The European Commission has published its annual Rule of Law Report, which contains a number of inaccuracies and untruths concerning the Prosecution Service of Hungary. In order to provide the public with correct and credible information, the Prosecution Service refutes the Report and draws attention to the following.
- Political influence on the prosecution service
The Report states that "Political influence on the prosecution service remains, with the risk of undue interference with individual cases."
This claim is complete nonsense.
The prosecution service acts professionally, free of political influence and in accordance with the law in every single case. If anyone is aware of any such influence, they should bring it to the attention of the prosecution service and it will be thoroughly investigated.
We would like to draw your attention to the so-called Péter Magyar case, who claims that the work of the prosecution service in one case was influenced by political influence and that politicians manipulated the investigation documents. In this case, after an extensive and detailed investigation, the prosecution service terminated the proceedings.
(Press release on the investigation into the audio recording of a private conversation of the former Minister of Justice
- Judicial review of prosecutorial decisions on corruption
The Report points out that „Court decisions reviewing prosecutorial decisions not to investigate or prosecute corruption are still not binding and have so far not brought significant results, although the possibility of judicial review incentivises prosecutors to assess allegations more thoroughly.”
The claim is incorrect because of the following reasons.
Following the filing of a motion for review, the investigating judge may decide to set aside the contested decision, at which point an investigation will be initiated or the proceedings will continue. This decision is binding.
If the court has decided to initiate or continue the investigation on the basis of the motion for review, and the investigating authority or the prosecutor's office terminates the criminal proceedings again, it is possible to file a new motion for review.
If the court considers that the decision to terminate the proceedings should be set aside, the court shall, instead of setting aside the decision, establish that an indictment may be filed.
The prosecution service cannot be obliged to file indictment; such a stipulation would be unconstitutional and incompatible with the independence of the prosecution service. However, the person who files the motion for review may file a motion for indictment, i.e. he has the possibility to bring the case to court.
However, this has not happened in any case since the creation of the legal instrument, which makes it clear that the prosecution service has acted lawfully and correctly in all the contested cases.
All the relevant information on the motion for review as a legal instrument can be found here:
https://ugyeszseg.hu/anonimizalt-hatarozatok/
(Anonymised decisions)
Hierarchical architecture of the prosecution service
The Report criticizes the fact that „.. the strictly hierarchical architecture of the prosecution service and a lack of internal checks and balances enhance the persistent risk of top prosecutors influencing the work of subordinate prosecutors, including in individual cases.”
The Report is inaccurate and misleading for the following reasons.
The Consultative Council of European Public Prosecutors of the Council of Europe, in its Recommendation Rec. 2000 No. 19, stated that the hierarchical structure of the prosecution service is a solution in accordance with the rule of law.
The Venice Commission came to the same conclusion in its Opinion No 668/2012 of 19 June 2012. It concluded that the Hungarian prosecutorial organisation is a hierarchical and autonomous organisation, which allows prosecutors to operate free of politics. The laws governing the prosecution service contain important guarantees for prosecutors to eliminate corruption.
The Hungarian prosecution service is independent of the executive; the government or the Minister of Justice cannot give instructions to the prosecutor general. Apart from Hungary, there are other EU countries with an independent prosecution service, accountable to Parliament, such as Slovakia, Finland and Portugal. The French and German models of prosecution service are highly hierarchical, with the Minister of Justice having the power to dismiss and, in France, to remove prosecutors from their positions. The Commission has not raised any objections to the organisation of the prosecution services in these countries, despite their partial similarities with the Hungarian model.
The prosecutor general does not give instructions in individual cases. Nor does he have the power, as for example the Prosecutor General of Slovakia, to terminate proceedings in any case on his own authority without giving reasons (§ 363 of the Slovak Criminal Procedure Code).
It follows from the structure of the organisation and legal provisions that the senior prosecutor may give instructions to the subordinate prosecutor, in which case s/he is responsible for the instructions. If the prosecutor does not agree with the instruction of the senior prosecutor, s/he may request that it be put in writing, and until this is done, the instruction is not obligatory.
If the prosecutor considers the instruction to be incompatible with the law or with his/her legal convictions, s/he may request in writing that s/he be excused from prosecuting the case, stating his/her legal position, and such a request may not be refused.
- „High-level” corruption
According to the Report „Whereas the number of convictions for corruption-related crimes has increased in low level corruption cases, there has been no progress yet to establish a robust track record against high-level corruption.”.
It is important to highlight that the Commission's experts asked questions on high-level corruption cases in 2022 and 2023. The questions sent to the meeting with the representatives of the prosecution service in February 2024 did not include a request for data on high-level corruption cases, and therefore the prosecution service did not provide any information on developments. The Commission itself does not refer to recent data, but to the findings of the 2022 and 2023 Rule of Law Reports.
It should also be noted that the Hungarian Criminal Code does not provide a definition of high-level corruption, nor is there an exact definition of high-level corruption in international (EU) law. The prosecution service is still awaiting feedback on the European Commission's interpretation of high-level corruption cases.
The prosecution service has indicted several senior officials in corruption cases, which have been reported to the press and the public.
- The Corruption Perceptions Index
The Report also states that „ The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in the public sector remains high.”
This statement is not accurate either.
The prosecution service monitors all reports and analyses that may be useful to provide a more complete picture of the corruption situation in Hungary.
In June 2023, Eurobarometer published the findings of its survey "Citizens' attitudes towards corruption in the EU in 2023".
The 2023 Eurobarometer survey shows a large difference between respondents' perceptions of the extent to which corruption is widespread in our country (88% said it was widespread) and whether corruption affects them in their daily lives. To the latter question, 22% answered yes, which, in contrast to Transparency International's much less favourable survey, puts Hungary in the midfield of EU Member States and two percentage points above the EU average.
The difference is even larger in response to the question whether the respondent had personally experienced or witnessed a case of corruption in the last 12 months: 9% of the respondents said yes to this question. This 9% of the responses/cases falls within the competence of the prosecution service.
The related press release issued by the prosecution service is available here:
(The reality of the perception of corruption in Hungary – in the light of the official Eurobarometer survey - press release of the Office of the Prosecutor General)
To sum up:
The claims of the Rule of Law Report concerning the prosecution service are untrue and misleading. The Prosecution Service of Hungary is constitutionally structured in a hierarchical manner, which acts professionally in every single case, free from political influence and in full compliance with the law.
No motion for indictment have been filed in the cases that can be challenged with a motion for review, so the court decisions in the contested cases also confirm that the prosecution service has acted lawfully and correctly.