In the criminal case of negligent endangerment of water transport resulting in fatal mass catastrophe Dr. Péter Polt, Prosecutor General of Hungary has filed to the Curia a motion seeking legal review of the decision of the Buda Central District Court and the decision of the Regional Court of the Capital handling the case as an appellate court. The court decisions have ordered to put the suspect under criminal supervision if bail is paid.
The Prosecution Office of Budapest Districts VI and VII has proposed pre-trail detention of the suspect in the boat accident’s criminal case having occurred on the river Danube in Budapest in the evening hours on 29th May 2019.
The Buda Central District Court ordered the pre-trial detention of the captain of the ship, but it also ruled that if 15 million HUF is paid as bail, the suspect, once the court order has become final, will be put under criminal supervision fitted with an electronic tag, and he would not be allowed to leave the territory of Budapest.
The Prosecution Office of Budapest Districts VI and VII then filed an appeal against the court decision explaining that the suspect’s presence at the procedural acts can only be ensured if the strictest coercive measure is used against him. The suspect, who is a Ukrainian citizen, does not have a permanent or temporary address in Hungary, his place of staying is constantly changing due to the nature of his job. He has extensive knowledge of European sites and places, and the gravity of the suspected criminal act also calls for the use of the strictest coercive measure.
The Prosecution Office of Budapest Districts VI and VII has supplemented the reasoning of the appeal as suspicion arose that the captain had deleted data from his cell phone, which serves as another reason for the need of the pre-trial detention. This reason, namely, is that the suspect would risk or make the proving of the case more difficult.
The Regional Court of the Capital has upheld the decision of the Buda Central District Court, and it allowed for a bail to be paid.
The Prosecutor General’s motion seeking legal remedy indicates that the decision of the Regional Court of the Capital violates the law in itself, as it does not contain any rulings with regard to the supplemented appeal of the prosecution office. The Regional Court of the Capital has not thoroughly examined the additionally indicated reason for the need of the pre-trial detention. Moreover, both the decisions of the first instance and the appeal courts are unlawful, because they have ordered criminal supervision of the suspect in spite of the fact that his actual place of staying was not known by the competent authorities when court decision thereabout was made.
Based on all this, the Prosecutor General proposed to the Curia to determine that the first instance and appeal courts handing the case had unlawfully adopted the defence counsel’s motion seeking the possibility of bail, and they had unlawfully ordered criminal supervision of the suspect if bail is paid.
The Curia’s is entitled to decide only about the question of lawfulness.