modification of the contract’s technical content was warranted, whether the technical supervisor actually reported the construction defects to the competent individuals authorised to certify completion and approve payments, and whether employees were indeed fired for refusing to certify a performance known to be defective with their signatures. Was the facade plaster actually at risk of causing accidents or posing life-threatening risks when its completion was certified and the value settled? Furthermore, was it repaired?

The public prosecutor’s office did not consider the motion for revision, taking into account that it had abrogated the investigating authority’s decision ex officio and ordered an investigation.