The Pest Central District Court Dr. Leóna Judit Németh Judge 16/01/2012.

PEST DISTRICT CENTRAL COURT

No. 6.B.35649/2011/11.

 

 

The Pest District Central Court in Budapest, on the 26th of October 2011 and on the 16th of January 2012 held public continuous negotiations made ​​based on the following:

 

VERDICT

 

against Miklós Hagyó I. accused, as perpetrator,

                                                                             born:

mother's name:

                                                                             lives:

ID card number:

       Hungarian citizens /

 

                                                                             II. accused

                                                                             born:

mother's name:

                                                                             lives:

ID card number:

       Hungarian citizens /

 

Dr. Viktor Géza Szűcs III. accused

                                                                             born:

mother's name:

                                                                             lives:

ID card number:

       Hungarian citizens /

 

committed against them as abettor to the CC. 276 § conflicting from the accusation of private documents forgery punishable for a misdemeanor:

 

clear of a charge.

                                                                 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PEST DISTRICT CENTRAL COURT

No. 6.B.35649/2011/11.

 

 

The court seized during the procedure authorization under No.: T-230/2011 assigned to handle among the documents.

 

RATIONALE:

 

The Budapest X-XVII. District Prosecutor's Office No. B. X. 4752/2010/15-1., in the indictment dated on the 18th of July 2011 against Miklós Hagyó, XXXX and Dr. Viktor Géza Szűcs, to the CC. 276 § conflicting of the offence of private document forgery brought a charge against , which was committed by II. V. and abettor Dr. Viktor Géza Szűcs.

 

The court based on evidence established the following facts:

 

Miklós Hagyó, II. V. and Dr. Viktor Géza Szűcs, with regard to the personal circumstances on the hearing did not wish to comment.

 

The Budapest Police Headquarters on the 14th of May 2010. took Miklós Hagyó into custody, then on the 17th of May Buda Central District Court has ordered the pre-trial detention. Miklós Hagyó spent his pre-trial detention in the Metropolitan PE. Institute, Budapest, X. District Maglódi Rd. No. 24. No. III. Property. The accused then authorized defense counsel was Dr. Viktor Géza Szűcs.

 

II. V. - the unmarried partner of Miklós Hagyó - and between Miklós Hagyó, dated on the 06/08/2010. a written authorization was made, which according to, Miklós Hagyó authorize II. V., to act as his legal representative before the Metropolitan Court in the ongoing civil litigation under No.19. P. 25425/2010.The drafting of the authorization prepared by the law firm of Dr. Viktor Géza Szűcs, and the signed authorization on the day of 08/12/2010. placed on the document his initials and legal stamp, Dr. Viktor Géza Szűcs countersigned. The authorization on the 12/08/2010.was submitted to the preceptor by Miklós Hagyó, to the purpose of verifying the contact eligibility with II.V.,  which based on registration department of the Institute, after the commander authorization, on the day of 26/08/2010.  II.V. was registered as legal representative. Based on this registry, after the prior consultation and authorization procedure with the Commander, the Metropolitan Correctional Institution 26/08/2010; 02/09/2010; 06/09/2010; 10/09/2010 and 2010. 7th and 19th of November, as well as the Central PE. Hospital of Tököl on the 17th and 19th of September 2010, for II.V.  provided the contact opportunity with Miklós Hagyó, with the entitlement of a legal representative.

 

The court of the above facts, the accused's statements, testimonies of the trial, are established on the basis of documentary evidence.

 

 

 

 

PEST DISTRICT CENTRAL COURT

No. 6.B.35649/2011/11.

 

 

Miklós Hagyó I. accused during the investigation, and before the Court did not testify. At the court hearing he maintained his written testimony has been attached to the documents during the investigative process, in which he stated, that he did not commit a crime, and he does not feel himself guilty. Since he was in a PE. Institution, in the ongoing civil proceedings the Szűcs & Partners Law Firm / who otherwise in the criminal proceedings against him, provide legal protection /  based on the information received from one of their members or a trainee lawyer, authorize with legal representation his unmarried partner V.II., so that  to avoid inconveniences arising from certain hearings. He turned to his preceptor officer, to ascertain the conditions of such representation, of its administrative details, and with the case coherent contact opportunities. XXXX informs him, that according to the established practice the necessary documents, authorization, and after the delivery and presentation of the notarial certificate of the common-law partnership, with a separate permission of the Commander of the Institute, accordance with the rules may take place for contacting with representation in the legal proceedings. After this consultation took place the preparation of authorization, at lawyer's speaking has been signed and then submitted. In its view, during the preparation of all the documents everything was done according to the rules, therefore he doesn't feel himself guilty.

 

XXXX II. accused, also did not testify in court, not during the investigation, however, he also attached a confession among to the investigative documents, which by reading it by the court made it as part of the trial's material and what II.V., by exercising her observation right, maintained. This testimony stated that they never claimed that she has legal qualification, and the authorization itself did not contain such a clause. The penal- enforcement institution was aware of the fact that his partner is not representing his as an attorney/jurist. In connection with the representation the litigation initiated visits in every case had to be enabled with the Commander of the Institute, and in the determined dates visits did not take place at the rooms reserved for the lawyers, furthermore during the admission procedure also had to prove herself with an identity card as well as with a residence card.

They decided that II.V. to represent him in civil litigation, because of the detention his trial appear entails inconveniences. The related tasks in connection the Szűcs and  Partner Law Firm approached the PE. Institution, whose information was based on took place the preparation of authorization then its submission.

 

Based on the authorization, in the computer system of the Venyige St. Institution, has been registered as a legal representative. Then, in each case upon the request sent by the help of the law firm, in a specific time could meet with his unmarried partner. Since the authorization was prepared by a law firm, and for the whole proceeding requested the PE. Institution's information never thought that with this she would have been committing any crime. The fact that the authorization was later attached to the civil litigation is only administrative fault, thanks to that in November 2010. the Prosecutor's Office forbade any contact between her and her partner. 

 

 

PEST DISTRICT CENTRAL COURT

No. 6.B.35649/2011/11.

 

 

Dr. Viktor Géza Szűcs III. accused, denied his liability, and explained that the accusation itself as legal unit does not understand. Before the court maintaining what he previously said during the investigation, and explained that I. and II. accused are his former clients. In the civil proceeding in the beginning of lawsuit tactical reasons it was that his clients personally represent themselves, also because in the case legal representation was not mandatory. They took part in formulating the statement of claim, but  they only entered as authorized persons, when Miklós Hagyó and II.V. were completely prohibited from each other. Since the arrest of Miklós Hagyó, his appearance on hearings encountered into inconveniences, therefore they have decided that in the civil action with an authorization, II.V. as the unmarried partner will provide the representation. 

The authorization was prepared by the law firm, the phrasing of the document was a trainee work, but since he countersigned it he undertakes the formulation. If the "legal representatives" phrase could have been avoided, it would have been left out,   but the PE. gave that information, that this is necessary in order to be registered this way. But having looked at legally afterwards there never was any legislation seen which prevents inclusion. However noted, that the registration of II.V. as a legal representative, in PE. has been based on a previous authorization, which authorization is not even contained the "legal representative" turn. After the entry the parties were able to negotiate with each other. In each case had to write a request to the commander - which been edited by the law office - and was made pursuant to an authorization. 

During these visits, they were not entitled to any additional rights, they could meet in a glass-walled room, had no knowledge of visits without verification.

Although it is not typical to classify civilians as a legal representative in an authorization, but since the legal representation was not mandatory, therefore, it was not impossible that as a "no jurist" represents him, since the representation doesn't depend on being a lawyer.

 

The court heard as a witness XXXX, who was the preceptor of I. accused in the PE. Institution. Maintaining his investigative testimony explained, that Miklós Hagyó told him that he has a civil action case, in which his unmarried partner acts as his legal representative. Asked him what papers are required to register it in the PE. Informed him, that after obtaining the appropriate papers (authorization, notarial document or If necessary, the court documents) these will be checked at the secretariat, and based on this the authorized person enters the system, as a legal representative. 

This process took place.

To answer the question the witness said that when a person becomes registrated as a legal representative, because there was no legal representative, only a statutory representative, because there was no such a distinction possibility in the system. 

The defense counsels were recorded as a separate authorization, or secondment basis and they also had the additional privilege - anytime during office hours with a lawyer's ID card could meet his client, could go up to the bound -, while the current legal representatives allowed to enter one time during the visitation hours.

 

 

PEST DISTRICT CENTRAL COURT

No. 6.B.35649/2011/11.

 

 

To the judge's question said, that the control of the conversations in this way registered individuals as legal representative, essentially happened in the same way like in case of plain relatives, so any time it could take place to "listen in", while for the defense lawyers had to ensure the uncontrolled open conversation with detainee.

The system is not very good, so this is a constant fuss.

 

Boglyasovszky Csaba, who at the time of the action was Miklós Hagyó's detention PE.  Institute Commander, confirmed what was said by XXXX, concerning the rules of visitation of the different registered visitors. He confirmed that under the category of legal representative not only the actual legal representatives, but also any representatives could be included in the proof of the legal relationship, and then with the Commander's permit could keep contact with detainee over the monthly relatives visit. 

The witness also said, that after this case, there has been a prosecutor's resolution, based on which a legal representative can talk to the inmates under control.

 

All of the attached requests written to the PE. Commander during the procedure, as well as on this basis given visiting permits, furthermore the entering and exiting of the PE. bodies area, respectively rules governing the abstentions legislative background materials.

/ (44/2207 (IX.19) DOJ. and its implementation on a methodological guide. /

These attached documents supported the presented facts by the accused and the witnesses, that II. accused as the legal representative registration into the system, and based on this procedure relating permitted visits, took place  in accordance with legislation and instructions. 

 

However incurred during the proceeding, - and for this reason has been the venue for prosecution - that the legal basis of the above procedures one, do not comply with the legal requirements authorization formed. The above authorization as a private document, the parties (    II.V.,  and her unmarried partner Miklós Hagyó) reflects the intention that the representation of Miklós Hagyó, as legal representative that in the initiated civil proceeding by them,  II.V., unmarried partner provides, - which according to the indictment is a false fact. 

The court studying the acquired civil action case files stated, that due to the subject matter in the case of legal representation is not required, furthermore, also that relevant fact, that the judge of the litigation procedure, the authorization in question filed among the documents, in connection with it comments were not made and for completion of documents, to the correction of the authorization as well as did not ask to verify the legal qualification of the authorized person.

The documents are legally treated as an authorization. 

Based on the relevant legislation, the authorization is legally interpreted, the court concluded the following findings.

As in the case of legal representation was not mandatory the representation of Miklós Hagyó, based on the Code of Civil Procedure 67.§ of (1) pargraph of a.) point, subject to the 13.§ of (2) pargraph, II.V. unmarried partner, such as relatives, may serve as authorized.

PEST DISTRICT CENTRAL COURT

No. 6.B.35649/2011/11.

 

 

(As regards of that II.V., is the unmarried partner of Miklós Hagyó, among the documents in evidence a notarial deed)

For this there is no need for any legal qualifications.

In civil proceedings, inherently legal issues arise not just a few, so it is imperative that in this way during the representation of lawsuit, the authorized person instead of the authorizing make legal statements, and thus carry out some kind of legal representation.

Nothing excludes this. 

 

The law (Code of Civil Procedure 37/A-C§) only in case of binding legal representation requires that the legal representative possess legal qualifications. 

In cases of outside the following legal representation exactly who can be a legal representative, there is no normative definition.

In the court's view, in the light of the available regulation the fact that II.V., would represent Miklós Hagyó as his legal representative, in the given procedure it does not constitute as false fact, it was not defined as a false fact, since the intention of the accused did not aim for this exclusively, to the necessity of this was acceptable, not questionable reason which was also given.

 

Whereupon - even the treatise written by Associate Professor Dr. István Varga, and attached by the defense counsel of II. accused, (which the court, such as documentary evidence  by reading it recorded into evidence and made it into the trial's material) also showed that - the drafting of authorization for more legal professional with legal background knowledge, requires careful legal interpretations, it might arise that with no legal qualifications I and II. accused, how much could be expected to be aware of the legal terms, in particular, that in PE. Institution, specifically wanted to use this wording in the particular case.

 

The court notes that, in the event that the court would have accepted, that the private document contains untrue facts and thus is false, that part of I. and II. accused, precisely because of the above-detailed only negligence could be established which turned to  in respect of offenses private documents forgery, according to the rules of the Criminal Code does not constitute as criminal offence.

 

However, to this case the court didn't cover in details, because it takes the view that private documents of which was prepared - based on the former grounds - is not false, and thus its use -  whether it is attached to civil litigation, either submitted to the penal-enforcement institution - Miklós Hagyó, did not actualize a criminal offense, therefore  II.V., and Dr. Victor Géza Szűcs, formally and also factual, by the prosecutor's office could not be the abettor in the crimes charged against them. 

 

Considering these facts the court, against Miklós Hagyó, II.V.,  and Dr. Viktor Géza Szűcs, - in respect of II.V.,  and Dr. Viktor Géza Szűcs, as abettor - of the Criminal Code 276.§ conflicting, from private document forgery punishable for a misdemeanor accusation, basis of the Cp. 331.§ of (1) paragraph, - because the action is not a crime - have acquitted.

 

PEST DISTRICT CENTRAL COURT

No. 6.B.35649/2011/11.

 

 

 

The court, with regard to the authorization seized during the procedure - since it belongs to the evidences - ordered its treatment among the documents.

 

 

 

Budapest, 16th of January 2012      

 

 

                                                                                                   Dr. Leona Judit Német

                                                                                                                   Judge