Hungary

The Hungarian Desk is headed by László Venczl, who is the National Member for Hungary since July 2012.

In 2019, the Hungarian Desk was involved in 327 new cases, 25 coordination meetings, 5 coordination centres and 16 joint investigation teams.

 

National Member

National Member

László Venczl
László Venczl

László Venczl was appointed National Member for Hungary in July 2012. Mr Venczl has been a prosecutor for more than 20 years in different prosecution services in Hungary. He spent most of his professional career in the Military Prosecution Service. During his international career, Mr Venczl has played an active role within the International Society for Military Law and for Law of War, and in the International Association of Prosecutors (IAP) since its formation. He is currently an IAP Senator. In addition, Mr Venczl has been the Contact Point for the Genocide Network since 2003, and will remain so for the time being.



Deputy National Member

Zoltán Péter is Deputy National Member for Hungary.


Assistant to the National Member

Edina Soltész is Assistant to the National Member for Hungary.



+++

Interview with National Member László Venczl

What strikes you most about working at Eurojust?

Keeping in mind that Eurojust stands for supporting prosecutions of serious organised cross-border crime, it strikes me that there have been small cases with real legal problems also occurring regularly in judicial cooperation. In fact, small, unresolved cases have been on the rise, and they take away important resources needed in high-priority cases. Of course, small cases are also important to those involved, so you could argue there are no ‘small’ cases in our practice. Providing assistance even to such cases, however, is encouraging judicial authorities to ask Eurojust for assistance in higher priority cases when really necessary. This is why Eurojust’s case numbers are growing at such an impressive pace.

Could you describe a case that you have supported and which had a particularly successful outcome?

A case comes to mind involving the indictment of a suspected member of the IS terrorist organisation on charges of terrorism and mass murder. In December 2018, a Syrian national was arrested in Hungary when presenting false documents at Budapest Airport for a woman in his company, for which he was given a suspended short-term prison sentence. In March 2019, as the suspect was about to be expelled to Greece, where he had entered the European Union and enjoyed refugee status, new suspicions emerged that he was a member of the IS terrorist organisation in Syria where he allegedly took part in up to 20 executions in 2015. Alerted through the on-call coordination, crucial evidence was exchanged within 24 hours, including necessary translations between the Hungarian and the Belgian Desks at Eurojust. The rapid procedure allowed the Hungarian authorities to detain the suspect for suspicion of committing terrorist activities, instead of executing the imminent judicial order to expel him to Greece. In July 2019, following extensive Eurojust-led coordination among four Member States to resolve conflicts and gather and exchange incriminating evidence, the suspect was charged with terrorism, mass murder and crimes against humanity within four months of his true identity being established. The trial at the Budapest Municipal Court is ongoing.

Which of the services and tools available through Eurojust do you consider most important for national judicial authorities – and why?

Some would rightfully identify successful judicial cooperation tools such as joint investigation teams, European Arrest Warrants and European Investigation Orders, as well as platforms of centres of expertise in priority crime areas (i.e. cybercrime, terrorism, economic crime, the genocide network, etc.). My vote would probably go to Eurojust’s availability around the clock, including its On-Call Coordination mechanism (24/7 service). In really important cases, the first 24 hours cannot be repeated: success quite simply depends on producing quick, professional information and (admissible) evidence to the requesting national judicial authority.

Contact the Hungarian Desk

Casework

New cases
2017: 115 (initiating) + 119 (participating)
2018: 127 (initiating) + 142 (participating)
2019: 207 (initiating) + 120 (participating)

Coordination meetings (initiating and/or participating)
2017: 25
2018: 25
2019: 25

Coordination centres (initiating and/or participating)
2017: 2
2018: 4
2019: 5

Joint investigation teams (initiating and/or participating)
2017: 5
2018: 16
2019: 16


+ + +

Case examples

Case examplesCase examples

 

Related tags:Hungary