The Relation between the Public Prosecutor and the Police
Chapter I
The Relation between the Public Prosecutor and the Police
The new Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), Act XIX of 1998, came into force on July 1, 2003 and recast the relation between public prosecutor and police both in terms of theoretical basis and rules in detail. Apart from the police, several special investigating authorities, such as the Border Guard and the Customs and Excise Authority, exist. For the sake of simplicity I will use the word ‘police’ connoting all investigating authorities in Hungary.
The former Code, dating from 1973, was based on the principle of equality of the trial and pre-trial phases. This was the theoretical starting point for determining the relation between the prosecutor and the police. Under the provisions of that Code the prosecutor exercised extensive rights during the investigation.
The CCP, dispensing with the principle of equality of investigation and trial, attaches major importance to the trial phase as the place where parties with the same rights present evidence. This implies a certain degradation of the investigation, which is expressed in the CCP by the provision that the only purpose of the investigation is to assess whether conditions of prosecution are met. Hence, the police only have to make the facts sufficiently clear for the prosecutor to be able to make a well-founded decision on prosecution.
The powers of the police were restricted by the CCP in two fields. First, certain decisions, in the course of gathering evidence, can be made exclusively by the prosecutor. For instance, only the prosecutor can decide to obtain an opinion of a psychiatric expert. These restrictions in the field of obtaining evidence are considered additional safeguards to respect the rights of the person concerned. On the other hand, dismissal based on the complex evaluation of evidence is also reserved to the prosecutor. Thus, only the prosecutor may drop the case on the basis that evidence is insufficient to support prosecution. By contrast, when the facts of the case are clear and it is established that no criminal offence has been committed, the police are entitled to discontinue the case. Despite these restrictions, the investigative powers of the police can still be considered extensive.
The relationship between the prosecutor and the police is fundamentally determined by the rule that instructions of the prosecutor in relating to the investigation must be followed by police, without any possibility of complaint. Oral and written instructions may be issued, although the prosecutor always has to put the instructions in writing on request. Furthermore, the prosecutor is entitled to get access to data police registers and he may entrust the police to prepare the written decisions of the prosecutor.
Criminal proceedings may be commenced by the prosecutor or the police responding to a report, but also when either has discovered the underlying facts themselves. The investigation has to be finished within two months, but in extensive investigations this term may be extended by the competent prosecutor for another two months. The chief prosecutor of the county prosecution office can extend up to one year from the initiation of the proceedings. Beyond that deadline, it can be extended by the Office of the Prosecutor General. When two years have passed since the first interrogation of the defendant, the investigation must be concluded, even if the facts of the case are not clear. This final deadline has been introduced by the new CCP and calls for due prudence in scheduling the investigation.
Forms of investigation
The prosecutor may conduct an investigation himself, or initiate an investigation by police, as well as supervise the legality of the investigation by police at his own initiative.
A. Investigation initiated by police
The police are allowed to initiate investigations at their own initiative provided the crime has been reported to them or they have discerned it. The commencement of an investigation they have to report to the competent prosecution office though, including a report on the facts of the case. In practise, notification is made in a so-called daily report that contains the particulars of all investigations commenced that day. The prosecutor scrutinises the report and, if it seems necessary, requests the documents of the case for review.
In these investigations, the prosecutor supervises observance of legal rules, in the interest of which, he:
- may direct police to perform investigative actions specified by him, to go on with the investigation or to conclude it within the time limit set by him;
- may be present during acts of the police, and examine the documents of the case,
- may alter or quash the decisions of the police;
- may dismiss a case or instruct police to dismiss it;
- shall deal with complaints against the decisions of the police.
Detailed rules for supervision are given in Order No. 11/2003 of the Prosecutor-General. According to Sect. 36 subs 2, in the normal course of events the prosecutor shall control the legality of these investigations only when his activity is requested by the head of the police or any persons concerned, and to the extent that is necessitated by the request. Concerning the fact that the great majority of petty crime and offences of moderate gravity is investigated by police at their own initiative, the prosecution service can not be expected to exercise day-to-day control over these proceedings.
At the same time, mention must be made of so-called increased supervision. In cases selected according to Sect. 37 of the Order, the prosecutor scrutinises the case file delivered to him in full length and on any account and immediately takes the necessary steps to ensure the legality of investigation. To this end, he shall give instructions with time limits to police, set priorities of further investigation, specify pieces of evidence to be obtained, set the date of the next inspection of documents, and direct the police to conclude the investigation if the evidence obtained seems sufficient to support prosecution.
Section 37 states that increased supervision has to be performed: when complicated legal questions or problems of evidence have arisen in the case, a substantial breach of legal provisions or serious mistake has been detected, the length of pre-trial detention has exceeded six months, the investigation was initiated more than a year ago, or the offence that forms the subject of the proceedings carries more than ten years imprisonment.
In ordinary cases which do not come within the scope of increased supervision, the prosecutor usually reads the documents of the case only after the conclusion of investigation, when police deliver the case file with its proposal on prosecution or dismissal to the competent prosecution office.
Prior to that, the file might have been sent to the prosecutor if a complaint was lodged against the decision of the police, the head of the authority asked for guidance from the prosecutor, or the term of the investigation had to be extended. As a result these events the prosecutor may decide to declare increased supervision.
Upon conclusion of investigation the police have the right to discontinue the case on their own initiative, provided the conduct does not constitute an offence, the defendant is dead or has been pardoned, the statutory period of limitation has expired, or on the basis that the offender is a minor. It is evident that the police are vested with the power to dismiss a case only when no evaluation of evidence is expected to be necessary. A written decision on dismissal must be delivered to the prosecutor without the file. The prosecutor assesses the decision and, if it seems necessary, may request the police file and order further investigation.
Under circumstances that do not support prosecution whilst police are not allowed to drop the case, the documents with its recommendations are sent to the prosecution office. The prosecutor is not bound by any proposal. He may, for example, prosecute despite a police recommendation to dismiss. Similarly, if the police have proposed prosecution, the prosecutor may still discontinue the case, send back the file for further investigation, or postpone prosecution.
B. Investigation carried out by police under direction of the prosecutor
When the offence has been reported to the prosecutor, or has come to his notice in any other way, the prosecutor shall initiate an investigation and send the case to the competent police unit. He will give directions relating to the investigation and ask for the documents to be sent back for inspection after identification and first interrogation of the suspect.
In the course of that inspection the prosecutor shall peruse the documents and give instructions for further investigations. According to Sect. 35 subs. 3 of Order No. 11/2003 of the Prosecutor General, if the prosecutor initiates an investigation of a case that has attracted public attention concerning the offence, persons involved or any other circumstance, he shall instruct police in relation to the facts to be proved and the significant investigative acts to be performed. The prosecutor shall also set the time of the next inspection and specify the actions which he reserves for himself. In these selected cases, the activities of the prosecutor, as in the case of increased supervision, come close to direct control of the investigation.
Ordinary cases are not under continuous supervision, and after the first inspection the files are usually returned to the office of the prosecutor upon conclusion of investigation.
The prosecutor may exercise the same rights for ensuring the legality and success of an investigation, in those introduced by the police at their own initiative.
Comparing the rules of the two forms of investigation, the only dissimilarity in relation to prosecutorial activity can be identified in the practise that in ordinary cases investigated on the direction of the prosecutor, at least one inspection is performed by the prosecutor before the case is finished. Extraordinary cases are treated the same way under both systems, the prosecutor inspects the documents regularly and gives the necessary instructions to the police.
C. Prosecutorial investigation
According to Sect. 29 of the CCP the investigation is in the exclusive power of the prosecutor when a criminal offence has been committed by a person enjoying immunity based upon public law or international law, by a judge, prosecutor, notary public or police officer and also the investigation of certain offences committed against these persons (special subject) and in the case of some offences against administration of justice (special offence). The most common offences falling within the scope of prosecutorial investigation are violence against a police officer, offences committed by policemen when acting in an official capacity, false accusation and perjury.
This exclusive competence is obviously justified on the one hand by the need for legal qualifications in a proper investigation of certain crimes (offences against administration of justice), and on the other hand the status of persons concerned (MPs, judges, police officers, etc.) which may call for special safeguards that can be better insured in a prosecutorial investigation.
Besides the cases mentioned above, it is only the prosecutor who may perform the investigation if the national chief of the competent investigating authority is excluded because he is a suspect, victim or witness etc. in the case or may be biased for any other reason.
Finally, the prosecutor is entitled to draw any investigation into his competence from other investigating authorities, irrespective of the legal rules of competence. Since the prosecution service, considering its staff and resources, is not able to conduct a great number of investigations, this entitlement is rarely used.
The responsibility for proper investigation
The police have responsibility for the efficiency and success of the investigation both in proceedings initiated at their own initiative and those introduced by the prosecutor. Ensuring the legality of the investigation is the shared responsibility of the prosecutor and the police. Primarily, the observance of legal provisions is the task of the police in the course of its investigative actions, whilst the prosecutor’s activity, except when he orders a specific action, is of a more reflective nature since he supervises the legality of the investigation afterwards. As regards investigations conducted by the prosecutor it goes without saying that the prosecutor has to ensure the legality.
Use of special investigative methods
Somewhat different provisions apply to the use of special investigative methods before and after the formal commencement of the investigation.
Prior to the official initiation of investigation the police are entitled to collect information secretly, which activity is regulated by the Police Act (Act 34 of 1994). On the authorisation granted by the Act, for the purposes of prevention, interruption or detection of criminal offences, identification or apprehension of defendants, obtaining evidence or protection of the members of the authorities or a collaborating person, the police may use special investigative methods. Some of them may be employed by the police on their own initiative, while others are subject to permit from the prosecutor or the court.
No permit is warranted for employing informants, use of false documents, establishing front organisations, observation of persons, buildings and other objects, and recording the data obtained in the course of observation, use of trap or conducting decoy operations when a police officer assumes the role of the potential victim.
Permission from the prosecutor is required for employing undercover investigators, conducting test purchases, infiltration and controlled delivery. Similarly, the police have to obtain the consent of the prosecutor when offering dismissal to a defendant in return for certain information. The latter can justified on the basis that the detection of the offence to which the information appertains is more important than enforcing the criminal law against the informant. With previous consent of the prosecutor, the police may request information from the tax authority, telecommunication service providers, health care institutions, or other organisations handling data qualified as bank secrets or business secrets.
The secret search of a home, surveillance of events taking place in a home, acquiring the contents of a letter and wiretapping of telephone lines or other telecommunication systems are subject to authorisation by a judge. These techniques may only be employed in the investigation of restricted categories of crimes such as drug cases, organised crime, terrorism etc.
Prior to initiation of an overt investigation, the head of the police unit concerned should submit a request to the judge designated by the president of the court for handling these cases. The judge shall make a decision within 72 hours.
After the commencement of overt investigation, the same rules apply except that the police should send the request for judicial authorisation to the prosecutor first, who, if he agrees, will submit a motion to the court. If the prosecutor finds no legal grounds for the use of secret methods, he rejects the request, in the event of which the police cannot start the secret activity. This procedure is regulated in the CCP.
Evidence obtained without the necessary permit or authorisation shall be inadmissible in a trial and in certain cases the act of the officer may constitute a criminal offence (offence of unlawful secret gathering of information pursuant to Sect. 227/A of the Criminal Code).
Coercive measures
Some of the so-called coercive measures such as pre-trial detention, home confinement, prohibition from leaving one’s residence, freezing of assets and forced medical treatment of insane offenders pending trial, may be ordered by the court. Unlike these, arrest (the first 72 hours of pre-trial detention), search, body search, seizure and so forth may be performed by the prosecutor or the police as well, but in special instances their powers are restricted.
When a warrant is necessary the police request the competent prosecution office to submit a motion to the court for the warrant. If the prosecutor rejects the request, the measure will not be taken since the police are not entitled to turn directly to the court.
Search of the office of an attorney, notary public, or a health care institute may be performed only upon search warrant issued by a judge, except when the purpose of the search is to apprehend a fleeing defendant. In exigent circumstances the prosecutor may conduct the search without warrant, but later the warrant must be obtained. If the court rejects the motion, the evidence obtained shall be excluded at trial.
The same holds true in respect of seizure of documents found in the office of an attorney, notary public or a health care institute. In these cases, the prosecutor shall have the documents in his keeping until the seizure warrant is obtained.
Before the trial phase, undelivered letters or similar postal matters, and documents found in an editorial office of a newspaper may be seized upon the decision of the prosecutor.
Priorities on the commencement of investigation
As in Hungary the prosecution system is based on the legality principle, the authorities are bound to initiate proceedings and proceed with cases if legal conditions are met. Consequently, the prosecutor is not entitled to set priorities for the investigating authorities regarding whether to introduce proceedings or drop a case. By the same token if the prosecutor, ex officio or upon a complaint, detects that the police have not initiated an investigation despite the conditions being fulfilled, or on the contrary, an investigation has been commenced without legal basis, he has to take the appropriate actions to ensure the observance of the law.
The Relation between the Public Prosecutor and the Police
The new Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), Act XIX of 1998, came into force on July 1, 2003 and recast the relation between public prosecutor and police both in terms of theoretical basis and rules in detail. Apart from the police, several special investigating authorities, such as the Border Guard and the Customs and Excise Authority, exist. For the sake of simplicity I will use the word ‘police’ connoting all investigating authorities in Hungary.
The former Code, dating from 1973, was based on the principle of equality of the trial and pre-trial phases. This was the theoretical starting point for determining the relation between the prosecutor and the police. Under the provisions of that Code the prosecutor exercised extensive rights during the investigation.
The CCP, dispensing with the principle of equality of investigation and trial, attaches major importance to the trial phase as the place where parties with the same rights present evidence. This implies a certain degradation of the investigation, which is expressed in the CCP by the provision that the only purpose of the investigation is to assess whether conditions of prosecution are met. Hence, the police only have to make the facts sufficiently clear for the prosecutor to be able to make a well-founded decision on prosecution.
The powers of the police were restricted by the CCP in two fields. First, certain decisions, in the course of gathering evidence, can be made exclusively by the prosecutor. For instance, only the prosecutor can decide to obtain an opinion of a psychiatric expert. These restrictions in the field of obtaining evidence are considered additional safeguards to respect the rights of the person concerned. On the other hand, dismissal based on the complex evaluation of evidence is also reserved to the prosecutor. Thus, only the prosecutor may drop the case on the basis that evidence is insufficient to support prosecution. By contrast, when the facts of the case are clear and it is established that no criminal offence has been committed, the police are entitled to discontinue the case. Despite these restrictions, the investigative powers of the police can still be considered extensive.
The relationship between the prosecutor and the police is fundamentally determined by the rule that instructions of the prosecutor in relating to the investigation must be followed by police, without any possibility of complaint. Oral and written instructions may be issued, although the prosecutor always has to put the instructions in writing on request. Furthermore, the prosecutor is entitled to get access to data police registers and he may entrust the police to prepare the written decisions of the prosecutor.
Criminal proceedings may be commenced by the prosecutor or the police responding to a report, but also when either has discovered the underlying facts themselves. The investigation has to be finished within two months, but in extensive investigations this term may be extended by the competent prosecutor for another two months. The chief prosecutor of the county prosecution office can extend up to one year from the initiation of the proceedings. Beyond that deadline, it can be extended by the Office of the Prosecutor General. When two years have passed since the first interrogation of the defendant, the investigation must be concluded, even if the facts of the case are not clear. This final deadline has been introduced by the new CCP and calls for due prudence in scheduling the investigation.
Forms of investigation
The prosecutor may conduct an investigation himself, or initiate an investigation by police, as well as supervise the legality of the investigation by police at his own initiative.
A. Investigation initiated by police
The police are allowed to initiate investigations at their own initiative provided the crime has been reported to them or they have discerned it. The commencement of an investigation they have to report to the competent prosecution office though, including a report on the facts of the case. In practise, notification is made in a so-called daily report that contains the particulars of all investigations commenced that day. The prosecutor scrutinises the report and, if it seems necessary, requests the documents of the case for review.
In these investigations, the prosecutor supervises observance of legal rules, in the interest of which, he:
- may direct police to perform investigative actions specified by him, to go on with the investigation or to conclude it within the time limit set by him;
- may be present during acts of the police, and examine the documents of the case,
- may alter or quash the decisions of the police;
- may dismiss a case or instruct police to dismiss it;
- shall deal with complaints against the decisions of the police.
Detailed rules for supervision are given in Order No. 11/2003 of the Prosecutor-General. According to Sect. 36 subs 2, in the normal course of events the prosecutor shall control the legality of these investigations only when his activity is requested by the head of the police or any persons concerned, and to the extent that is necessitated by the request. Concerning the fact that the great majority of petty crime and offences of moderate gravity is investigated by police at their own initiative, the prosecution service can not be expected to exercise day-to-day control over these proceedings.
At the same time, mention must be made of so-called increased supervision. In cases selected according to Sect. 37 of the Order, the prosecutor scrutinises the case file delivered to him in full length and on any account and immediately takes the necessary steps to ensure the legality of investigation. To this end, he shall give instructions with time limits to police, set priorities of further investigation, specify pieces of evidence to be obtained, set the date of the next inspection of documents, and direct the police to conclude the investigation if the evidence obtained seems sufficient to support prosecution.
Section 37 states that increased supervision has to be performed: when complicated legal questions or problems of evidence have arisen in the case, a substantial breach of legal provisions or serious mistake has been detected, the length of pre-trial detention has exceeded six months, the investigation was initiated more than a year ago, or the offence that forms the subject of the proceedings carries more than ten years imprisonment.
In ordinary cases which do not come within the scope of increased supervision, the prosecutor usually reads the documents of the case only after the conclusion of investigation, when police deliver the case file with its proposal on prosecution or dismissal to the competent prosecution office.
Prior to that, the file might have been sent to the prosecutor if a complaint was lodged against the decision of the police, the head of the authority asked for guidance from the prosecutor, or the term of the investigation had to be extended. As a result these events the prosecutor may decide to declare increased supervision.
Upon conclusion of investigation the police have the right to discontinue the case on their own initiative, provided the conduct does not constitute an offence, the defendant is dead or has been pardoned, the statutory period of limitation has expired, or on the basis that the offender is a minor. It is evident that the police are vested with the power to dismiss a case only when no evaluation of evidence is expected to be necessary. A written decision on dismissal must be delivered to the prosecutor without the file. The prosecutor assesses the decision and, if it seems necessary, may request the police file and order further investigation.
Under circumstances that do not support prosecution whilst police are not allowed to drop the case, the documents with its recommendations are sent to the prosecution office. The prosecutor is not bound by any proposal. He may, for example, prosecute despite a police recommendation to dismiss. Similarly, if the police have proposed prosecution, the prosecutor may still discontinue the case, send back the file for further investigation, or postpone prosecution.
B. Investigation carried out by police under direction of the prosecutor
When the offence has been reported to the prosecutor, or has come to his notice in any other way, the prosecutor shall initiate an investigation and send the case to the competent police unit. He will give directions relating to the investigation and ask for the documents to be sent back for inspection after identification and first interrogation of the suspect.
In the course of that inspection the prosecutor shall peruse the documents and give instructions for further investigations. According to Sect. 35 subs. 3 of Order No. 11/2003 of the Prosecutor General, if the prosecutor initiates an investigation of a case that has attracted public attention concerning the offence, persons involved or any other circumstance, he shall instruct police in relation to the facts to be proved and the significant investigative acts to be performed. The prosecutor shall also set the time of the next inspection and specify the actions which he reserves for himself. In these selected cases, the activities of the prosecutor, as in the case of increased supervision, come close to direct control of the investigation.
Ordinary cases are not under continuous supervision, and after the first inspection the files are usually returned to the office of the prosecutor upon conclusion of investigation.
The prosecutor may exercise the same rights for ensuring the legality and success of an investigation, in those introduced by the police at their own initiative.
Comparing the rules of the two forms of investigation, the only dissimilarity in relation to prosecutorial activity can be identified in the practise that in ordinary cases investigated on the direction of the prosecutor, at least one inspection is performed by the prosecutor before the case is finished. Extraordinary cases are treated the same way under both systems, the prosecutor inspects the documents regularly and gives the necessary instructions to the police.
C. Prosecutorial investigation
According to Sect. 29 of the CCP the investigation is in the exclusive power of the prosecutor when a criminal offence has been committed by a person enjoying immunity based upon public law or international law, by a judge, prosecutor, notary public or police officer and also the investigation of certain offences committed against these persons (special subject) and in the case of some offences against administration of justice (special offence). The most common offences falling within the scope of prosecutorial investigation are violence against a police officer, offences committed by policemen when acting in an official capacity, false accusation and perjury.
This exclusive competence is obviously justified on the one hand by the need for legal qualifications in a proper investigation of certain crimes (offences against administration of justice), and on the other hand the status of persons concerned (MPs, judges, police officers, etc.) which may call for special safeguards that can be better insured in a prosecutorial investigation.
Besides the cases mentioned above, it is only the prosecutor who may perform the investigation if the national chief of the competent investigating authority is excluded because he is a suspect, victim or witness etc. in the case or may be biased for any other reason.
Finally, the prosecutor is entitled to draw any investigation into his competence from other investigating authorities, irrespective of the legal rules of competence. Since the prosecution service, considering its staff and resources, is not able to conduct a great number of investigations, this entitlement is rarely used.
The responsibility for proper investigation
The police have responsibility for the efficiency and success of the investigation both in proceedings initiated at their own initiative and those introduced by the prosecutor. Ensuring the legality of the investigation is the shared responsibility of the prosecutor and the police. Primarily, the observance of legal provisions is the task of the police in the course of its investigative actions, whilst the prosecutor’s activity, except when he orders a specific action, is of a more reflective nature since he supervises the legality of the investigation afterwards. As regards investigations conducted by the prosecutor it goes without saying that the prosecutor has to ensure the legality.
Use of special investigative methods
Somewhat different provisions apply to the use of special investigative methods before and after the formal commencement of the investigation.
Prior to the official initiation of investigation the police are entitled to collect information secretly, which activity is regulated by the Police Act (Act 34 of 1994). On the authorisation granted by the Act, for the purposes of prevention, interruption or detection of criminal offences, identification or apprehension of defendants, obtaining evidence or protection of the members of the authorities or a collaborating person, the police may use special investigative methods. Some of them may be employed by the police on their own initiative, while others are subject to permit from the prosecutor or the court.
No permit is warranted for employing informants, use of false documents, establishing front organisations, observation of persons, buildings and other objects, and recording the data obtained in the course of observation, use of trap or conducting decoy operations when a police officer assumes the role of the potential victim.
Permission from the prosecutor is required for employing undercover investigators, conducting test purchases, infiltration and controlled delivery. Similarly, the police have to obtain the consent of the prosecutor when offering dismissal to a defendant in return for certain information. The latter can justified on the basis that the detection of the offence to which the information appertains is more important than enforcing the criminal law against the informant. With previous consent of the prosecutor, the police may request information from the tax authority, telecommunication service providers, health care institutions, or other organisations handling data qualified as bank secrets or business secrets.
The secret search of a home, surveillance of events taking place in a home, acquiring the contents of a letter and wiretapping of telephone lines or other telecommunication systems are subject to authorisation by a judge. These techniques may only be employed in the investigation of restricted categories of crimes such as drug cases, organised crime, terrorism etc.
Prior to initiation of an overt investigation, the head of the police unit concerned should submit a request to the judge designated by the president of the court for handling these cases. The judge shall make a decision within 72 hours.
After the commencement of overt investigation, the same rules apply except that the police should send the request for judicial authorisation to the prosecutor first, who, if he agrees, will submit a motion to the court. If the prosecutor finds no legal grounds for the use of secret methods, he rejects the request, in the event of which the police cannot start the secret activity. This procedure is regulated in the CCP.
Evidence obtained without the necessary permit or authorisation shall be inadmissible in a trial and in certain cases the act of the officer may constitute a criminal offence (offence of unlawful secret gathering of information pursuant to Sect. 227/A of the Criminal Code).
Coercive measures
Some of the so-called coercive measures such as pre-trial detention, home confinement, prohibition from leaving one’s residence, freezing of assets and forced medical treatment of insane offenders pending trial, may be ordered by the court. Unlike these, arrest (the first 72 hours of pre-trial detention), search, body search, seizure and so forth may be performed by the prosecutor or the police as well, but in special instances their powers are restricted.
When a warrant is necessary the police request the competent prosecution office to submit a motion to the court for the warrant. If the prosecutor rejects the request, the measure will not be taken since the police are not entitled to turn directly to the court.
Search of the office of an attorney, notary public, or a health care institute may be performed only upon search warrant issued by a judge, except when the purpose of the search is to apprehend a fleeing defendant. In exigent circumstances the prosecutor may conduct the search without warrant, but later the warrant must be obtained. If the court rejects the motion, the evidence obtained shall be excluded at trial.
The same holds true in respect of seizure of documents found in the office of an attorney, notary public or a health care institute. In these cases, the prosecutor shall have the documents in his keeping until the seizure warrant is obtained.
Before the trial phase, undelivered letters or similar postal matters, and documents found in an editorial office of a newspaper may be seized upon the decision of the prosecutor.
Priorities on the commencement of investigation
As in Hungary the prosecution system is based on the legality principle, the authorities are bound to initiate proceedings and proceed with cases if legal conditions are met. Consequently, the prosecutor is not entitled to set priorities for the investigating authorities regarding whether to introduce proceedings or drop a case. By the same token if the prosecutor, ex officio or upon a complaint, detects that the police have not initiated an investigation despite the conditions being fulfilled, or on the contrary, an investigation has been commenced without legal basis, he has to take the appropriate actions to ensure the observance of the law.
