Repeated motion for revision no. JOG/30/2023

In its decision no. 14000/32-44/2023.bü., the Criminal Directorate of the Somogy County Police Headquarters terminated the proceedings against unknown person for the suspicion of active corruption committed in relation to a person working for or on behalf of an economic operator who is authorized to act in its name and on its behalf independently and other criminal offence, as the act is not a criminal act.

The Integrity Authority submitted a motion for revision against the decision of the investigating authority that had terminated the proceedings, and proposed that the decision of the investigating authority be abrogated and the proceedings be resumed.

In its decision no. Nf.151/20223/14., the Chief Prosecution Office of Somogy County admitted the motion for revision of the Authority, abrogated the decision that had terminated the investigation, and ordered the continuation of the proceedings.

Once again, in its decision no. 1400/32-59/2023.bü., the Criminal Directorate of the Somogy County Police Headquarters terminated the proceedings against unknown person for the suspicion of active corruption committed in relation to a person working for or on behalf of an economic operator who is authorised to act in its name and on its behalf independently and other criminal offence, as the act is not a criminal act.

The Integrity Authority has submitted a repeated motion for revision against the latest decision of the investigating authority which had terminated the proceedings, and proposed that the court ascertains that the abrogation of decision of the investigating authority is admissible, and that, instead of the abrogation of the decision, the submission of the indictment is admissible in accordance with section 817/H (7) of Act XC of 2017.

According to the Authority’s repeated motion for revision submitted on 8 November 2023, the justification of the decision shows that, while the investigating authority did perform a more detailed data-gathering activity compared to the previous one, it still failed to carry out several investigative acts, despite the fact that several suspicious circumstances had emerged in the case, the investigation of which would have been necessary, such as in particular:

• the slight difference between the tender price and the prices determined by the property valuation,
• there is a suspicion that the valuations may have been made after the mayor had first received the purchase offers,
• the properties were not announced in a public tender,
• in the light of the above, a real estate expert witness’s opinion on the real value of the property may be necessary.

The case is still pending.