5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Budapest. 6.  In November 2003 the Budapest I/XII District Public Prosecutor charged the applicant with disorderly conduct and vandalism, punishable by three years of imprisonment. 7.  The Budapest Central District Court held hearings on 22 January, 28 March and 28 April 2004. On the latter date it found the applicant guilty of vandalism and fined him 90,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 337 euros (EUR)). The District Court relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of an expert, and the testimony of witnesses and the applicant. 8.  The applicant appealed, seeking acquittal on the ground that the judgment was ill-founded, and requested the court to hold a public hearing. The Budapest Chief prosecutor also appealed, and requested the court to quash the first-instance judgment and remit the case to the District Court because of shortcomings in the finding of facts. 9.  The Budapest Regional Court notified the applicant’s lawyer that it would determine the appeal sitting in camera. In reply, the lawyer put forward supplementary arguments and again requested the court to hold a public hearing. 10.  On 7 April 2005 the Regional Court held a session in camera and upheld the applicant’s conviction. The applicant, his lawyer and the prosecutor were absent. 11.  The Regional Court reviewed the entirety of the proceedings and established their lawfulness. Furthermore, it considered that the findings of fact by the first-instance court were not ill-founded within the meaning of section 351(2) of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, and were thus suitable for an appellate review without taking further evidence. 12.  However, the Regional Court, relying on the existing case file, modified the findings of fact as established by the first-instance court. When delivering its judgement, it relied on the modified facts.