5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Budapest. 6.  On 10 February 2009 the applicant, former Mayor of the Budapest 7th District Municipality, was arrested on charges of aggravated fraud and other crimes. Previously, criminal proceedings had been initiated against some of the close colleagues and acquaintances of the applicant in the same context. 7.  In the prosecution’s ensuing motion to have the applicant detained on remand, the dangers of absconding, collusion and recidivism were referred to. 8.  The defence argued that the applicant, as soon as he had become aware that the police wanted him, had voluntarily reported to the police and also indicated to the authorities his willingness to cooperate, without having any intention to abscond. 9.  The defence moreover submitted that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was not justified and should be substituted with a less coercive measure if any was needed at all. 10.  On 12 February 2009 the Pest Central District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand, despite the defence’s request to have the applicant released, or that, if a coercive measure was inevitable, house arrest be considered instead. The court held that an element had occurred in the investigation according to which the applicant intended to influence the investigative authority, namely the prosecutor’s office, with the help of his rather wide circle of acquaintances; however, this element was not specified. The court also noted that several further steps of investigation were still outstanding, and therefore the risk of collusion or interference was real. It moreover held that the risk of repetition of crime would also be a real one if the applicant were released. After the announcement of the decision, the applicant’s lawyer immediately appealed, again proposing the application of less stringent measures if any were needed. 11.  On 20 February 2009 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision but expanded the reasoning to include the risk of absconding. It noted the applicant’s settled family circumstances, but held that the detention was necessary, “for other reasons” (más okból), to pre-empt his absconding, without specifying the underlying reasons. 12.  The defence’s ensuing request lodged with the Central Investigation Prosecutor’s Office to have further evidence gathered, namely expert opinions (in particular, a real estate valuer), was rejected. 13.  On 10 and 12 February 2009 the Central Investigation Prosecutor’s Office restricted, for fear of collusion, the applicant’s personal contacts, that is, correspondence and contacts in person with his family members were allowed only under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. He was authorised to maintain phone contacts only with his lawyer.
In the context of the death of his father, the applicant was granted two meetings with relatives in May and June 2009. 14.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was repeatedly prolonged at the statutory intervals. In these proceedings, the arguments of the defence remained largely the same, supplemented by the fact that some concerns had emerged as to the applicant’s health condition. In reply to the applicant’s respective appeals, the second-instance court was satisfied that the lower court had assessed, in an individualised manner, the applicant’s personal circumstances as such.
The defence raised the argument that the applicant, an influential former politician, had never attempted to conceal evidence or connive with witnesses, so that any fears of collusion were unfounded. However, the courts were not persuaded by this submission. 15.  The applicant’s further requests for release or for a less coercive measure were to no avail. The defence repeatedly stressed the absence of concrete elements underlying the detention and the disregard for the applicant’s personal circumstances, most importantly his health problems. The courts rejected these submissions, mainly arguing that the risks of collusion or interference as well as that of repetition of crime were real and, moreover, a severe sentence was impending, rendering likely the applicant’s absconding. 16.  As of 3 December 2009 the Central Investigation Prosecutor’s Office charged the prison detaining the applicant (Fővárosi BV. Intézet) with the responsibility to determine the length and frequency of family contacts. It instructed the penitentiary to grant, in particular, a family visit also in December.
From 4 December 2009 onwards no specific restrictions were applied to the applicant, by virtue of a complaint accepted by the Attorney General’s Office. He could receive visits, maintain phone contacts and correspond with his family according to the general, statutory rules. 17.  The defence’s requests for the applicant’s release on bail were rejected with the reasoning that bail was excluded by law in cases where reasons other than only the risk of absconding existed for the pre-trial detention. 18.  According to the courts’ reasoning given on 22 November 2010, when a preliminary session was held to prepare the trial, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was upheld only upon the risk of absconding, and the risk of collusion no longer existed. However, after this date, no request for release on bail was introduced afresh. 19.  In the meantime, on 23 July 2010 a court session was held, at which the detention was again prolonged. Both the applicant and his lawyer appealed, orally, immediately after the pronouncement of the decision.
Moreover, the applicant’s lawyer lodged a written elaboration of the appeal. This submission reached the court on 28 July 2010.
The written version of the applicant’s own appeal was also dated 28 July (but was introduced to the court only on 30 July 2010).
In the possession solely of the lawyer’s appeal, the second-instance court adopted a decision endorsing the prolongation on 28 July 2010. 20.  On 3 October 2010 municipal elections were held but the applicant was not allowed to participate, on account of his status as a detainee. 21.  The file relating to the proceedings conducted against the applicant contained a 121-page indictment and investigatory files of some ten thousand pages. The case against altogether twenty-five defendants was lodged with the Budapest Regional Court on 9 November 2010. 22.  Meanwhile, the applicant underwent medical examinations by specialists at the Central Prison Hospital but no acute medical intervention was proposed. He expressly refused, in case of necessity, not only any surgical intervention within the institution but also any after-treatment of any potential surgery. 23.  On 23 February 2011 the lawyer submitted medical documentation about the applicant’s state of health and requested the courts to terminate the pre-trial detention and order house arrest instead. 24.  On 11 March 2011 the court rejected the request, referring to the fact that the applicant had refused any medical treatment. It noted that the surgery in question could be carried out at the Central Prison Hospital or, if necessary, at a civilian hospital. 25.  On 13 May 2011 the applicant was released by an order of the first-instance court and placed under house arrest. However, on the prosecution’s appeal, he was detained again as of 17 June 2011.
The applicant’s detention was finally terminated on 29 October 2011.
After a first-instance partial conviction, on 10 October 2013 the Szeged Court of Appeal gave a second-instance judgment. The applicant’s appeal is pending before the Kúria.