5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Budapest. 6.  On 25 November 2008 the applicant, then a member of the Municipal Council of Budapest VIIth District and chairman of the municipal economic committee, was arrested on charges of aggravated fraud and other crimes. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were initiated against some of the close colleagues and acquaintances of the applicant in the same context. 7.  On 27 November 2008 the Pest Central District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand relying on section 129 (2) b), c), and d) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Defence counsel for the applicant requested the court not to detain him but to order house arrest, if a coercive measure was inevitable. The court however held that there was a danger that the applicant would abscond in the face of the serious charges and by virtue of his contacts abroad. It also noted that further steps of investigation were outstanding, and held that there was a risk of collusion.
On 8 December 2008 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision, adding that the risk of repetition of crime was also real if the applicant were released. The court noted that he had a registered employment and regular income but had committed the alleged criminal acts as a member of a criminal group, over a long period of time, and through the companies founded and operated by him and his associates. 8.  On 25 and 27 November 2008 the Central Investigation Prosecutor’s Office, for the fear of collusion, restricted the applicant’s personal contacts, that is, correspondence and personal contacts with his family members were allowed only under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. He was authorised to maintain phone contact only with his lawyer. 9.  On 22 December 2008 the investigating judge of the Pest Central District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 27 March 2008, on the grounds in section 129 (2) b) and c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court noted that the applicant was charged with aggravated fraud, corruption and forgery of documents. It observed that the applicant’s settled family circumstances did not diminish the risk of absconding given the applicant’s network of contacts with influential acquaintances both in Hungary and abroad, his probable dire financial situation following a release and the gravity of the alleged crimes.
The court further noted that the risk of collusion or interference with the investigation was real, finding that there was information (“adat merült fel arra”) confirming that the applicant, together with an associate, intended to eliminate evidence and incriminating documents, thereby impeding the on-going investigation. This “information” was not however specified.
Nonetheless, the court agreed with defence’s argument that the applicant had committed the alleged acts as a member of the municipal assembly so that following the intervening termination of his mandate there was no real risk of repetition of crime. 10.  On 14 January 2009 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision but expanded the reasoning to include the risk of reoffending under section 129 (2) d). It noted that the applicant had committed the alleged criminal acts over a longer period of time, in an organised manner and in close cooperation with his associates. It added that the applicant had engaged in the alleged crimes despite his employment and regular income, this revealing a criminal lifestyle. 11.  On 24 March 2009 the District Court extended the detention for two further months on the grounds in section 129 (2) b), c) and d) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The justification consisted of the accumulation of evidence against the applicant and the impending severe sentence, his connections and property abroad, the risk that he might attempt to influence witnesses or otherwise obstruct the investigation and the danger of reoffending given the continuous and organised nature of the alleged crimes committed through the companies set up by his associates. This decision was upheld on appeal on 7 April 2009. 12.  On 27 March 2009 the applicant requested to have phone contacts with his wife, which was rejected on 7 April 2009. Following a complaint by the applicant, the Chief Prosecutor’s Office decided that the prohibition was no longer necessary and authorised phone contacts under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
On 6 April 2009 the Central Investigation Prosecutor’s Office rejected the applicant’s motions to have further evidence taken, notably by appointing a certain real estate valuer, Mr P. The Office was of the view that this was superfluous, especially since Mr P. was ineligible, given that he might have previously been involved in the incriminated transactions. The applicant’s appeal was to no avail. 13.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was again prolonged at the statutory intervals on 26 May and 26 August 2009, the reasons remaining the same as in the previous decisions. 14.  On 3 September 2009 the applicant requested to have contact with his family without the supervision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which was dismissed by the Central Investigation Prosecutor’s Office on 10 September 2009. 15.  On 26 November 2009 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for two months.
The court referred to numerous pieces of evidence which pointed to his likely involvement in the fraud scheme. To substantiate that the applicant’s presence at the trial could only be ensured through the most severe preventive measure, the court noted the risk of absconding. Applying section 129(2) b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 27 below), the court observed that the applicant had a network of contacts and property abroad and presumed that the alleged crimes presupposed an important financial background, personal connections and backing from the “underworld”, all this constituting “another reason” (más okból) for the applicant’s detention. As regards the danger of reoffending, the court referred to the applicant’s luxurious lifestyle which was likely to be sustained through criminal acts, the organised nature of the alleged crimes and the fact that he continued to receive his allowance from the municipal committee – the framework of the alleged crimes – despite his indictment. The court further observed that it was necessary to maintain the applicant’s detention since there was information that he had attempted to obstruct the investigation through influencing the taking of evidence and it was necessary to hinder the exchange of information between the applicant and other persons.
Moreover, the court assessed whether less restrictive measures could have served the same goal, and observed that the applicant’s detention was proportionate to the aim of ensuring his presence at trial.
This decision was upheld by the Budapest Court of Appeal on 14 December 2009. 16.  As of 3 December 2009 the Central Investigation Prosecutor’s Office charged the prison detaining the applicant (Fővárosi Bv. Intézet) with the responsibility of determining the length and frequency of family contacts.
From 4 December 2009 onwards no specific restrictions were applied to the applicant. He could receive visits (each lasting maximum 60 minutes) and maintain phone contacts three times a week for 10 minutes and correspond with his family (which he did daily) according to the general, statutory rules. 17.  At the hearing of 26 January 2010 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended once more by the Budapest Regional Court, reiterating the same reasons as in the decision of 26 November 2009. It was observed that the applicant was still member of the Municipal Council. The court further noted, similarly to the order of 26 November 2009 (see paragraph 15 above), that the context of the case was such as representing “another reason” for the applicant’s continued detention.
The applicant appealed, referring to the fact that he had voluntarily returned to Hungary from abroad while the investigation had already been on-going and that were no grounds to believe that he would abscond if released. He further pointed out that investigations had been on-going for a long period of time; since the necessary evidence had been gathered and testimonies heard, there was no risk that he would obstruct the investigation.
By its decision of 15 February 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision, adding that the public interest in prosecuting a crime of serious importance outweighed the applicant’s individual interest in his liberty. 18.  The pre-trial detention was again prolonged on 25 March and 26 May 2010. The court rejected the arguments of the applicant’s lawyer to the effect that the results of the investigation did not support a reasonable suspicion against the applicant and the risk of absconding, collusion or reoffending had not been substantiated. It was satisfied that his continued detention was necessary for fear of his absconding, the danger of collusion, and the risk of reoffending, with identical reasons as in the decision of 26 January 2010.
With regard to the decision of 26 May 2010 the applicant appealed, orally, immediately after the pronouncement of the decision. The written decision reached the office of the applicant’s lawyer on 30 June 2010; nonetheless he submitted a written elaboration of the appeal with the Court of Appeal on 29 June 2010. The second-instance court, however, had already issued its decision on 28 June 2010.
In reply to the applicant’s respective appeals, the second-instance court was satisfied that the pre-trial detention was necessary and could not be substituted by less stringent measures, as suggested. The defence also raised the argument that the applicant had allegedly committed the criminal offences in connection with his position as a member of the Municipal Council, and following the termination of his mandate, he was no longer in a position to reoffend. Moreover, it highlighted that the applicant had returned to Hungary following the arrest of his alleged co-perpetrator, thus there were no grounds to believe that he would have fled. However, the courts were not persuaded by these submissions. 19.  On 21 July 2010 the Budapest Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention, mentioning the grounds of risk of absconding and danger of collusion, but omitting the reference to the possibility of reoffending. Both the applicant and his lawyer appealed, orally, immediately after the pronouncement of the decision. The second-instance court adopted a decision endorsing the prolongation on 28 July 2010, only on the basis of the oral appeals.
Moreover, the applicant’s lawyer lodged a written elaboration of the appeal. This submission reached the court on 29 July 2010.
The written version of the first-instance decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer only on 30 July 2010. 20.  The 121-page bill of indictment against altogether twenty-five defendants was lodged with the Budapest Regional Court on 9 November 2010. The file relating to the proceedings conducted against the applicant contained investigatory files of some ten thousand pages. 21.  On 22 November 2010 the applicant’s detention was extended again on the ground of the risk of absconding, corroborated, according to the Regional Court, by the gravity of the charges, the severity of the impending sentence and his contacts abroad. Nonetheless, the court found that the investigations were closed, the bill of indictment had been preferred and the applicant no longer held a position in the Municipal Council, thus there were no elements to support the suspicion that he would attempt to conceal evidence or connive with witnesses. As it appears from the case-file, no consideration was given to the application of less stringent measures, such as house arrest. 22.  On 25 January 2011 the Regional Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail, as requested by the applicant, stating that the applicant was a father of five minor children and had allegedly committed the offences in connection with his position at the municipality, which had ceased to exist, and so did his financial and administrative connections. The court set the bail at 100,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 332,000 euros (EUR)). The applicant appealed, apparently finding the amount excessive, but to no avail.
It appears that the bail measure was not applied, because the applicant was not a situation to pay that amount of money. 23.  On 13 May 2011 the applicant was released by an order of the first-instance court and placed under house arrest, with the reasoning that the applicant had a settled family situation and was in charge of his minor children.
However, on the prosecution’s appeal, he was detained again as of 17 June 2011 by the decision of the Budapest Court of Appeal. In its decision of 16 June 2011, that court insisted that the interest of securing the applicant’s availability for justice outweighed his right to personal liberty and that the continued detention could by no means be regarded as an anticipated punishment. The court was satisfied that the previous reasons justifying the detention on remand were still valid and did not embark on an analysis of the particular circumstances arguing for and against the detention. 24.  The applicant’s request for release or for a less coercive measure lodged with the Budapest Regional Court was to no avail. The defence stressed the absence of concrete elements underlying the detention and the disregard of the applicant’s family conditions. On 7 October 2011 the court rejected his submission, arguing that despite the applicant’s family status, the risk of absconding was real. 25.  The applicant’s detention was finally terminated on 16 December 2011. 26.  On 24 February 2012 the applicant was found guilty of fraud, corruption, misappropriation of public funds, abuse of power, and forgery of private documents. He was sentenced to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. On 10 October 2012 the Szeged Court of Appeal gave a second-instance judgment. The applicant’s appeal is pending before the Kúria.