The prosecutor has not presented those data yet, according to that Hagyó’s intention is to leave the country, moreover the condition of the most strict coercive measure in the convention did not come true. There was not any answer for the complains, and the judge who delivered judgement against Hagyó and his partners, now he is in the Constitutional Court with Fidesz support.
A lot of legal queerness and contradiction turn up in the case of Budapest Public Transport Company, since thanks for the leaking out and Hagyó’s homepage more documents related the putative crime series are available for the press and the public.
As the Népszava previously has already revealed, Balogh Zsolt - previous executive of the Budapest Public Transport Company and who told the Nokia box story – has a lot of contradiction in his testimonies and press declaration. While he is the strongest support of the charge – he is also suspected in the case – his reliability is doubtful, the new legal environmental is created by the Fidesz can do violence to the primciple of the equality of army between the defence and the charge.
The court which will proceed in this case that will be appointed/selected by Handó Tünde- who is the president of the National Court Registry and Szájer József’s wife, who is member of the European parliament.
On the 14th of May 2010 Hagyó Miklós was arrested after a few minutes the formation of the new Parliament, on the 17 th of May was placed in preliminary/pre-trial detention. The Budapest Public Prosecutor referred the danger of the absconding and defeating of the process.
The defender of the Politian, Kádár András confuted the arguments of the prosecutor. He was telling on the hearing that Hagyó has known for months about the investigation, so after his right to immunity he would have left the country, if his intention had been that. The prosecutor did not have evidence against him obstructing the investigation and influencing the witnesses. Hagyó Miklós was aware of that the he may be suspected in the procedure, before the expiry of his immunity right he authorized a defender.
He wrote a letter to the prosecutor about that he indicated his willingness to cooperate and he was waiting at home for requests for further developments. According to the defender these facts didn’t show the intention of abscond. Kádár Andres mention that it in un unusual procedure that Horváth Éva and Lelovics Ottó - who are suspected the former case - was arrested after Hagyó Miklós lost his immunity right.
The most interesting part of the prosecutor’s motion is that the Accusation Authority stated to confirm the danger of absconding that during the investigation data emerged about that Hagyó want to leave the country in order to avoid the impeachment. The Buda Central District Court accepted this argument and repeated this part of the motion. Later , on 26th of May 2010 the superior court determined in its warrant that: “there is data about that the suspected wants to leave the country”. Kádár András Lawyer in his petition on 8th of June 2010 requested from the prosecutor that the prosecutor submits the evidence of the preliminary detention.
According to the practice European Court of Human Rights the principle of equality of arms is violated if the defender can not access the documents of the investigation, without these he doesn’t have opportunity to confute the lawfulness of the detention. The request was rejected without substantial motivation by the prosecution. They referred that – except some certain documents – the defense can only get copy of the file of investigation before the end of the investigation if it does not harm interest of the investigation. The defender referred that this questionable evidence did not concern to the subject of the criminal proceed but the danger of absconding so – according to the practice of Strasbourg court of human rights – it can be available for the defense. The Kadar Andras said that they did not get satisfactory answer for the complaint.
Despite of the fact Hagyó Miklós was arrested and remain in detention contrary way of the European directives – in each case the defender tried to attract the attention of the court- but for nine months they did not relieve the coercive measure. At least the court allowed him to house arrest on the 23 th of February 2011 and then on 10th of June 2011 it was done away with. The court determinated the reason of the discharge was that there was no data or facts by which we should have feared of the absconding or hiding.
Hagyó’s defender told us that they have not known yet that “data” which was referred by the prosecutor, moreover they have not found it at review of the documents. It is ascertainable that the prosecutor argued beside the most strict coercive measures with referring this data – contrary the European law- this data was never known by the defense and existence of this data is doubtful.
The court wrote in the motivation of its warrant the unsupported prosecutor's reference - except for the last trial-.
The court council of second instance presidency Dr Szívó Mária in the case of Hagyó and his partners in the most case did not change or stiffened the coercive measures against the suspected. As it is known on the 27th Június 2011 when the reinforcement of the Constitutional Court was decided by the Fidesz, she was elected Constitutional Court member by the Parliament.