Abstract
This paper describes the legal position and the participation of private persons in criminal procedures under Hungarian law, with special regard to the defendant and the defence counsel. The defendant’s procedural rights and duties are analysed in connection with the two phases of the criminal procedure: the investigation and the trial. The defendant’s position as a party at the trial has sufficient guarantees under Hungarian criminal procedural law, his/her position in the investigation phase should however be strengthened, a more efficient defence should be ensured (e.g. regarding the defence counsel’s presence at the first interrogation of the defendant; the defendant’s and his/her counsel’s presence at sessions where decision on his/her pre-trial detention is made; the defendant’s and the counsel’s access to the documents of the case).
Special attention is paid to the in absentia procedures, which is provided as a special form of procedure in the Code on Criminal Procedure of Hungary. The practical experiences show that this type of procedure lasts significantly longer than procedures where the defendant is present. The delay of the procedure is, in great part, the consequence of the guarantees provided for in absentia procedures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The current Constitutional Charta of Hungary, called Fundamental Law, entered into force on 1 January 2012.
- 2.
Cf. Bárd (2016), pp. 113–121.
- 3.
In case of criminal offences subject to private prosecution (e.g. criminal defamation, violation of private secrets).
- 4.
The victim who has suffered financial damages resulting from the criminal offence and enforces a civil claim against the defendant in criminal proceedings.
- 5.
In case the public prosecutor terminates the procedure or drops the charge, the victim may act as a substitute private accuser and have the case adjudicated by the court.
- 6.
Anyone whose right or lawful interest may be directly affected by the decision made in the course of criminal proceedings.
- 7.
E.g. the defence counsel is entitled to lodge an appeal even against the will of the defendant (no positive mandate required and the possibility of negative mandate is excluded; Art. 324 CCP). However, the same is not possible concerning the extraordinary legal remedies (no positive mandate required and but there is the possibility of negative mandate; Arts 409 par. 2 and 417 par. 1 CCP).
- 8.
Herke et al. (2012), p. 99.
- 9.
Bárd (2005), p. 217.
- 10.
Erdei (2011), p. 296.
- 11.
A survey carried out by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee in 2015 reveals the fact that officially appointed defence counsels rarely attend hearings and interrogations during the investigation and, if they are present, their activity proves to be low. The analysis of case files has showed that defence counsels were absent in 33% of the very first pre-trial detention hearings, and did not attend 66% of further hearings. Fazekas et al. (2015), pp. 37–38.
- 12.
ECtHR, X.Y. v. Hungary, judgment of 19 March 2013, Appl. No. 43888/08; ECtHR, A.B. v. Hungary, judgment of 16 April 2013, Appl. No. 33292/09; ECtHR, Baksza v. Hungary, judgment of 23 April 2013, Appl. No. 59/196/08; ECtHR, Hagyó v. Hungary, judgment of 23 April 2013, Appl. No. 52624/10.
- 13.
This means that the victim or civil party can only be present if s/he has been subpoenaed or notified of the hearing, which, for example is never the case when hearing on pre-trial detention is held.
- 14.
We are not going to describe these cases here since the topic of the report mainly concentrates on the personal participation of private parties.
- 15.
ECtHR, Csikós v. Hungary, judgment of 5 December 2006, Appl. No. 37251/04; ECtHR, Talabér v. Hungary, judgment of 29 September 2009, Appl. No. 37376/05; ECtHR, Sándor Lajos Kiss v. Hungary, judgment of 29 September 2009, Appl. No. 26958/05; ECtHR, Goldmann and Szénászky v. Hungary, judgment of 30 November 2010, Appl. No. 17604/05.
- 16.
The procedural prerequisites of mediation are as follows: (1) the conditions of active repentance under the Criminal Code exist; (2) the suspect has confessed the commission of the criminal offence prior to the filing of the indictment and has declared to be ready and able to compensate the victim in such a way for the damages or other harmful consequences caused by the criminal offence that the victim will feel satisfied by that compensation; and (3) both the suspect and the victim have consented to the mediation procedure.
- 17.
Opinion of the Criminal Board of the Curia (Supreme Court of Hungary) 3/2007 BK.
- 18.
The conditions of the general type of the postponement are as follows: (1) the criminal offence is punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years; (2) the gravity of the criminal offence and the extraordinary mitigating circumstances shall be considered; and (3) the postponement of the indictment is likely to have a positive impact on the future conduct of the suspect. If all these circumstances are given, the indictment may be postponed for a period between 1 and 2 years.
- 19.
Bárd (2007), p. 230.
- 20.
Dissenting opinion of Judge Pettiti in the case ECtHR, Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Appl. No. 14032/88. In recent Hungarian literature, see Erdei (2011), p. 296.
- 21.
On the monistic and dualistic trial systems, see in detail Bárd (1987), pp. 132–160.
- 22.
Erdei (2011), p. 218.
- 23.
Irk (1913), p. 28.
- 24.
Art. 118 par. 2 CCP stipulates that other means of evidence needs to be taken as well, even if the defendant pleads guilty.
- 25.
The fact that an appeal was lodged only in favour of the defendant triggers the prohibition of reformatio in peius in higher instances.
- 26.
On the evaluation of the Constitutional Court Decision, see Tóth (2012), pp. 10–19.
- 27.
Király (1962), p. 5.
- 28.
Herke et al. (2012), p. 107.
- 29.
On these special procedures, see in detail, Karsai and Szomora (2015), pp. 204–207.
- 30.
Király (2003), p. 556.
- 31.
A Legfőbb Ügyész országgyűlési beszámolója az ügyészség 2015. évi tevékenységéről, p. 22 (http://ugyeszseg.hu/pdf/ogy_besz/ogy_beszamolo_2015.pdf).
- 32.
Ujvári (2011), p. 535.
- 33.
A Legfőbb Ügyész országgyűlési beszámolója az ügyészség 2015. évi tevékenységéről, pp. 21–22 (http://ugyeszseg.hu/pdf/ogy_besz/ogy_beszamolo_2015.pdf).
- 34.
2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States.
- 35.
The law establishes interpretative bridges between the vague terms of the catalogue offences listed in the FD and the Hungarian Criminal Code. For example the terms “sexual exploitation of children and child pornography” shall be understood as “misuse of pornography”, “sexual violence” and many other different offences provided for by the Hungarian Criminal Code.
- 36.
In particular, see the CJEU, Dworzecki judgement (C-108/16 PPU., 24. May 2016).
- 37.
In an appellate or retrial procedure, the person shall have the right to participate, and the procedure shall allow the merits of the case to be re-examined, including fresh evidence, which may lead to the original decision being reversed.
- 38.
I.e. Prosecution, defence and sentencing shall be separate functions in criminal proceedings.
- 39.
In our view, this differentiation between the phases of the procedure does not serve the equality of arms. See in details, Gácsi (2017).
- 40.
These changes stay in connection with the significant reshaping of the system of investigation: a so-called divided investigation model will be introduced in the new CCP. The first phase of the investigation will be the detection, in which the facts and the person of the perpetrator have to be detected to an extent, which allows a decision to be made on the reasonable suspicion. If the reasonable suspicion has been communicated to the suspect, the second phase, the examination can be opened, where the public prosecutor can decide about the closure of investigation (Art. 348 new Be). The contradictory character of the examination phase is increased compared to the undivided investigation under the CCP.
Abbreviations
- Btk:
-
Hungarian Criminal Code
- CCP:
-
Hungarian Code on Criminal Procedure (from 1998 to 2017)
- CJEU:
-
Court of Justice of the European Union
- EAW:
-
European Arrest Warrant
- ECHR:
-
European Convention on Human Rights
- ECtHR:
-
European Court of Human Rights
- EU:
-
European Union
- EUCCM:
-
Cooperation in Criminal Matters between the Member states of the European Union
- ICCM:
-
International Cooperation in Criminal Matters
- new CCP:
-
New Hungarian Code on Criminal Procedure (from 2018)
References
Bárd K (1987) A büntetőhatalom megosztásának buktatói – Értekezés a bírósági tárgyalás jövőjéről. KJK, Budapest
Bárd K (2005) Tárgyalás a vádlott távollétében – emberijog-dogmatikai analízis. In: Ligeti K (ed) Wiener A. Imre Ünnepi Kötet. KJK-Kerszöv, Budapest, pp 209–230
Bárd K (2007) The development of Hungarian Criminal Procedure between 1985 and 2005. In: Jakab A et al (eds) The transformation of the Hungarian Legal Order 1985–2005. Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands, pp 214–233
Bárd K (2016) A sértettek eljárási jogai a nemzetközi bíróságok gyakorlatában. In: Hack P et al (eds) Kodifikációs kölcsönhatások. Tanulmányok Király Tibor tiszteletére. ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, Budapest, pp 114–140
Erdei Á (2011) Tanok és tévtanok a büntető eljárásjog tudományában. ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, Budapest
Fazekas T et al (2015) Az előzetes letartóztatás gyakorlata: az alternatív kényszerintézkedések és a bírói döntéshozatal vizsgálata. Budapest
Gácsi AE (2017) Quo vadis fegyverek egyenlőségének elve? In: Görög M – Hegedűs A (eds) Lege duce, comite familia: Ünnepi tanulmányok Tóthné Fábián Eszter tiszteletére, jogászi pályafutásának 60. évfordulójára. Iurisperitus Bt., Szeged pp 127-140
Herke C et al (2012) A büntető eljárásjog elmélete. Dialóg-Campus Kiadó, Budapest-Pécs
Irk A (1913) A magyar büntető perjog vezérfonala. Dunántúl Egyetemi Könyvkiadó és Nyomda R.-T., Pécs
Karsai K, Szomora Z (2015) Criminal law in Hungary. Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands
Király T (1962) A védő és a védelem a büntetőügyekben. KJK Kerszöv, Budapest
Király T (2003) Büntetőeljárási jog. Osiris Kiadó, Budapest
Tóth M (2012) Az Alkotmánybíróság határozata a kiemelt ügyek egyes eljárási szabályairól. Jogesetek Magyarázata 3:10–19
Ujvári Á (2011) A vádlott tárgyaláson való jelenléte a Be. 279. § (3) bekezdésének tükrében, avagy a Be. új jogintézménye: a vádlott bejelentett távolléte. In: Gál IL (ed) Tanulmányok Tóth Mihály professzor 60. születésnapja tiszteletére. Pécsi Tudományegyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Kara, Pécs, pp 531–536
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gácsi, A.E., Karsai, K., Szomora, Z. (2019). Report on Hungary. In: Quattrocolo, S., Ruggeri, S. (eds) Personal Participation in Criminal Proceedings. Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01186-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01186-4_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01185-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01186-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)