A (from the scope of basic constitutional rights) special case? - Kádár Éva, April 4th, 2012

A (from the scope of basic constitutional rights) special case?    


Despite the fact that according to the law in our country everyone is equal , the practice shows that today there are ,,less equals." Our current basic law - similar to our pre-existing constitution - listed in basic constitutional rights the rights of fair trial to which everyone is equally entitled. Of course, this fundamental principle of law does not foresee any exceptions, because such a sentence is declared in a democratic constitutional state under the Basic Law would create astonishment. Thus the so-called priority issues of the Basic Law does not consider from the scope of ,, priority ".

The BKV case of the third-order suspects, Miklós Hagyó case however questioned by experienced this apparently obvious conclusion.


Atmospheric preparation of a criminal prosecution:


Today unfortunately, is a fact of accountability in the spirit of a procedure that at the initial stage of investigation, so when we can't speak of justified suspicion, such news will appear in the media which shows the actual ,,public enemy, " proven as fact claims that is guilty, squander the national wealth, the epitome of selfish private interests, as opposed to the state represented by the public interest. Today, unfortunately, becomes more of a mindset that the currently legal policy goals such as fighting corruption, overridden in eternal values ​​such as justice and equity, or of Christian compassion, and overwrites the basic constitutional rights in the spirit of ,, the end justifies the means ". This mentality reckoned among the civil liberties to the (according to them) ,,private interest "in relation to the ,,public interest" category. In extreme cases, such concept is considered ideal of collectivism, such as the Chinese government structure where (at least according to the propaganda), there is order, there is no corruption, because against the public assets real or alleged perpetrators of crimes are punishable by death.

In 2010, the press Miklós Hagyó in the role of ''public enemy", those who declare a similar view thought that his personal rights can be put aside when his name and the associated criminal articles often included the ,,NOKIA box" as  synonym for corruption, even though the criminal procedure had only been at police investigative stage, and in reality it was too early to talk about proven facts:,, it is a fact that billions have disappeared from BKV, that courses related to certain political parties were favored and contracts concluded at this way, and the fact that the police suspected based on the defaults were not proportional to payments. It is also a fact that  Hagyó as Deputy Mayor was responsible for BKV".”

Other authors of newspaper articles even went further assumptions, the mere fact of serving as:,, Regarding to the expert opinion we asked that the BKV's former appointed  CEO, Zsolt Balogh was in any connection with the NBH.

The national security spokesman said: this is a state secret, so can not answer.
To our astonishment - beyond that BKV was stolen apart addition to the protection of national security - however The Budapest Police Headquarters spokesman Éva Tafferner informed us that the investigation started out by based on a Swiss individual's accusation, therefore the result is not because of NBH indicated.  The protection of national security organization is not conceivable without the service and the official relationship between the leaders of the protected object. This is not meant to be an organized cooperative secret relationship, but help- according to László Bálint who said of the prime leader - actual chief executive even if only a representative CEO - is certainly true. Thus Zsolt Balogh was no exception , because he talked about that  NOKIA box himself that he took money out in it  from BKV.

According to the above statement a man walked around to the "cold meat man"  Miklós Hagyó, whose position title with the National Security Agency officially had to be contacted and cooperate with.”  

The character assassination in the fifties were tried and tested tools, and there were people who described Hagyó as ,,the product of the previous guilty system ,, The company has been granted an order and is returning a small percentage (40%) from the investment to the decision-makers at BKV. No surprises here, this is just the way how the system works, and this system is creating the frightened masses, people who are anxious for their jobs, professionals who are not performing professional work, money dealers and washy candidates, the screaming bosses who are demanding membership fees, support officers and henchmen. Hagyó himself is just a product, and according to the  specific laws of the systems  internal logic is prime quality. This is where it should have started and fulfill the system changes..”

Others, however, are satisfied with simply getting personal: ,,.. that something is wrong with this man. That this man is a psychiatric case, who has plethoric violent nature and lives with it. Specifically, abusive because he has the power..”  

After the arrest some executors of the ongoing discredited campaign did not even spare Hagyó's belief in God and publicly questioned the sincerity of  it: ,, Those who were there in the public meeting have gone their own way. However someone from Dunaújváros unexpectedly wrote a quote. „I've got new a idea from him!” He said, „ They had defiled our joy, our sense of achievement. A stupid gravel, a dirt clod of earth,a fake look got into the machine of the honest group of pilgrims. (…)Today for those who walked along El Camino, it hurts if it is true that he had been there, that he had those million steps, that slept in pilgrims shelters, that he drunk from that springwater, sweat in the hot of the mountains of Iberia of the daily 20-25 km as we did. (…)Today, many people feel ashamed: could this be a man among us? Could he look into the country's eyes? With wide-open, innocent eyes? (…)Santiago de Compostela may admit and forgive. We don't! Because with wide-open innocent eyes he deceived us too. As did the politics for many years..” The last sentence of the quotation of Christianity is rather a new type of interpretation, rejecting forgiveness, as an old (perhaps way too orthodox? ") principle.

The moral rights of the former Deputy Mayor were incidental for the staff of Hír TV, whom with a night vision device filmed not only him but his partner who is not a public person, in his own garden before his arrest. Therefore Miklós Hagyó also launched a lawsuit against HírTV and disabled the recording..

The character assassination against  public figures today in Hungary is ,, free genre",provide the wide opportunity for representatives of the principle that the public actors have to endure more than others. Thus the humiliating, right defamation, human dignity deeply offensive statements are not insults, if they relate to public actors, just because it is considered as expression, rather than factual claims. With this right people not only live, but also likes to abuse it. The only limit of this entitlement is (at least in theory) the principle of presumption of innocence, therefore, it is prohibited to accuse anyone with crime, - such as public actors - until a final judgment does not spell out their guilt, indeed before this rumor is nothing more than slander.

Unfortunately, increasingly it wears out that principle of the legal practise, whereby it is understood that in the case of defamation of public figures, if a specific actively held  statement of facts released in the news in the relevant issue. (so that the public figure has done certain things) The Ethics Committee of the Association of Hungarian Journalists are experiencing the unfortunate phenomena on the 25th of March in 2010 which published a resolution on the presumption of innocence in which declared that the mediated news release by the journalist and in its formed opinion must respect the presumption of innocence and during the time of a court case should refrain from making any judgment. (…)The national and international journalism standards and practices, both require that the privacy rights of citizens are not violated by a careless, sloppy or even perhaps deliberately use of prejudiced news reports, or the lack of rectification. The Ethics Committee emphasizes that freedom of expression can not cover the libel or defamation.”

In the current legal practice it is indicated that any consequences can be adjusted without - public figures belonging to a specific group including Hagyó. He and his companions ,, pushed the money out with a wheelbarrow " from BKV, was found guilty by the public through testimony-like statements in the media during the initial phases of the process. Such powerful and emotional preparation, after a successful character assassination took place (on the day of the formation of the new parliament), Miklós Hagyó was termination by mandate as a member of Parliament, accompanied by an enthusiastic applause.

On May 14, 2010 after the termination of his immunity, Miklós Hagyó had been arrested almost immediately as the third prime suspect  in the case of criminal proceedings against Dr. Szalainé, Dr. Szilágyi Eleonóra and others as criminal organization acts, particularly detrimental to the misappropriation of assets and other suspicious crimes.

According to the motion of the Municipal Prosecutor's Office, at the Metropolitan Municipality who is exercising ownership rights over BKV Inc. and of various persons occupying positions in the BKV, asset management executive officers with powers were given such instructions, or influenced their decisions in a way that they were prejudicial to BKV asset management choices and as a result, the transportation company generated a particular financial disadvantage.

The Central District Court of Buda accepted what was provided, and on the 17th of May, 2010 ordered the pre-trial detention of Miklós Hagyó.


Doubts about the justification


I., Escape, reference to the risk of hiding:


For the pre-trial detention of the former deputy mayor, essentially the same reasons were given for the automatic repetition of June 2010, September, November, and was extended in February 2011. But the the court upheld last order against the appeal, and eliminated the pre-trial detention, and on the 23rd of February 2011 put him under in-house arrest. So he spent nine months in custody on rather dubious grounds. On the 10th of June 2011 this was eased to reside in prohibition

Miklós Hagyó's lawyer Dr. András Kádár appeals has repeatedly pointed out for the anomalies in the justification, which the court left unanswered for a long time.

Because the prosecutor's office regularly referred to the seriousness of the crime outstanding as an objective weight as well as the extent of the penalty, and as the pre-trial detention and the legal basis for the extension, in several cases the defense drew the court's attention to the prevailing non-diminished principle.The offense is an outstanding objective weight alone does not justify pre-trial detention.  

In addition, the pre-trial detention orders, and orders are usually extended to the risk of escape and hiding (§ Be. 129th (2) b., Point) is marked as a reason justifying the need for detention in which four reasons are given:

1., Miklós Hagyó faced the weight of offenses he's accused with, with those possible criminal consequences, he would withdraw from the scope of the procedure.

2., The period before his hearing as a suspect and before his arrest, he was taking about such actions- presumably during "the organization's acquired assets -in which the guilty acquired assets were removed, and large amounts of funds were released in undiscovered places.

3., Data have arisen that he wished to escape abroad..

4., As a result of the investigative actions the criminal offenses circuit may expand.

5., Not only (129th Be. § (2) the risk of escape or hiding underpin the most severe application of coercive measures, but in the same place mentioned another reason, "as well - which is according to the Metropolitan Court  -in this case, the criminal investigation can be defined in relating to the social interest.


The defense appeal has shown that these reasons are not suitable for the foundation to the assumption that the escape of Miklós Hagyó or the danger of hiding realistically is expected:


1., The reason that Hagyó would withdraw himself from the procedure is because of facing the heaviness of the offence. A number of facts refutes. Miklós Hagyó long before his arrest knew that a serious crime is suspected of criminal procedure and waiting for him, because for a long time not a day passed by that the printed and electronic media did not give news about the BKV case of criminal proceedings events, that the name of Miklós Hagyó is repeatedly mentioned as the central person of the possible procedure. It is well known fact that Zsolt Balogh, the former appointed chief executive of BKV, reported a number of significant crimes, where he pointed Hagyó as the perpetrator at first in the issue of Hungarian Nation on 6th of March, 2010, of the following day in the evening show of Hír TV. Attila Antal former CEO of BKV, on 13th of March 2010 for the same newspaper made a statement which serves as an investigative confession, in which he closely associated Hagyó with more serious offenses. As reported in the news media in April 2010, Ernő Mesterházy, Tibor Zelenák and Miklós Regőczi were accused by the investigating authority, with crimes against property (misappropriation) committing a criminal organization in order to set them up.

If not elsewhere, this source could draw an authentic knowledge about what reasonable suspicious criminal offenses Miklós Hagyó will be charged with.

Miklós Hagyó has to face the weight of crimes he will be suspected with not during his incarceration, but at a time when it will be far-reaching for the potential of exploiting his financial opportunities, relationships and his right of immunity. He had the opportunity to leave to any part of the world within days without the slightest difficulty. However, he didn't do it, did not escaped, did not hide, but regularly, and again gave sign of  himself in the press, and indicated that he is ready to report his related position on the matter in front of the authorities..


2., The presumed asset rescue, the other reason for the pre-trial detention, cannot be accepted, because the mobilized assets by the suspect are all (with one exception) are from the period when Hagyó wasn't the Deputy Mayor, so that the accusations could not bring up the criminal organization. The official records or documents show the accused's home was seized during searches of the house. Because they are not from a criminal organization offense, criminal activity has ensued. In this way none of the moved confiscation of assets none of can fall under or be subject to the Criminal Code. 77 / B § (1) b., point. The only exception is the suspect's apartment in Rege street, but it is proven that the purchase of financial resources are from a property being sold in Törökbálint in the early years of 2000 which in all respects the real estate proceeds were legally acquired..


3., In the prosecutor's motion it regularly featured mysterious data, based on an alleged police report, that Hagyó's alleged intention was to escape abroad, by ordering the pre-trial detention, which extended unchecked and automatically accepted by the judges.

Dr. András Kádár defense lawyer has repeatedly requested the investigating authorities, order to know this particular data. His request, however (after a long period of time not reacting to it) was refused on the grounds that it is only possible at the presentation of documents, as it would jeopardize the investigation. Even though it was decided that this data doesn't belong as evidence to the accusations of the criminal investigations, this data is an imposition of coercive measures, therfore it is relevant how the understanding of defence could prevent the investigation.

The European Court of Human Rights in several judgments pointed out, that the principle of equality of arms,- namely, 1993. XXXI. law, part of the of the Hungarian laws, is that everyone is legally bound to the Convention on Human Rights, Rome, fifth Article 4. The point – it is violated when a defense has no way to become familiar with the restricting personal liberty coercive measures underlying the evidence.. The principle of equality of arms is part of a fair trial, and the criminal procedure ensures that the prosecution and the defense have an equal chance to the facts and form an opinion on points of law and able to take a position on them. One of the important conditions is that in a case, the relevant information for the prosecution and the accused and the defense is disclosed in same fullness and depth. The defense access to file right is only limited when it is a state secret , in which, of course, the prosecution never made any reference.

Miklós Hagyó's attorney at the presentation of the document didn't meet with that specific data. This raises a question, why the prosecution didn't intend to provide to Miklós Hagyó's attorney the rights of all attorneys in understanding coercive measures for the underlying information, to ensure the equality of arms? Why Hagyó doesn't deserve according to the prosecution a constitutional fundamental right to a fair trial? Maybe because this particular nine-month pre-trial detention major reference data simply did not exist? The intention of Hagyó's escape abroad rumors are denied with facts. Approaching the expiration of his immunity on 1st of May 2010, his lawyer sent a letter to the competent head of investigating authority, in which he stated his protege's address, contact information, and informed the police his client's intention, that he is ready to appear and testify any time at the location where indicated by the investigating authority. This letter received no reply either orally or in writing, unless it can not be regarded as a response that a few minutes after the termination of Hagyó's immunity, police appeared at his home and arrested him..


4., The reason, that the investigation progresses, the circle of suspects will be extended, and this is associated with the intent of Hagyó to escape, is incorrect. Many months before his arrest, the suspect obtained several information (mainly from the press) about the pending criminal proceedings. The above-mentioned Zsolt Balogh, Attila Antal, Miklós Regőczi later Peter Bielik the CEO of FKF, made lengthy statements ​​in the media in which competed with each other and accused mainly Miklós Hagyó with various abuses, especially of committing the crimes. Therefore, the suspect was not surprised of the suspicions against him, and already expected that this number will increase. Aware of all this and to protect his integrity, Hagyó decided to stay in Hungary and would not extract himself from the criminal proceedings. Therefore, this argument cannot be onsidered well-founded.


5., Miklós Hagyó’s disqualification from freedom as a reason to refer the general social interest is fundamentally wrong, because the court did not consider the facts, data, arguments based on specifics, but instead for the social interest. The offense is large, sometimes the outstanding objective weight alone does not justify the pre-trial detention. This coercive measure application, other compelling and thorough arguments are especially needed, which are in fact and are likely to support the legality of the deprivation.


II., Dissipated documents, in reference of the risk of influencing witnesses:


The Be. 129th § (2) c., reference point, the court supported by two reasons:

1., Although the procedure lasts for a long time, Miklós Hagyó as a suspect only took in the proceedings now, because the accused protective immunity until now prevented gathering the related evidence, so it is expected that if the suspect remains at large, the effectiveness of procedures is in jeopardy.

2., As Hagyó Miklós assertive personality is inherent, he was able to assert his will against the managers, and it can be reasonably expected that his influence threatened the success of the investigations.

3., In this case according to the Municipal Court, at an increased risk of the reasons, that the coercive measures maintaining public interest, despite the presumption of innocence is higher than the rule requiring the respect for individual freedom”.


Dr. András Kádár defense lawyer confutes this rationale with the following:


1., From the fact that the accusations against Miklós Hagyó has just been communicated, the facts have not changed: the investigation is more than half a year and has been actively going on. The case listed at least 20 suspects who have been interrogated many times, and during interrogations, the interest of the investigating authority special target was the former Deputy Mayor whom were against has had a number of incriminating testimony. Miklós Hagyó in November 2009 resigned from his most important function since February 2010. He is not the member of the Metropolitan Assembly, and his civil entitlements and political power ceased to exist which necessarily involved the possession of delivery of documents as well. All those documents which are necessary to ensure the long investigation forms part of the evidence of the investigating authority, and if additional documents are required, they can be found at BKV and at other public utilities companies. Miklós Hagyó does not have access to them, and because of conditions and personal specificities it can not be so disposed, erased, or can not change any material evidence.  


2., During the stage of the procedure when the leaders of the BKV has testified on numerous occasions, such statements that the legal procedure of proof-terms cannot be withdrawn, and the reality is that the current process involving Miklós Hagyó’s ability to threaten or influence the success of the procedure, is not possible. A reasonable question can be made:  for those who have been accused proir to Hungarian criminology, for the media revealing that had nothing to fear from Hagyó when he still had his complete freedom and as a Member of Parliament benefiting a wide range of rights, why would anyone fear him now when deprived of his rights, political or public, and he is a suspect of serious crimes?  


3., The injunction of the Municipal Court in which the words actually quoted from a case of Human Rights, namely the Labita v Italy (case number 26772/1995) from the grounds of judgment which is quoted as follows:

,, The court case law on the question of whether the length of pre-trial detention is considered to be reasonable, can not be assessed in the abstract. The fact that the accused is detained to maintain acceptable, in each case individually, according to the circumstances of the case to be assessed. Maintaining of detention is only justified if detected in the real public interest that despite the presumption of innocence principle will weigh more than the requirement of respect for personal freedom.

The task of the national courts in principle, to ensure that the prior arrest of the accused does not exceed a reasonable time.”

A comparison of the two texts makes it obvious that the,, the public interest "is just the contrary in the context of the report readable in the Human Rights Court judgment as the Municipal Court refers to the issue.


Questions about the grounds of suspicion


Dr. András Kádár on June 30. 2010 submitted a new motion to the Central District Court of Pest, where according to the new known facts, he asked the elimination of pre-trial detention. In regards to the constantly pursued legal practise, the indictment proceedings before the suspicion is well founded, rather than the pre-trial detention in general terms of the existence of the probabilities. It at least requires that a crime occurred and that the accused is the suspect perpetrator.

On the 14th of May 2010, the police notified Miklós Hagyó with the following insinuation:

,, In the available data, you are justified in being suspected by the direction of Attila Antal Chief Executive Officer of BKV to enter into treaties with AAM Inc. on the date of 24th of January 2007 for a special budget of Metro's four investment analysts to perform work worth 50 million forints. The material prepared by AAM Inc. was necessary for you to use it as a prepared report for the Budget Committee. Of this contract a total of 49,484,400, - Forint was paid. For BKV it was an unnecessary and unjustified expenditure, because that payment should have been paid out of your budget provided for you by the Mayor's Office.”

In the aftermath of the alleged statement of defense, it was a way to get to know the Metro 4 project as the subject of the Hungarian State and between the Municipality of Budapest on the 19th of January 2004. It generated on two occasions a modified contract, and also concluded on January 19th 2004 a modified agreement for the Metro 4 project between the Municipality of Budapest and BKV. From this document and the BKV Inc. with the AAM on January 24th 2007 the conclusion was that contract made it clear, and that the accusations were unfounded.

This latter agreement between the BKV and the AAT "was established for the Metro 4 project coordination tasks and to perform expert consultants tasks. The entrusted completed the contract fully and successfully, therefore work was done which fit the functions of the Board of Directors of the project of Metro 4.

With the participation of the Hungarian State and the Capital and BKV Zrt., the final contracts makes it clear that the Metro 4 organizing and tasks carried out associated with the project board be covered, and that the maintenance and proper operation of the Municipality within the BKV is committed. The Metro 4 project management was assigned to BKV Inc. together with the performance of operation as well as with the required financial resources. Because the project management board agreed, preparation of investment-related proposals which was to be submitted to the Municipal Assembly belonged to their tasks, and to complete the indicated requirements  in order to supply necessary foundation for preparing, coordinating, and consulting experts. All these tasks formed an integral part of the circle. The Capital-BKV contract established that the project management board is responsible for the duties listed in their financial resources, which supports the BKV Inc. that relies on the legal agreement settled by the AAM Inc. Reasonable and necessary work is performed by the counter-value.


From all of this, the obvious conclusion can be drawn: that the agreement wasn't instructed by Miklós Hagyó, nor the performance of the contract, and the obligation of the necessary compensation was not brought upon by the Mayor's Office, more specifically the Deputy Mayor and his Cabinet in particular, Miklós Hagyó obviously was not burdened, but carried out by BKV Inc. Thus, the necessary and appropriate labor carried out had to bear the financial burden, who actually represented it, which is BKV Inc.


Since the arrest of his protege in all statements, Dr. András Kádár speakouts and stressed that Miklós Hagyó despite his young age suffers a number of serious illnesses. Since the beginning of the procedure he requested to appoint a medical expert to examine his protege's health condition.. Involvement of expertise has been made only after the first four months of the request. However, injunctions imposing the extension of the pre-trial detention from the beginning emphasizes that suspect Miklós Hagyó health status is a matter of urgency and does not require hospital treatment, and that medical services within the framework of the BV can be supplied properly. (it is questionable whether the absence of expert opinion is based on anything).


Miklós Hagyó’s first month of imprisonment was taken three times for a medical examination, and already stayed days at the prison hospital in Tököl. Permanent medical treatment and supervision was given, and continuous medication with appropriate risk-free environment for chronic allergies, asthma, chronic inflammation of the prostate, colon inflammation, a serious, chronic, surgery requiring ear and sinus inflammation, spinal disorders, heart and blood pressure problems. Hagyó's food allergy to gluten, milk protein and lactose intolerance is manifested. The grains containing gluten (wheat, barley, rye, oats, spelled), and milk protein, lactose consumption a significant risk to his health, therefore it is prohibited. Because flour, milk contains a wide variety of food, and as a substitute BV Institute could provide only a puffed rice product, his nutrition during the nine-month preliminary detention has become very one-sided. This volume was also reduced over time due to financial standards   which were exceeded. Due to the scarcity of food, until October 2010, Hagyó had lost nearly 45 kg and this process during the pre-trial detention has not stopped.

Despite the severe asthma and allergies, Hagyó was placed in a wet cell with moldy walls for longer periods and in particular unhealthy conditions. Here he had asthma attacks on several occasions.

Despite any of these indications, no substantive action has been made for a long time. Then he was moved to a cell, which the window was difficult to open, therefore it was very stuffy. The cells in the bedding, especially the pillows and mattress, were filthy. Cleaning disinfectant is not satisfactory. These conditions are not civilized, also adversely affecting breathing. Because of his illness the doctor of the institution required him to stay in open air longer than usual, but only one hour per day was provided.  The request to increasing this was rejected several time.


The accused at the request of the Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office of Prison Administration and Compliance Property Affairs Group Head Prosecutor on 25th on November 2010 interviewed him. Notes were made of the hearing whereby the prosecutor has taken measures, and initiated investigations of complaints clarifying responsibilities and to be determined.”

After peer reviews were conducted Hagyó was taken to the Central Prison hospital in Tököl, which took three weeks of observation, investigation and treatment. On 17th September 2010 the pulmonary study concluded that,, in June of this year, was examined in our department. His (pulmonary) status compared to then perceived deterioration.”

Malnutrition, the moldy, wet cell, placing the number of inflammatory diseases and detainees weakened his immune system, resulting inflammation of the middle ear is fully grown, which is also felt by the environment, caused increasing hearing loss.

Based on the expert opinion, in the absence of appropriate medical treatment, living conditions (diet meals and healthy environment) Miklós Hagyó conditions were life-threatening.

Here again the question arises in me that according to the petitioner's custody extended regular prosecutor whether Miklós Hagyó is not entitled to the physical and mental health is a constitutional fundamental right as well as others? This practice is compatible with the principle that, the pre-trial detention is not an early punishment, and can it be the tool of breaking the suspected?


The prohibition of ,, guilty relations "


The prohibition of ,, guilty relations "


The Central Investigation Chief Prosecutor's Office in 2010 November 9, banned Miklós Hagyó to interact with his partner, on the grounds that according to the prosecution  Hagyó spouse several times successfully,- without verification - tried to maintain contact with Hagyó during his pre-trial detention. A few days earlier, in 2010 October 27 in this context Miklós Hagyó spouse and Dr.Viktor Szűcs performing countersignature of authorization, launched criminal proceedings against his attorney on the suspicion of document forgery.

According to the accusations partner of Miklós Hagyó, referencing the quality of the inherently false legal representatives, in some cases unauthorized, entitled the defense in criminal proceedings, contacted detainee Miklós Hagyó without control.”.

Belonging to the case history, that arrested Miklós Hagyó on the 6th of August 2010 has given authorization to his life partner to exercise his ownership rights at Wirtass Ltd. on his existing 24.71% business related part, and at company meetings represented him with full authority.. On the same day Hagyó also authorized her to act as a legal representative in a lawsuit of personal rights against Hír TV at the Municipal Court.


In this lawsuit of personal rights the parties were not wished to recourse lawyers, since it is not mandatory, subject to the simple assessment of the matter, therefore he authorized his spouse subject to the Code of Civil Procedure 67th § (1), which states:,, The lawsuit authorized to act as: a., The party of the 13th § (2) are relative.” The relatives are among the CPC. 13th § (2) records the life partner.

In civil cases already a number of legal issues arise, so it is imperative that in this manner the representative during the trial make the authorized legal statements and therefore carry out some kind of a legal representation. This shall not preclude by any law. (Code of Civil 37./AC. § If only the mandatory legal representation requires that the legal counsel is acting on upper secondary education. Compulsory legal representation in cases of non-legal representative can be accurate, there is no normative definition

It is also important to examine the legal interpretation of the concept of representation, that this concept how they are interpreted as Miklós Hagyó and his spouse within the penitentiary institution are permitted to maintain contact and are entitled to more than a once per month meeting. This is important because in all cases a permit was needed for the visitations. At first it's worth quoting the testimony Hagyó's educational officer: ,, in our system a legal representative may be recorded as legal representative as only this term exists in the program.

We use Statutory representative indication if a detainee empowers someone officially to act in their behalf.. This happened in this case..

The contact with Legal representatives is supervised, due to the type of relation the contact is in a visitors room, and only those documents can be taken inside which is related to the authorizations.”

This is confirmed by the attached list of documents which records Miklós Hagyó contact points. This shows that while before the legal name of the university graduates an indication appearing the title doctor, is not in front of the name of Hagyó’s spouse. On the other hand, while the lawyers listed as an indication of mh.,his spouse indicated as ,,jogi képv.”legal representation.

Penitentiary Brigadier General Csaba Boglyasovszky also confirmed that the communication with the legal representative is in a speaking booth which can be checked by technical devices. That information is dated October 21st 2011.

The letter of Dr. Imre Keresztes Attorney General to the X. District Police Station Secretariat, whereby the custodial institution provided Hagyó to have uncontrolled contact with his spouse such as lawyers are entitled to and is refuting the above mentioned confirmations.  .

Obviously there are differences relating to the rules of visitation between the authorized legal representative or the lawyer:

1., Entry: While the authorized lawyer is with a lawyer card, until the legal representative is with an identity card, and with the received individual license given by the commander can enter the institution.

2., Length of visit: While the authorized attorney has an unlimited period of time to visit his client, the legal representative has a stated time of entering the institution and the command permit specifies the length of stay.

3., Venue: according to Csaba Boglyasovszky the authorized attorney can contact detainee at the level of his cell, the legal repreentative is only at the speaking booth.

4., Verifiability: While the authorized attorney can contact his cliente both orally and in writing, without control (6/1996. (VII.12.) IM) until the conversatoins with the legal representative can be checked through technical devices.

These apparent discrepancies confirm that the penitentiary employee themselves believed that the spouse of Hagyó has a university degree, different rules are applied to contacting the partner in relation. Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Law professor Dr. István Varga PhD expert report prepared by the defense in support of the suspects. According to this:

,,1., The Pp. 66th § (1) provides that the parties to the lawsuit or the legal representative chosen by the authorized may act instead.. This is subject to an exception only in cases when the law in certain litigation in respect to acts of private parties to the proceedings, or the law requires a personal interview. The spouse as authorized representative may act without any further act

2., The notion of legal representative of the law only required in respect of defined legal representation. Accordingly, the legal representative of a single normative definition does not exist in the Code of Civil Procedure.

3., In any case where legal representation is not mandatory, as a partner authorized to act on any qualifications - including legal - is not required.”

    Based on the Central District Court of Pest on 16th January 2012 nearly a year after the procedure Miklós Hagyó as I. order, his partner as II. class and Dr. Viktor Géza Szűcs as III. prime accused acquitted of the charge of counterfeiting-private documents.

    A few weeks prior to this in the press recently started a smear campaign that continued, emphasizing that Miklós Hagyó forged documents even in prison.”.

Why was this unfounded accusation necessary?    

Dr. András Kádár, attorney for Hagyó, pointed out, that the offense of counterfeiting of private documents, the prosecution obviously has initiated, to establish the reference of preventing the coercive measures, by the interruption of direct personal contact with his spouse in 2010 November during Hagyó pre-trial detention..



    The case, and including the fate of  Miklós Hagyó took a turn, that on the 11th of January 2012, indictments were submitted against him and 14 others. The Office of the President of the National Court in the case of BKV discussion has been referred to the Tribunal of Kecskemét on the grounds that the Municipal Court is very busy. Hopefully, during the court stage  Miklós Hagyó and his being will no longer view through a scope the basic constitutional rights - including the right to equal recognition before the law.

    Getting acquainted with all these facts, all that I can only hope is that our country will not become followers of those ideologies, according to the eternal values ​​of justice and compassion, and the fundamental rights of each man be fully substantiated in the public interest to assign a variable, always with the current political objectives as interpreted by the concept.    


Source: http://www.jogiforum.hu/publikaciok/467