Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Transnational Inquiries and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Criminal Proceedings pp 419–438Cite as

Report on Hungary

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 962 Accesses

Abstract

The paper contains a short overview of the Hungarian criminal justice (authorities, stages etc.), but it focused on the transnational modus operandi of investigating authorities. In this sense the paper describes and analyses the very important bilateral instruments of combatting cross border crimes within the framework of Schengen conventions.

The second part of the report deals with the issue of transnational evidence gathering and obtaining, and with the principle of mutual recognition. The paper elaborates the neutral (‘judgement-less’) model of mutual recognition which could lead to more effective human rights protection in the field of transnational inquiries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Karsai (2008), pp. 11 ff.

  2. 2.

    Source: on individual request from International Law Enforcement Cooperation Centre, April 2011.

  3. 3.

    Concerning the relevant norms see Hecker (2010), pp. 159–206, 367–455; Klip (2009), pp. 157–208.

  4. 4.

    Act 63 of 2009 on the promulgation of the Agreement on preventing and combating cross-border crimes between the Governments of Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Romania.

  5. 5.

    Act 91 of 2006 on the promulgation of the Agreement on preventing cross-border crimes and combating organised crime between the Governments of the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Slovakia.

  6. 6.

    Act 108 of 2006 on the promulgation of the Agreement on cross-border cooperation of investigating authorities between the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Slovenia.

  7. 7.

    Act 37 of 2006 on the promulgation of the Agreement on preventing and combating cross-border crime between the Governments of The Republic of Hungary and the Federal Republic of Austria.

  8. 8.

    Act 66 of 2009 on preventing and combating cross-border crime between the Governments of the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Croatia.

  9. 9.

    See Hecker (2010), pp. 171–179.

  10. 10.

    Act 34 of 2009 on the promulgation of the Agreement on the cooperation of investigating authorities in the field of preventing cross-border crimes and combating organised crime between the Governments of the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Serbia.

  11. 11.

    Source: on individual request from the International Law Enforcement Cooperation Centre, April 2011.

  12. 12.

    Joint investigation teams shall be established in case of offences with minimum 5 years imprisonment with transnational aspect, when the successful investigation requires the coordination of the investigating authorities or if the investigation is very complex.

  13. 13.

    See Hecker (2010), pp. 227–264.

  14. 14.

    During these operations the foreign officers are to be regarded as officers of the hosting country with respect to offences committed against them or by them. The same is valid if the officer causes damage during his/her operation, in such a case the claims shall be treated under the conditions applicable to damage caused by the officers of the hosting country.

  15. 15.

    See more concerning Hungarian framework: Bárd (2007), pp. 237–241; Czine et al. (2009), pp. 209–237.

  16. 16.

    Karsai and Szomora (2010), p. 207.

  17. 17.

    More in Ligeti (2006) and Gleß (2003).

  18. 18.

    The framework-decision on the European Arrest Warrant has recognized this new attitude for the first time as a positive legal provision.

  19. 19.

    See Alegre and Leaf (2004), pp. 200–217; Peers (2004), pp. 5–36.

  20. 20.

    Ligeti (2006), p. 140.

  21. 21.

    Fuchs (2004), pp. 368–371; Gleß (2004), pp. 354–367.

  22. 22.

    This legal instrument is used for example if the municipal court requests some procedural acts (in the criminal procedure) from the court of another town in the same country.

  23. 23.

    More in Karsai (2008), pp. 948–954.

  24. 24.

    Nyitrai Peter (2006), pp. 299–300.

  25. 25.

    von Liszt (1882), p. 102.

  26. 26.

    120/78 REWE-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [ECR 1979 649.p.].

  27. 27.

    For the first time, in the Conclusions of the European Council, Tampere (15–16 October 1999).

  28. 28.

    Gazeas (2005), pp. 18 ff., see more in Hecker (2007).

  29. 29.

    The human rights standards of the ECHR are not enough in this field, as it binds only the separate Member States, the legislation of the European Union is not covered by this standards in this field.

  30. 30.

    To the development in this field see the Green Paper from the Commission on Procedural Safeguards for Suspects and Defendants in Criminal Proceedings throughout the European Union, COM(2003) 75 of 19 February 2003.

  31. 31.

    See Ruggeri and Hecker, above.

  32. 32.

    Critical opinions from Hecker (2007), p. 36; Gleß (2003), pp. 131–150; Belfiore (2009), pp. 1–150.

  33. 33.

    Karsai (2010), pp. 124–125.

  34. 34.

    The general rule is the locus regit actum principle; therefore—without special request—the evidence gathering follows the law of executing State. Therefore the issuing authority will get “foreign” evidence establishing by the law of another country.

  35. 35.

    Nevertheless, the Republic of Hungary already adopted the ratification act of the Agreement on the privileges and immunities of the International Criminal Court (Act 31 from year 2006).

Abbreviations

AFSJ:

Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

CCP:

Code of Criminal Procedure

CISA:

Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement

ECAT:

European Convention against Torture

ECHR:

European Convention on Human Rights

ECtHR:

European Court of Human Rights

EEW:

European Evidence Warrant

FD EEW:

Framework Decision on the European Evidence Warrant

ICAT:

International Covenant against Torture

ICC:

International Criminal Court

ICCPR:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

SIS:

Schengen Information System

TFEU:

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

References

  • Alegre S, Leaf M (2004) Mutual recognition in European judicial cooperation: a step too far too soon? Case study – the European Arrest Warrant. Eur Law J 10:200–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bárd K (2007) Emberi jogok és büntető igazságszolgáltatás Európában. Magyar Hivatalos Közlönykiadó, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Belfiore R (2009) Movement of evidence in the EU: the present scenario and possible future developments. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 17:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czine Á, Szabó S, Villányi J (2009) Strassbourgi ítéletek a magyar büntetőeljárásban. Hvgorac, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs H (2004) Bemerkungen zur gegenseitigen Anerkennung justizieller Entscheidungen. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 2:368–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazeas N (2005) Die Europäische Beweisanordnung – Ein weiterer Schritt in die falsche Richtung? Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 1:18–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleß S (2003) Die, “Verkehrsfähigkeit von Beweisen” im Strafverfahren. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 115:131–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleß S (2004) Zum Prinzip der gegenseitigen Anerkennung. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 2:354–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecker B (2007) Die Europäische Beweisanordnung. In: Marauhn T (ed) Bausteine eines europäischen Beweisrechts. J.G.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen, p 27

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecker B (2010) Europäisches Strafrecht, 3rd edn. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Karsai K (2008) The principle of mutual recognition, XLII Zbornik Padova/Collected Papers. Novi Sad Faculty of Law, Serbia, pp 941–954

    Google Scholar 

  • Karsai K (2010) “The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine” im europäischen Vergleich. In: Gropp W, Sözüer A, Öztürk B, Wörner L (eds) Beiträge zum deutschen und türkischen Strafrecht und Strafprozessrecht. Die Entwicklung von Rechtssystemen in ihrer gesellschaftlichen Verankerung. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 107–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Karsai K, Szomora Z (2010) Criminal law, Hungary. International encyclopaedia of laws. Wolters Kluwer, The Netherlands, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klip A (2009) European criminal law. Intersentia, Anwerp-Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ligeti K (2006) Mutual recognition of financial penalties in the European Union. Int Rev Penal Law 77:145–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyitrai Peter M (2006) Nemzetközi és európai büntető jog. Osiris, Budapest, p 567 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers S (2004) Mutual recognition and criminal law in the European Union: has the Council got it wrong? Common Mark Law Rev 41:5–36

    Google Scholar 

  • von Liszt F (1882) Sind gleiche Grundsätze des internationalen Strafrechtes für die europäische Staaten anzustreben und eventuell welche? I Strafrechtliche Aufsätze und Vorträge 90–125

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MTA Bolyai Fellow, Faculty of Law, Department of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, University of Szeged, 6701, Szeged, 454, Hungary

    Krisztina Karsai

Authors
  1. Krisztina Karsai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Krisztina Karsai .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Public Law "T. Martines", University of Messina, Piazza Pugliatti 1, Messina, 98100, Messina, Italy

    Stefano Ruggeri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Karsai, K. (2013). Report on Hungary. In: Ruggeri, S. (eds) Transnational Inquiries and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32012-5_29

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation