Defendant VI Éva Horváth's Testimony from January 17, 2013

Testimony of Éva Mátay-Horváth VI. accused, at Kecskemét Tribunal in Criminal Case no.1.B.73/2012/4.:


Honourable Kecskemét Tribunal,


1) Preamble:


First of all, I would like to clarify and explicitly point out - as I have said in my earlier investigative testimonies - that I'm innocent of all counts alleged against me! I'm not a criminal, or an instigator of criminals, or an abettor, nor am I a friend of criminals.  There have never been any criminal or misdemeanor proceedings pending against me! Consequently, I have never been involved in any criminal organization - either at BKV  or elsewhere!


By the way, factually I have never received  a 24 million HUF salary and bonus during the period  disputed by the the prosecution (i.e., between February 2008 - September 2009) from BKV.

In fact, I was not a colleague of Miklós Hagyó.  According to the prosecution, though, as his direct colleague - stated by them – I abused my power by directing the heads of the BKV to conclude various unnecessary contracts.  Moreover, prior to my work at DBR, I didn't personally know Miklós Hagyó at all - even the prosecution did not find any concrete evidence proving otherwise.  During my work at DBR, I never had any personal relationship with him.


These are facts, not just me saying them, but factually they are there in my contracts of employment and also on my payroll sheet issued by the BKV, which is the basis of the allowances that were paid for years after me. Also in the disputed period - even for a much lower salary than 24 million HUF, because in reality the certified payroll was around 7 million HUF, what I have received during that period as salary - I actually worked for BKV. As well as, even if I could have instructed anyone abusing my power as the colleague of Miklós Hagyó, I would not have done it, (especially given the fact that at that time we were not even co-workers, we hardly knew each other with the prime accused). Honourable Court, summarizing,  I'm innocent in all counts brought against me.


I tell, that I have withdrawn my testimony given during the investigative stage in fall 2011, for various reasons, to which reasons I would like to discuss in detail later. My investigative testimony given between January 2010 and August 2010, the content is almost identical to what now has been said before the Honourable Court with the truth. The subsequent - also withdrawn - testimony is almost entirely NOT PART OF THE ACCUSATION, NOR TO THE BKV CASE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES. I would also like to emphasize that throughout the proceeding, all along, each time, I admitted myself innocent. I have never recognized a criminal offense, because I never committed.


I am an ordinary, decent person living for my family, normal, hard-working, family mom, who perhaps was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and therefore I got into, without my own fault, this indignity, injustice, sometimes tragicomic situation.


As a result of this, from 2010 14th of May to 2010 17th of May for 72 hours in criminal detention, then from 2010 17th of May to 2010 25th of May I was under house arrest, thereafter for 4 months, from 2010 26th of May to 2010 22nd of September, I was innocently in pre-trial detention - inhumane and undignified circumstances, with real criminals. While I could see my son and my companion (now my husband), nor my parents and my brothers/sisters, only once per month for about 1 hour, and even my child and my father, who unfortunately suffered a stroke due to these procedures,  I have not seen for nearly four months. These alone traumatized me, that because of the procedure my deteriorated physical and mental health condition, I had to go to psychologists, neurologists, rheumatologists, spine doctor, etc.. and unfortunately, the problems still persist. In the treatment of my psychological problems my faith helped me a lot, just like in the survival of the 4 months spent in inhumane conditions in pre-trial detention. My faith helped me a lot that I knew all along that they were doing this to me innocently, I believed, that something else - outside of my family - superior power also knowing, and once this nightmare will be over. I will get my family back, my life, and my name will be cleared. My spine and joint disease, is still in need of treatment, after pre-trial detention, I was treated at  St. John's hospital, with success in symptomatic treatments. I'm under a spine treatment still up to this day, since giving birth - despite all previous efforts - indisposed my otherwise unstable physique. For now with pre-symptomatic treatments surgery can be avoided, but doctors say that with this is only temporary, and unfortunately it’s possible I won't be able to avoid the end result. Although this time is a gift for me because I've learned to treasure every moment that I spend with my family.


I would (here as well) like to emphasize that my pre-trial detention legally was not supported, was not justified. To this day, not with any substantiating evidence, or even with a so-called "presumed" evidence, the investigating authority failed to give. They accused me in January 2010, followed by my detailed confession voluntarily, then in February 2010 they accused me again and held a house search in my home. The media knew all of this before what was happening than me. Even though that the investigating authority had confused my address, despite the fact that in January 2010 from my home, I have been produced from my family's side at dawn, in February they went for me to a different address, and they called me to tell them my exact address, because they came for me again. I told them the address, then I sat and waited and I was reading the news until they got there, that there is a house search etc... The investigation is well characterized by the fact that when in January 2010 - in my opinion unduly ( but I would detail this ) - they have frozen my account, I didn't get to know from the investigative authority, but a friend of mine called me up that it was announced in the News on the Hungarian Television, and did it turn out to be true? This is minimally strange to be so ...


Weeks later, at the following interrogations I did complain that to the investigating authority, who afterwards -  in the presence of my lawyer – quickly put it in an official form, that they informed me (also) about the freezing of my account, of course as they HAVEN'T DONE IT earlier. At that time I did not work neither at the BKV nor at the Metropolitan Municipality, ie, documents, evidence, if I wanted to (but did not want to), even then I could not destroy or conceal. After my accusation between January and February, for months, nothing happened.

Then after my voluntarily made testimonies, over a house search and got to know from the News more about my frozen account, in May 2010 -  five months after my suspicion - I was taken into custody.

I was taken into custody although from the above discussion it is obvious, that neither to escape nor collusion,  nor to destroy documents, nor to hide documents was not in my power and was not my intetnion. With a bank loan on our property, with a frozen bank account, it was a financial question, that from what we're going to live from, not that I'm going to escape. My minor child and myself I would not put in such an undignified position, especially not unnecessarily. Because I know that I'm innocent, and now I want to clarify myself. So therefore, the legal basis of my pre-trial detention specified by law, in no case stands, and stands up against me, but they still did it, in my opinion, definitely ILLEGAL.


On the 14th of May 2010 with my family we prepared for the 60th birthday of my father. With my companion (László Mátay) and with my minor child, we stopped by a shopping mall in Budapest to buy additional gifts, where I also met with my lawyer - because of another case, due to an account debt demanded by me, - to sign an authorization. In the meantime the police surrounded me, and called me to go with them. My parents were waiting for me for the birthday, my father, who after my harassment got a stroke, waited for his daughter, who was precious, beloved. My family was left - without me - at the shopping mall. I couldn't inform my parents and my family that I'm not going home because I was taken by the police, they got to know from the news, because before the police had taken me from the mall, the media has been brought down as a fact that me, Miklós Hagyó and Ottó Lelovics are arrested. The court at the first instance has not seen to be justified, for me to stay in pretrial detention, so after 72 hours they let me go home and stay under house arrest. In the second instance -, whom the leader now was appointed already from the Constitutional Court judge by the ruling party, - changed this into a pretrial detention without a substantive cause. In fact, Judge Dr. Mária Szívós, also acknowledged that although there is no evidence that the elopement, conspiracy, destruction of evidence arose in me, or only intended, it will arise in the future. Anyway, apparently I committed such a crime, by which I deserve the position to be put in pretrial detention. Although there was no legal justification not yet sufficiently established, not to mention the fact that the Honourable appellate court investigative stage - as I know considerably beyond its scope - has been named me as guilty, and stigmatized me with this decision. The current Constitutional Court judge (Dr. Máris Szívós), in its decision - legally not objective - in its explanation my fundamental human right was trodden into mud. It has been said that everyone is entitled to the "presumption of innocence", but unfortunately it seems to me it's NOT.


"The decision is that Decision, my lawyers said, here the constitutional state and the law, as such, no longer seems to exist. " They told me, when I asked, how someone can do this despite the law. When the 30 days has expired, with one-to-one copied reasons also decided in the same way about the extension of my pre-trial detention, without new special reasons, without arguments.


In short, in my opinion - and the opinion of my lawyers -  believe that it has been infringed, but I came into pre-trial detention. Subsequently, still for 1 month, until the 22nd of October 2012 I was also under house arrest, which took more than 5 months of restriction unfounded and unjustly - of my personal freedom.

I have mentioned above, that my faith helped me to survive those 4 months. I wrote deliberately "to survive".

When this whole procedure started, and various false statements appeared about me in the media, I was very much hurt. I wanted to tell everyone that what they write and say about me, is not true.  In fact, those are not true, those are lies. I wanted everyone to know that a political "witch hunt" was going against me, as in the Middle Ages, when they had thrown someone into the water and then, if she came up, she was a witch, and was burned to death, and if she drowned, then of course they didn't have to burn to her to death, and it was all the same, whether she's guilty or innocent. Just like with me, even though the prosecutor saw that I was working in the disputed period (from February 2008. - to September 2009), even though they saw that numerically I didn't earn that much as they say I did, even though physically I was not Miklós Hagyó's colleague when the indictment describes that as his colleague I instructed anyone to enter into contracts. Yet, they still had thrown me into that water to see if I drowned. But being prepared, that if I come up they will burn me, and they will suspect and accuse me.


Then came the pre-trial detention, during which because of my religion they held a cell control weekly, made comments on my books, thrown the trash in the middle of my cell, mixed into my personal stuff, with the command "clean up Jew". The prison doctors - without my knowledge - tried to drug me. Since they started dispensing Rivotril medication that I did not know about, I didn't need any intoxicating, narcotic drug, in fact, I was strongly against it when they offered. I've seen how those looked like who had been drugged, I wanted to go home to my family with some sanity. Without the need for completeness the other catch is that as everyone got breakfast except me, that they were trying to make it impossible, that within the weekly maximum of 2x10 minutes limit I could call my son and my family, as when it was 54 degrees C in a 6 m2 cell for 4 adults, they closed the only air service aperture, the small window in the cell door used for meals, and so on. Of course, each event witnesses have signed the Protocol at my lawyers.


So I tried to survive, and terribly worried about my family. Given the circumstances, the tutor of the prison helped a lot, seeing that I crashed, suffering for my family, but even like this I still tried to help others. Help those who can not read and write.  Whom may be ignored by their defense lawyers. Seeing that I believe in my innocence and preserved my religious faith, I tried to not judge others and help them, convince them to learn, to practice their own religion, discontinue any previous sinful life. Seeing this within the particular law, my tutor tried to protect me, for example arrange, to get food at the same time with the others, as it would have been for me anyway. She  tried to stop the inhumane and wrongful atrocities, unfortunately, often unsuccessfully, but at least someone tried. She saw, that wrongfully they"made me suck". I'm sorry, but I do not know any other word to use here, because of my religion, she saw that I was threatened. (For example, I also heard from a well-wisher that if the rabbi will continue to come to me, within the legal possibilities, may not be able to protect me from "falling" off the bed and hit myself, but still, I undertook my faith. The humanity of my lawyers helped a lot, that they visited me every day, thereby controlling that I'm fine and safe, for medical examination and for interrogations they took me in fully handcuffed and shackled, like they take the killers, with this causing abscessed - and untreated - wounds to my body.

Unreasonably tight restrictions on my movements, I fell up and down during transports. On one occasion, they had to take me to emergency surgery,  because I hit my head against the curb when I fell with the shackles on.

When I complained to the PE guard, he said to me to shut up, because she will take it that I attacked her, and then she can legally shoot me. I would like to note here, that I never had to keep from the sentenced and others being in pretrial detention. So I survived, literally survived nearly 4 months. I cried a lot every day after my child, my family. I missed them, I worried about them, I've lost 48kg (-26kg), but I survived. Maybe after all it sounds naive, but I continue to hope and believe in a democratic, fair, impartial judicial process, ie that in this high priority, public case, particularly prevail in the fundamental law of the following articles of BASIC LAW OF HUNGARY:


XXIV. article


(1) Everyone has the right to his or her affairs which the authorities deal with impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time. As defined in the Act, the authorities are obliged to justify their decisions.


(2) Everyone has the right as defined by law by the authorities performance of their duties the compensation to him/her the unlawfully caused damage.


XXVIII. article


(1) Everyone has the right to that the accusations brought against him in a lawsuit, the rights and obligations established by law, an independent and impartial court of law in a fair and public hearing within a reasonable period are considered.


I emphatically state that I committed no offense by a criminal organization, I was not a member of a criminal organization participating in any way, and of this existence I do not know at BKV Co.!!! Just my contract of employment, any amendments thereto, and in accordance with my job description, honestly, the best of my knowledge, professional job done on a daily basis, which seems to have been incorrect, that for more than 5 months restricted my freedom and now they want to make me to be more responsible.


I. The fifth page of the Indictment 5th paragraph describes in general terms, but without the need of completeness, - that "Ottó Lelovics V. accused, and Éva Mátay-Horváth VI. accused, in the period between 2007-2009, given such instructions to senior officers at BKV with power of asset management, and so influenced their decisions, that they breached the trust of their asset management obligation to deliberate, to BKV Co. make disadvantageous asset management decisions, and negotiate contracts."

This statement is not true. - I STRONGLY PERFORM, THAT I WAS NOT ASSIGNED OVER THE SENIOR OFFICERS OF BKV (who are namely , M. Regőczi, A. Antal, Zs. Balogh, T. Zelenák and Ágnes Vités etc...), even above me according to the employment contract, the communications director exercised (who was Miklós Regőczi ), the employer's rights. To the direction of BKV management therefore I had no right to give instructions, because I was not their superior, their boss, and as a fact it's proven by evidence.

Here I refer to the Honourable Tribunal to my JOB DESCRIPTION, and to my EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, and its amendment, which specifies my powers, and my job at BKV.


II. The indictment 6th page 4 and 6 paragraph provides as follows:

"Miklós Hagyó I. accused, has established an environment in which his  confidential people - Ottó Lelovics and Éva Mátay-Horváth accused, others remained unknown members of his Cabinet, as well as the personal lawyer of I. accused, Dr. Iván Miklós Horváth VII. accused, - directly, without the involvment of I. accused, were still able to make decisions represented the interest Miklós Hagyó I. accused, to give orders, and to mediate those to the BKV office managers.


This statement DOES NOT correspond to the reality. I - and to my knowledge, my fellow accused person and others - DIDN'T develop together with Miklós Hagyó I. accused, as his confidential person, (since I WAS NOT, because we had an ordinary normal employment relationship) such an environment, that without HIS direct involvement, I was/we were able to  (I would have been) to make decisions by representing the interest of I. accused, or to give instructions - I DID NOT HAVE SUCH POWER. ie. INDEPENDENT DECISION-MAKING RIGHTS!!! I NEVER DECIDED on my own discretion, no personal interest in any of the BKV  causing financial loss or other transaction, or any other transaction! I DID NOT HAVE SUCH POWER - again I refer to my contract of employment, and job modifications described in detail earlier and the said facts in this matter. Here I refer to during the investigation procedure on the 26th of January 2010 the BPH Department of Economics I., Subclass I. of Defence of Economics, evidence submitted  (No.M/3) and its attachments e-mail messages (No.M/4). -/// I re-attach these to the Honourable Tribunal.///

In addition, I refer once again to the owner instruction issued by the city administration, which basis of excluding anyone to act on their behalf.


5.) Detailed comments on the testimony of Zsolt Balogh IV. accused, which have been partially highlighted in the testimony of Miklós Hagyó I. accused, but for emphasis I partially repeat, and react to it:


1./ Falsifiable statement: What did he know about the employment of Éva Horváth:


The continued interrogation of suspects report of the 29th of March 2011 includes:


"For a parenthetical question I tell, that even as athe Acting CEO or before that I didn't know that Éva Horváth is a BKV employee. I knew that she is the press staff of Miklós Hagyó. When the newspaper first published articles on the scandal, that is when I got to know that Éva Horváth is a BKV employee."

Reference: Volume 64, page 42.077.




1. The No.43.  attached email dated on the 7th of September 2010, which I wrote to many BKV colleague on the 21st of December 2007, including Zsolt Balogh. In this letter I said goodbye to my colleagues, and I tell them the following (which shows that previously we also worked together in one area):

"... I will continue my work in other areas, although this does not mean that I say a final goodbye to BKV or to Metro 4. As a direct colleague of the area responsible Deputy Mayor, we will definitely meet again in the future. "

Reference:  Volume 64, page 42.021.


2. The belonging interpretation of the email, one of the few that will match the literal meaning of the email:


"Significance: "the email was written, when I left BKV DBR Metro."

Reference: Volume 64, page 41.897.


3. The above also refutes the statement of Mrs. Szalai Dr. Eleonóra Szilágyi XIV. accused, made on the 4th of February 2010, Minutes of continued  interrogation of suspect, which at a previous hearing the Honourable Tribunal also described:


"To answer your question I tell, that I didn't know about the employment of Éva Horváth, I only got to know about it in August 2008, when Zsolt Balogh asked to put together the documentation related to the admission of Éva Horváth. Éva Horváth was not working in my field of expertise, therefore, for more than a year and a half I didn't even know that she is a BKV staff... I was not in working relation with Éva Horvárt. Miklós Regőczi was Éva Horvát's boss, and as the HR Director the inclusion of the employees was not my duty concerned exercising the powers of the employer's responsibility. "

Reference: Volume 64, page 41.611.


It clearly shows that the quoted statement is false, as Zsolt Balogh, has been the Acting CEO from the 19th of February 2008. From the above certainty of the documents it can be clearly stated, that even previously, in December 2007 he was aware of my employment at the BKV, within the context of working with DBR Metro.


4. The above example also refuted by the following - also again, attached on number M/4 - e-mail correspondence, including the ones with Mr. Zsolt Balogh, - and together with other BKV senior co-workers - I conducted during the period in question, and exclusively belonging to BKV subjects, ie between 2008 February - 2009 August. These items are - without the limit of completeness - the following sender, recipient and subject:


a) - From: Miklós Regőczi

To: Éva Horváth, Zsolt Balogh

Sent: 2008. September 22 07:49

Subject: RE: Skulking time: Does BKV flinch?


b) - From: Miklós Regőczi

To: Éva Horváth, Zsolt Balogh

Sent: 2008.  2008. August 21 05:38

Subject: RE: It's no point to strike, BKV buses will not start anyway




c) - From: Éva Horváth

To: Tamás Kotulyák, Tibor Zelenák

Cc: Zsolt Balogh, Tibor Bolla, Dr. György Sziebert, Péter Prim, Éva Horváth

Sent: 2008. November 03 19:08

Subject: RE: Request to Hungarian Nation


d) - From: Tibor Zelenák

To: Éva Horváth

Cc: Zsolt Balogh, Tibor Bolla, Tamás Kotulyák, Peter Prim

Sent: 2008. November 13 17:44

Subject: RE: running outage


e) - From: Tibor Zelenák

To: Éva Horváth

Cc: Zsolt Balogh, Tibor Bolla, Peter Prim

Sent: 2008. November 17 14:32

Subject: FW: rotation. license


f) - From: Éva Horváth

To: BKV Newsroom

Cc: Mrs. Székely Dr. Erzsébet Pásztor, Zsolt Balogh, Peter Prim, Tibor Zelenák

Sent: 2009. January 11 13:44

Subject: RE: Smog alert notice and questions and answers


g) - From: Éva Horváth

To: Zsolt Balogh

Sent: 2009. January 11 19:27

Re: because - as pointed out by VEKE concentration proposing Communication


h) - From: BKV Newsroom

To:,, Mrs. Székely Dr. Erzsébet Pásztor, Zsolt Balogh,

Cc: Tibor Zelenák, Péter Prim

Sent: 2009. January 13 20:47

Subject: RE: Announcement


i) - From: Péter Prim

To: BKV Newsroom, Dr. Erzsébet Pásztor Mrs. Székely, Zsolt Balogh,

Cc: Tibor Zelenák, Péter Prim

Sent: 2009. January 13 21:31

Subject: RE: Announcement


j) - From: Dr. Erzsébet Pásztor Mrs. Székely

To: Edina Kovács, Péter Prim, Tibor Zelenák

Cc: Zsolt Balogh, Gábor Mihálszky

Sent: 2009. January 14 06:37

Subject: RE: Announcement Plan


k) - From:

To: Dr. Erzsébet Pásztor Mrs. Székely

Cc: Edina Kovács, Péter Prim, Tibor Zelenák, Zsolt Balogh, Gábor Mihálszky

Sent: 2009. January 14 07:30

Subject: RE: Announcement Plan


l) - From: Károly Szilágyi

To: Dr. Erzsébet Pásztor Mrs. Székely, Gábor Mihálszky,  Zsolt Balogh, Tibor Zelenák,  Károly Szilágyi, BKV Newsroom

Sent: 2009. January 15 19:07

Subject: Announcement Plan


m) - From: Éva Horváth

To: Tamás Kotulyák, Tibor Zelenák

Cc: Zsolt Balogh, Tibor Bolla, Dr. György Sziebert, Péter Prim, Éva Horváth

Sent: 2008. November 03 19:08

Subject: RE: Request to Hungarian Nation


n) - From: Dr. Erzsébet Pásztor Mrs. Székely

To: Dr. Erzsébet Pásztor Mrs. Székely, BKV Newsroom, Zsolt Balogh

Cc: Tibor Zelenák, Péter Prim

Sent: 2009. January 13 19:02

Subject: RE: Announcement


o) - From: Dr. Erzsébet Pásztor Mrs. Székely

To: Éva Horváth, Zsolt Balogh, Tibor Bolla

Cc: Tibor Zelenák

Sent: 2009. January 20 08:23

Subject: RE:  BKV bus split in two at Astoria


Therefore, at least it is strange that statement of  Zsolt Balogh IV. accused, that he had no knowledge of me working at BKV, because for months I corresponded with BKV interest, issues operating within the scope of BKV, daily affairs and of course personally met many consultations and events!


2./ Falsifiable statement: Éva Horváth as a "gendarme's hat"


In 2010. July the 6th continuous daily Minutes of interrogation of suspects includes the following:

"I maintain my earlier statement that Éva Horváth was a" gendarme's hat ", in almost everything had full authority when Mr. Hagyó was away.

Reference: Volume 64, page: 41.809.








The significance of this is that the title "gendarme's hat"  IV. accused, before this didn't say it at the previous interrogations of suspects, but in the interviews he gave on the 6th of March 2010 and on the 7th of March 2010 to HírTV and Hungarian Nation newspaper, where he described me as the "gendarme's hat," who mediated the Mayor's Office superiors instructions to the leaders of the BKV.

Reference: Volume 1. pages: 279.-285. and the 5th point of Appendix of my written testimony.


With the title "gendarme's hat ', the continuous 2010 July 6th daily Minutes of interrogation of suspects contains further fundamental contradiction:


"This " gendarme hat "role of Éva Horváth became clear to me, when I was the Deputy Chief Technology Officer, already then Éva Horváth participated in several professional meetings and had a say to the management. This is 2007 fall-winter."

Reference: Volume 64. page: 41.811.


The statement quoted obviously does not correspond to reality, since, as the email I wrote in December 2007 also confirmed, the fall-winter of 2007 I was still employed by BKV DBR Metro, my boss - among others - was Miklós Regőczi. Next to Miklós Hagyó at the town hall I only from the 10th of February 2008 became employed with an agency contract, as PR and media consultant, so until this DBR Metro-related professional meetings I attended.


However, if according to  the memory of Mr. Zsolt Balogh, already in fall-winter of 2007 I attended on professional meetings (as that time NOT), it's even stranger, and incomprehensible that why did he say in the Minutes of the 2011 March 29th daily continued interrogation of suspects, that he didn't know that I am an employee of the BKV?!  It is also a significant contradiction in IV. accused's testimony.


3./ Falsifiable statement: Zsolt Balogh's allegations in relation with the behavior of Éva Horváth:


The 2010 September 7th daily Minutes of continuous interrogation of suspects includes the following:


"To answer your question I tell, that at these meetings Éva Horváth clearly peremptory, acted as a magistrate person with us, rather than as an employee of BKV. This type of magistrates Éva Horváth partially gave herself, and partially she got from Miklós Hagyó, with that she was present at all his meetings, and in many technical discussions she had a word, and her comments were 90% supported by Miklós Hagyó."

Reference: Volume 64. page:41.865.





1. I didn't participate at all of Miklós Hagyó's meetings, even neither at his conciliations, which I. accused, carried out independently, without any influence,

2. Like no one else, I didn't get either verbal or in writing in my agency contract and authorization from Miklós Hagyó, to act on his behalf in any matters!

3. Again, I stress that my duties were as follows:

  • Compilation of materials to be submitted to the General Assembly
  • Responding to media inquiries
  • Organization of press conferences
  • As well as carrying out the above tasks negotiations.

4. I, as a colleague of the Cabinet, didn't have a word in  BKV professional issues, since I had no such powers and responsibilities. The heads of BKV in professional matters are not with me, but with the competent professional Departments agreed.


This is supported by the fact that the written email by Éva Horváth on the 16th of July 2008, which by Zsolt Balogh, has been attached among the 43 other emails , bearing the designation 9B on the 7th of September 2010. In the referred letter I wrote the following:


"Dear Recipient!

Since there is no referring, my definite request is, that the materials of BKV are not as a proposal get into the Cabinet, but as BKV informational materials for inter-working.


Reference:  Volume 64. page: 41.943.


According to the attached written material of the Protocol IV. accused, the email interprets:


"Its significance: Éva Horváth joins the e-ticketing correspondence, who formulates "definite requests" towards the participants, namely towards the Cabinets of Dr. Demszky and Hagyó, and also to the BKV."

Reference: Volume 64. page: 41.879.


In the 2010 September 8th daily continued interrogation protocol the interpretation of the same email however, can be read as follows:


"Rarely observable sentence. Éva Horváth writes to Berger, to me, to Regőczi and to Kerényi, that her definite request is, that the materials of BKV do not enter into the Cabinet as a proposal. Éva Horváth quasi orders in writing, that some BKV materials, in what form to be placed in front of the Mayor's Cabinet. "

Reference: Volume 64. page: 42.053.


Yes, this is really a rarely observable - clear - sentence, so much so that such sentence, in which I could have instructed anyone, according to the indictment, the prosecution failed to find. Not even one. In a particular case, in addition to these interpretations, is obviously untrue content that confers on the technical aspects, bearing in mind my request, it is also worth checking out: what was the real reason?



 Mr. Miklós Hagyó Deputy Mayor, spent his vacation from the 10th of July 2008, whereby between the 11th of July 2008 and the 20th of August 2008, he participated at St. Stephen's Trek, from which it follows that on the Mayor's Cabinet Meeting at the questioned time he wasn't at the Mayor's Office, but as it can be seen on page he was hiking between Csicsó forester's house - Városlőd-Kislőd station section.


So I simply phrased that request in my referred letter that the material in question, not as a proposal, but to be only as an interim informative, because in light of the abcence of Mr. Hagyó, he could have not been the referring of the material arriving from BKV, and I was not endowed with such power! Despite this, still Mr. Hagyó was indicated as the referring, (irregularly).


Question in fact, while in this Cabinet metting for those reasons above Mr. Hagyó WAS NOT PRESENT, until according to the Protocol IV. accused was there, which also shows IV. accused's credibility, and adequate memory skills.

//Reference: Mayor's Office documents Annex, Mayor's Office Volume 1. page:623. - M. Hagyó affidavit //.


It is also necessary to refer to the 337. and  338/2008. Cabinet decisions, from which it can be stated, that the proposal was submitted by not only under the name of Mr. Miklós Hagyó (falsely), but he received further responsibilities in this session.

//Reference: Mayor's Office documents Annex, Mayor's Office Volume 3. page: 333. - M. Hagyó affidavit //.


I would add, the OOP exact manner sorts the substitution order, therefore, to the above irregularities absolutely would not have been necessary.


4./ Falsifiable statement: Zsolt Balogh's allegations in relation with the behavior of Éva Horváth:

The 2010 September 7th daily continuous Protocol of interrogation of suspects goes even further from the title "gendarme's hat" and presents Éva Horváth as a powerful person:


"As an example of the actual position of Éva Horváth it occurred to me, that as the Acting CEO of BKV I participated in the meeting of the possible financing of BKV in the  Ministry of Finance. On this meeting on behalf of the Capital City, Gábor Demszky, Imre Ikvai-Szabó and Miklós Hagyó participated, and 3-4 financial advisors of the financial department. On behalf of the Ministry of Finance participated László Keller, and Deputy Secretaries of State and Heads of the Departments of the the various ministries. On behalf of the BKV it was Norbert Tóth, Regőczi and I were present. At the negotiating table with Mr. Keller sat opposite Mr. Demszky,  who along both sides of the two Deputy Mayors sat, Hagyó and Ikvai. Éva Horváth who was at least 15 minutes late, didn't sit down on the empty seat by the end of the table, but went up to Hagyó, and the persons were sitting next to him made them stand up and moved further. In the room, nobody found this strange or questionable. This example also demonstrated that Éva Horváth  possessed power in the town hall, which was not called into question even by Demszky.

Reference: Volume 64. page: 41.867.




I did not have any (large) power, only with power indicated in my agency contract, namely I had press and PR consultant duties under the personal guidance of Miklós Hagyó, he therefore asked and adopted my purely technical viewpoint, my observations on the cases. Anyway, I remember that particular meeting, because Mr. Keller indoctrinated Mr. Demszky, and the mood was quite strong. To the meeting, as to all professional meeting which I had to be there with Mr. Hagyó, I arrived together with him. So I really couldn't be late. Because we left the Town Hall together, we travelled together and got there together. I think that this has been recorded by the Ministry of Finance strict entry system, so it would have been very easy to check for the prosecuting authority, if someone wanted to check, but this was unfortunately not considered important. I note also that I had to be there because of professional reasons, besides me the PR and media consultants of Mr. Demszky and the Ministry of Finance also attended at the meeting, which in the end we had to release a joint press statement.


In addition, my alleged unlimited power, what Zsolt Balogh IV. accused stated in his testimony at the investigation stage, contradicts and refutes the countless e-mail correspondence, which is clearly a joint collaboration evidencing a juxtaposition between the other executives of the BKV and professionals working in the field of communication, rather than a hierarchical relationship of subordination, and unilateral dictate on my part.


The co-operation and juxtaposition legal relationship is confirmed , otherwise the other accused, such as Tibor Zelenák accused's testimony e-mail correspondence attachments and his testimony confirms this.


5./ Falsifiable statements: the use of name stamper by Éva Horváth:


According to the 2010 July 6th daily Minutes of continued interrogation of suspects:


"On paper, Éva Horváth has nothing to do with OOP, because she was a media consultant, but in reality I had the feeling, that Mr. Hagyó, all his BKV related  competence he assigned over Éva Horváth, 90% of our conversations with Mr. Hagyó, Éva Horváth sat there. I maintain my earlier statement that Éva Horváth was the "gendarme's hat", had almost complete authority when Mr. Hagyó was away on holiday, Éva Horváth handed out letters with Mr. Hagyó's name stamper on them. If you would reveal to me such letters, I could probably be able to show the ones with such name stampers on them. If you could obtain the letters of Miklós Hagyó to BKV, or the emails to me as to the Acting CEO, from those shows exactly, Éva Horváth participated in that, and given specific instructions. "

Reference: Volume 64. pages: 41.809. and 41.811.




1. To the use of the name stamper the OOP provided opportunity, and precisely regulated it.



Only the office manager or the Deputy office manager was entitled to use it, with the knowledge and consent of Mr. Hagyó, namely besides them, others have never used it, so ME NEITHER. Anyway, somewhere it was obviously locked away, so I could not access it. I did not want to, of course. So this above assertion of Zsolt Balogh is not true.


2. The Cabinet was checked several times, but in connection with the use of the name stamper, irregularities have never been identified, it is not recorded!


3. That claim, that if the authorities would reveal in front of IV. accused, such correspondence, which I handed out with the seal of Mr. Hagyó, then possibly he could show the ones with the seal on it.  It is also lame and does not correspond to reality, because during the long, multi-year procedure, such letter from Mr. Zsolt Balogh, (and not the investigating authority or the prosecuting authority) is not attached to the present day, so his statement is absolutely not proved by anything.


7./ Falsifiable statement: said goodbye to the "gendarme hat":


As previously mentioned, protocols contents clearly indicated that Zsolt Balogh IV. accused, with the cynical tone speaking "gendarme hat" (ie with me), who I had such power, which was recognized by the Lord Mayor himself, and who I constantly threatened. It is not inconsiderable, that Zsolt Balogh factually knew earlier Mr. Hagyó personally than I did, or even Mr. Balogh, therefore they never really needed me, not even as the "gendarme's hat " if they wanted to speak directly with each other in any case.


In addition, this contradicts sharply: the 9th page of the Protocol of 2010 September 8th daily continued interrogation of suspects, where IV. accused reports, that following his departure from BKV, who he said goodbye to:


"I tell, that following my departure from BKV, I met Éva Horvá her apartment....Given that with these people that year I was the Acting CEO and have repeatedly met with them at the General Assembly, basically I just wanted to say goodbye to them. "

Reference: Volume 64. page: 42.061.


Obviously, if we have a poor, suspicious relationship with Mr. Zsolt Balogh, then we don't meet at my apartment and he doesn't say goodbye to me voluntarily after the termination of his employment. In addition, I personally thought that it's a good relationship, if I help his son in his practical (private company) work. Or if I listen how his mother is doing who suffers from cancer, how much he misses his dead father. Or that how is his wife who at that time suffered gynecological diseases, who he worried a lot about and who he loved very much at that time etc... These were not included in my job description, nor apparently did not force him to tell me all this, or ask for my opinions. Note humanly, in everything I could, even just to listen to, I was always happy to help people, just like to Zsolt Balogh.

8., The pressure of the prosecuting authority to testify at the pre-trial detention. At the testimony wanted to hear by them, the changing behavior of the prosecution. The absence of that specific memorandum of intent and content which is not subject of the  accusation, at the investigative stage by my withdrawn testimony in the indictment:

I tell, that my testimony at the investigative stage,  was withdrawn (modified) for various reasons in fall 2011. My testimony given between 2010 January and 2010 August, almost identical to what I just said here and now before the Honourable Tribunal, namely with the truth.


I note also that I've read in the media in another case, according to the prosecutor's statement on the defense counsel's proposition, the prosecution's position is when a  suspect is threatened with pretrial detention during the interrogation, they are considered as an investigative technical issue, not something that is legally to be investigated. I do not know whether it's true or not. I do not know, but I strongly presume that if the prosecution doesn't hear the required testimony given by the suspect, regardless of whether it is true or not, and therefore quasi in return initiates the pre-trial detention, even its extension then it is not an investigation, or technical issue of interrogation. After all, the law specifically states that under what section how a person can be in custody or placed in pre-trial detention, even only for 72 hours. In other words, restrict freedom. The investigative techniques "catches" to my knowledge aren't among these legal criterias. The presumption of the public prosecutor in the process of investigation techniques, that is under the investigation, even if they think it is allowed to put pressures to the interrogated person with restriction of freedom and others. So, if they think this is not enough and in this case consciously only to enhance the efficiency, but otherwise as required by law in the absence of evidence of facts (escape, hiding, repeat offenses, etc...) they initiate the imposition of restrictions on freedom, or its extension. Then they actually flouted existing laws concerning them and also the prosecution. I don't think that the law with investigation technical reasons could have been overwriten. The prosecuting authority of course, has the right to presume that investigations against people be initiated as technical issues in many cases in custody and to be disproven. The most authoritative rebuttal would be that if finally with concrete factual evidence would substantiate, as they haven't done it yet, such as by law the established grounds of my pre-trial detention.


Returning to the year of 2010, when in May I first got to 72 hours in custody, as I have explained above with advanced media publicity arrangements, advanced arrangements, because otherwise the press would not have brought to public with factual accuracy that I was taken into custody, just as it was. I also know from my journalist friends, that this went out in each case from the investigating authority to the press. The Honourable Court is also aware of that in first instance, the court saw no reason for pre-trial detention. Legally, it was not, but it has been explained. From Gyorskocsi Street when they let me out, the police officers leading the investigation have called me and told me while I was still in the building and waited to get my personal belongings, that if I would have made a incriminating testimony, I would not have gotten here. They told me, if I would say what in THEIR OPINION I know and what THEY WANT TO HEAR, then they would not have initiated my pretrial detention months after I was suspected. That they called me aside, in my opinion Miklós Hagyó and Ottó Lelovics also saw, since we were waiting for our personal belongings in the same lobby.




They didn't hear me, that's why we had to move aside, but we were still within sight. In addition, the Gyorskocsi Street jail camera system also recorded - and perhaps this is the only time when they put me in such unjust "blackmail" and a camera recorded it, there were more occasions but no camera - when the investigator otherwise can not be explained by any other reason called me aside from the rest of them in the hall. It's not realistic that we went aside for my secret recipe of sweets during my liberation.

I propose from the Honourable Court, to obtain the images of Gyorskocsi Street Police station camera system recorded on the 17th of May 2010. From that the foregoing will be clearly visible.


On the second instance court, Dr. Mária Szívós - since then by the government parties appointed Constitutional Court Judge - advice, changing the decision of the first instance placed me back in pre-trial detention. The details have previously been disclosed. At that time I was like as according to the sections defining the pre-trial detention by the law in force it was unlawful, sure it was only a try for the necessity of forced interrogation, and at my interrogation before the 30 days expiry with a clear conscience I answered all questions asked to the best of my knowledge and according to my recollection. It is noted here that this interrogation came together for the second time, because the PROSECUTING AUTHORITY ACCORDING TO THEM, ACCIDENTALLY INFORMED MY LAWYER AFTER WORKING HOURS OF MY NEXT MORNING’S INTERROGATION, THEREFORE THEY COULD NOT BE THERE. So because of my lawyer's protest against the strange proceeding, interrogated me for the second run and by then appeared with direct management investigating prosecution, but with further active participation of the BPH and the Municipal Prosecutor's Office senior police officers and prosecutors.


At my delivery to the prison I've also listened from the accompanying police officer, to think of my child - whom after I cried a lot and I was afraid of - because if I don't cooperate with them, it may be that my child must be taken into state care due to my long-term "absence".

Here I already wasn't married, and was not re-married yet, so I was the only legal guardian of my minor child. When I told this to my lawyers in despair what they told me, I was told not to worry because it's not so easy to do so legally, and it can't happen that this will take place. I could only say, that the pre-trial detention is legally impossible but I'm still in prison. I AM A MOTHER, MY CHILD, MY CHILDREN ARE MY EVERYTHING, MY LIFE. The threat of putting my son into state care to me is not a technical issue of investigation, but threatens the lives of children.


The Investigator in the car, when let's say it out,  threatened me with putting my son into state care, to the idea that I will go home after 30 days because I'm innocent and they know it, he said  "that’s why SM System bank wired back the money one-to-one to my then companion's company for a film about expectant mothers which was not even made". As it was included also in my original suspicion. I asked if that anybody transferred any money to my husband? SM System in particular did not. He asked, "How do you know?". I said that because you, the Police, gives everything out to the press, when I read in the newspaper I asked whether there was anything like this or only I don't know about it. He said there wasn’t. For this the Investigator asked - I emphasize all these things happened in the car in private without the presence of my lawyer -, "why do I believe my companion, for sure he is lying?".

I said that I rather believe him than you, because so far, what they accused me of deliberate fabrication on their part, because I didn't commit anything, but for some reason, they don't deal with the factual evidences. I have made ​​my point in all cases with facts, supported by evidence, however they don't take the evidence into account (I hope the court will do differently!), even if those are in many cases documents that can not be influenced by me. For this he asked, "if I saw my companion's bank account, that I'm so sure of that he is not lying".

I said no, I believe him, , but I asked back that if the investigating authority has taken the trouble to look at the company's bank account before making an accusation? As it turned out it was NOT.


It also became apparent that what we said was true, there was no transfer, but they did not take the trouble to look for it in the bank before accusing. The accusation was important, the facts presenting a bank check WAS NOT.


The policeman asked me if I'm not afraid of rotting in jail in pretrial detention, and that I won't see my son growing up? Then I asked back, that aren't they afraid, that one day someone will deal with the evidence, and will turn out that they innocently dragged me and my family. Aren't they afraid of, that if this turns out, I will sue them for violating my privacy rights and for all what they have done with us, while in my opinion, if they looked after the evidence only a little bit, than they must know that I'm innocent. He said they are not afraid because I can't sue them for damages, I only can sue the state. Besides, if it turns out that I am not guilty, they will say, that they acted to the best of their knowledge according to the "available" evidence. I said I understood, that's why they neglected such little evidence, as a bank account history check whether there was any transfer or not, or wages accounting - on official paper -, on which factually stated that I didn't earn that much at BKV as they say so, etc... We stayed on this as we arrived back to Markó Street.




After the 30 days, due to the judgmental summer break, I received a 90-day extension on the same, the legal foundations of the pre-trial detention evidence from the prosecution under unsupported reasons. It seemed to be that a police officer will be right if I don't say what they want to hear, then I will rot in pre-tial detention "as he said", whether it is  legitimate or not. The inhumane conditions of my pre-trial detention I have previously described to the Honourable Court.


The months passed, investigators and prosecutors did not look for me, although to the best of my knowledge in principle under the strictest coercive measures the investigating authorities must make every effort for the progress of the investigation, that the coercive measures should not last longer than the necessary minimum time. The investigative materials revealed that not only me they didn't consider important to interrogate for nearly 3 months, but nobody else who took part in the proceedings.


At the end of August 2010 again they took me for interrogation to the central building of the Prosecutor's Office from the Markó Street PE institute. In mid September 2010 my 90-day extension would have expired. Again I listened, if for nothing else than for my child and for my father who suffered a stroke, collaborate with them, tell them what they want to hear, to go home to my family, if not, I continue to stay in prison. Anyway, after the others were in prison for a while - eg. Mr. Regőczi - , they immediately became cooperative, and they began to throw mud, that is "just splashes" to everyone, even to me too. So learn from their example who could go home. Think of my child, my family, whatever my lawyers says, I can see, that my detention will remain  for as long as we do not work together.


I collaborated, I could really go home. As it turned out, with completely different content testimonies of mine all of the sudden, and the circumstances of the termination of my pre-trial detention. At first I became under house arrest for 30 day, as they said, my release is not to be conspicuous, then the coercive measures ceased altogether, and I was free.


When we appeared in the interrogation room of the prosecutor's office, then to the prosecutor supervising the investigation - former leader - I wept that I wanted to go home to my son and my family, I'd like to see my son nearly after 4 months. But believe me, that I truly couldn’t make any incriminating statement against Miklós Hagyó, which I could support with evidence, or in fact were true.


I remember correctly what one of the BPH officers said about this , who lent their own organization to the General Prosecutor's Office for further investigation, that then I can go back, and will meet on the 6th month. I cried even more, then the prosecutor at present asked me, if I don't know anything about Hagyó, do I know László Puch? Because as they know I do. I said I do, but how does it connected to the BKV case? They said it doesn't connect, but they are interested, if I tell them everything what I know about him, and it will be enough for them, then I can go home. It may be sufficient for an investigative bargain, and in this case we can forget this whole thing, me and my family as well. I can go home, I do not have to be accused in a secure jail term due to a nationwide political issue. Because I shouldn't have doubts, no one will care that I'm innocent for further public harassment. I can go home, I can be with my child, and will leave alone my companion too. We can get married, and as we planned, I can give birth for our long-planned common child. As I have told them many times why I wanted to go home.


I said ok I'll tell what I know. I answered whatever they asked, but as he is one of the "big guns" of MSZP, therefore I asked to be a protected witness if the time comes. Because, although I can not say too much about him, but if I tell you I'm afraid with that others will be mad at us. Even if what I know is not enough for them to press charges against them. They said OK, they will protect me and my family.

We started to talk, my PE seeking time expired, so for a close, (and many - many others) dates I was recalled. By then all of a sudden I could see my son and companion. Who were let in to me at lunchtime to be together interrupting the interrogation. This made ​​me very happy, but when it was over I suffered even more of missing them, but at least, after 4 months I saw my son. I was about to be with them again as soon as possible.


I NOTE THAT EACH TIME, AT ALL THE INTERROGATIONS, ALREADY DURING THE INVESTIGATIVE AGREEMENT I SAID THAT I'M INNOCENT. I AM INNOCENT, AND I'M NOT COOPERATING WITH THE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES BECAUSE I COMMITTED ANYTHING, BUT ONLY TO GO HOME TO MY FAMILY, TO LEAVE US IN PEACE: TO LET US FORGET ABOUT THIS WHOLE NIGHTMARE. I told each time when taking the minutes, but has not been included, and when I asked why, they said no one will be asking from now on, whether I'm guilty or innocent, so it doesn't matter if it's in or not. Nevertheless, I have always said, but has not been included, only jokingly remarked, that I keep on sayin that I'm innocent so many times, that I would have a smooth transition of a polygraph machine, because I've convinced myself.


I'd note also that from the recorded protocols - at that time from my testimony which still is representing a state secret - we did not ask for a copy of the advice of my attorney, avoiding to be permanently copied to the press - like so many other documents in this case - the prosecution could say, that NOT THEM, but WE  had given out. When later it became tricky, misleading the prosecution, they withdrew my testimony from the state secrets and we realized this, then it was already useless to ask. They said I will get it in the investigation material. Then I can go over it, if it contains what I said. That's why I withdrew my entire testimony still at the investigative stage. So it includes my now and repeated testimonies in the BKV case before August 2010, and in the framework of the investigative bargaining my other testimonies as well entirely distinct from BKV.


The Honourable Tribunal may ask what is the basis upon that they wish to conclude an investigative deal in a totally unrelated case of BKV? Honourable Tribunal, to that investigative deal intent which - although my testimonies of this subject are attached by the  prosecution -, the prosecuting authority unlike the other materials are not attached to the disclosure document material. I refer to that investigative deal’s intent, which in the presence of Mr. György Győri prosecutor, an my lawyer (Dr. Gábor Holló) was signed within the framework of a handshake with Mr. Keresztes Attorney General.


As from the other Minutes of my testimonies given at that time, I didn't receive a copy of it, but the Honourable Tribunal may possibly officially require the prosecution a replacement of the documents. After all, if it is my confession which is based on the creation, then it is not impossible for it to be here. Or if it is separated, then why not also my other testimonies which are not connected to the accusation? What does it do before the Honourable Tribunal - though at the investigative stage it already has been withdrawn (amended) – the confession, which is not the subject of BKV matters?




I note that my lawyer was right because, as soon as it became a point of reference, - that the testimony Protocols went out from someone else – ie. not only the prosecution had it,  because at replacement of documents they handed out - details of the protocols immediately appeared in the press. Not from me.


I NOTE also, that although in the investigative bargain repeatedly listened from the prosecutors, to make an incriminating testimony on myself because I would be more authentic, like Zsolt Balogh. I never did, because as I said, I DIDN'T COOPERATE BECAUSE I WAS GUILTY, simply just wanted to be with my family.

I never made an incriminating testimony on myself, though at the signing the letter of intent, when they promised for sure the investigative deal, I could have done it if I am guilty. The deal's subject was also the promise of immunity, even if I committed anything in the BKV case. I even asked the prosecutors, why would I lie to them? If not another time but now I could admit if I was guilty, but I'm not. Really I only say what they want to hear because I want to go home to my family and let it end this whole thing.


So we signed the letter of intent. They said that they will detail the agreement, and whenever it's ready they call us to sign. Months passed and they have made themselves known, then suddenly they called us that the agreement is getting ready, but anyway after my statement it must be made public, so in the meantime move on with that. We went in, they copied into the public notary books. I signed, then went home to my family.




Then again silence, then the prosecutors came with that everything is OK, but I still should say something incriminating within BKV whatever I know, or it is also enough if I say something I heard of. I said I do not know specifics, all I can say what I heard from the media, of what I heard from others at the level of gossip, I do not know whether they are true. They said no problem, just say them. I also note, that it must be visible from the original protocols, that in many cases at the actual interrogation my lawyer left earlier. Since in these cases the interrogation was conducted without the presence of a lawyer.




I said, what I've heard or read. Then other questions came if I would talk about this and that. For a while I answered to the directed questions. Then I started asking that what is this for? Now where's the contract? They said they acknowledge that in the BKV case I can not make incriminating confessions which are supported by evidence, and I don't want to lie. They said what I said before is enough for the agreement, then where is the agreement? I said, that I don't want to re-add and to review my testimony until there is no agreement. They said it will be. Then again, a few months of silence, and then they accused my husband. With that he was a subcontractor, and what they have already known earlier.

If I remember correctly, with the Santa Claus ceremony, which I had been suspected with. I went again with my lawyer, and asked what's up with the agreement? They promised it will be ready. I got the answer at the presence of my lawyer, that it is a hierarchical organization.


As I said then I withdrew all my statements, I asked for a copy of all of them, what they specifically included. I didn't get them, they said that they won't do copies now, I will get them at the document descriptions.


I received a description of the document just like anybody else. Then I saw that not everything is in the way I said.  I saw also that they issued protocols with mixed unrealistic dates on. The latter is likely to be a mistake during the copying. (for example, in February 2010, a protocol of testimony could not be made at the Central Investigating Chief Prosecutor's Office, etc.).


Well now here I stand before the Honourable Tribunal, and I do not know how many times I say that I'm innocent. Attached again and again is the evidence to support this, and hope, that the court has the words of the law, and so the truth is what matters. The truth is foremost. I hope that the Tribunal, not as the prosecutor said, is not a hierarchical organization, but an independent, non-impact and independent.


Allow me Honourable Tribunal to note another personal issue, my father suffered a stroke while they started to harass me. He could not stand impotent rage, he knew his daughter thought she was innocent and could not do anything for her, to protect her. We didn't dare to let him in the prison not to worsen his condition to see me in such circumstances. I did mention, that I wanted to go to his 60th birthday when I got arrested, as I also mentioned, that my parents got to know from the news. I mentioned how much I worried about my family, how much I longed for to go home to them. I mentioned, that those who falsely accuse others, those who with self-interest say what they want to hear, even though they know it is not true, those who, although they know that it's not legal what they do, but they do because they are the police force. Those who are during their political games are not watching who they wade through undeservedly. Those who serve them and untruths voiced in the media playing with people, families life, which is wrong.


Let me start by closing my statement with the words of my father from his letter written to me while I was in prison:


"My dear daughter, we miss you so much, me and your mother are worried about you a lot. I would do anything to hug you. Please take care of yourself, we could not bear if we would not get you back safe, our daughter, our child. No worse for a parent than to see and feel their child suffer unworthy. Hang in there. Once this nightmare will be over, we'll be together again. You gave birth to our granddaughter Sára, as you promised, and we will get passed this. I love you very much. Don't worry about me, I'm OK. Imagine, I'm growing my beard, and I won't cut it until you get back home where you belong. My dear little girl, all politicians who did this to you, get it back from life. Do not worry about us, without saying we know you are innocent. Just hurry home, hold on and hang in there. The other day Dr. Molnár died because of his heart. He was the same age as I am now, here comes our generation, hurry home to still hear Sára's voice, because you promised. I love you. Dad."

My father could hear Sára's voice, though his beard was very long by the time I got home, until he could hold me. He could still see, how they press charges against his daughter outside of the statutory time limit. He could experience, as national and international civil rights organizations were protesting despite the strong protests of the CC and the Venice Commission for the basic human rights are not recognized to transfer this case to Kecskemét. He acknowledged that the trial began.

He could read in the newspaper, how Zsolt Balogh stated, that it really wasn't the way he incriminated me in his testimony made during the investigative stage. Then he gave up. Literally his heart shattered. According to the medical report the pericardium split because of the unexpected heart attack. In the end of 2012 October I buried my dad at age 62, only a few months ago, and now I'm standing partly among those people, who did this to him, to me, to my family.


I believe, however, that he is here with me, and I believe, that he takes care of me from above. He takes care of me until this nightmare is over. Me, his daughter.


9) Afterword:


Honourable Tribunal,


Finally, I would like to say once again that I am not guilty of any counts, I did not commit any crime. At BKV Co. at the best of my knowledge - often from early morning until late at night and often on weekends - I worked on my duties in the most careful way, impartiality and with integrity I have done to the best of my knowledge and professional practice I have acquired, with my work I have never caused harm to anyone.


Despite all this I get into pre-trial detention and house arrest, until my successful career, my calm, average life came to an end, my family lived in honor (parents, siblings, husband, etc.). Names have been stigmatized, because of the case, and the significant financial burden, in particular, the unsubstantiated and disproportionate security measures and of sequestration, jeopardized my family's future and living. The hundreds of km of travel to the courthouse, taking away my daily maternal care from my few months old baby girl, my precious time, and I can't be next to my son and support him during his exam period.


For all these facts with full knowledge I ask the Honourable Court, not to punish me for such crime I did not commit. Don't punish me for such acts (eg, work, or others in a non-binding recommendation on the work done anyway), which is NOT a criminal offense under the criminal laws in force!


Therefore I ask the Honourable Tribunal, that all the allegations against me, from unfounded counts, in the absence of a crime absolve me, as the protracted criminal procedure itself, its psychological and financial burdens, and the previous coercive measures limited my personal freedom and referenced of sequestration, I have been unjustly and disproportionately punished for an act I did not commit!



Kecskemét, the 17th of January 2013                                Éva Mátay-Horváth,  accused