Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter IX. Evidence in the preparatory and investigative stages
›
9.1. About the investigative phase in general
›
9.1.4. Expectations regarding the time limit for the investigation

9.1.4. Expectations regarding the time limit for the investigation

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The length of time it takes to obtain evidence depends primarily on when the subject of the evidence becomes known. This is also the basis on which the investigating authority can decide on the relevance of the evidence available.1 What is certain is that the investigation must be carried out as quickly as possible. The time limit for the investigation is two years from the date of the suspect’s interrogation, with the possibility for the prosecution to extend this2 time limit once, by a maximum of six months. No appeal may be lodged against this decision.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

As a guarantee rule, Act XIX of 1998 capped the time limit for investigations at two years from the date of the suspect’s interrogation.3 In this context, Lőrinczy stated that “it is true that (usually) investigations can be completed within two years, but unfortunately, rarely there are still crimes […] which cannot be correctly investigated within this period.”4 In view of this, the author has proposed repealing the rule setting a two-year time limit.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

However, in Czencz-Simon’s opinion, the retention of this guarantee rule is justified in order to encourage the authorities to act quickly and professionally. The solution, therefore, “is not to remove the barrier, but to set up an investigation team at the place of investigation, which is able to investigate such cases within the time limits provided by law, and which is exclusively dedicated to the given crime, by reallocating the appropriate personnel and material conditions.” 5

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In particular, legal questions arise in relation to the duration of the detention of a suspect, which should also not exceed the bounds of “reasonableness”, based on the decisions that have become known in Strasbourg case law. Following the consistent decisions of the judiciary, the authorities (courts) must act with “particular diligence” in such cases;6 this requirement also applies to the review of the maintenance of a coercive measure.7 The Convention does not, however, require the person charged to cooperate actively with the authorities against him, nor can he be reproached for having exhausted all the means of redress available to him; the authorities can, however, be criticised for the length of time that elapses between hearings on arrest and the resulting delay in the proceedings.8
1 Gödöny (1968) 178.
2 § 351 (1)–(4) para.
3 Endre Bócz: A nyomozási határidőkről. [On time limits for investigations.] In: Erika Csemáné Váradi (2009) ibid. 71.
4 György Lőrinczy: Büntető igazságszolgáltatás és az “olcsóbb állam”. [Criminal justice and the “cheaper state.”] Magyar Jog, 2006/10. In: Edina Czencz–Simon: A büntetőeljárás reformja – a nyomozás időszerűsége. [Criminal procedure reform - the timeliness of investigations.] In: Erika Csemáné Váradi (2009) ibid. 71.
5 Czencz–Simon (2009) ibid. 71.
6 BH 1998/4 No 316. In Czine–Szabó–Villányi–Baka (2008) ibid. 258.
7 BH 2000/2 No 154. In: Czine–Szabó–Villányi–Baka ibid. 258.
8 EFJ 2000/1 No 29. In: Czine–Szabó–Villányi–Baka ibid. 258.
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave