Ladies and Gentlemen, Fellow Judges,
I would like to briefly inform my judge colleagues and the public of the reasons behind an investigation into the journal “Curia Decisions – Court Rulings” (which is known by the short name “BH”) and the findings of this investigation.
First, let me explain the reasons behind the investigation:
In the social media, a news item was published, analyzing a case that was published under the number BH2024.3 in the BH and the Curia’s decision on it. Then, last Thursday (22 February), the Curia received a request from the 444.hu news site. The request contained three questions and a fourth one was later added by a journalist. They were the following:
- “On which day exactly was this issue published?”
- “What editorial principle was used to include the aforementioned decision in the January issue?”
- “The lawyer who sent the decision to our editorial office wrote that ‘the decision, which the Curia considered to be of importance of principle has been accessible to the public since the publication of the January 2024 issue of the BH...’ The gist of this quotation is that the Curia rated this decision to be of importance of principle. Is this really the case and if so, why?”
- “Could you briefly describe what types of decisions and rulings of the Curia are generally published in the journal? In other words, what are the basic editorial principles?”
Given that the public analysis of the aforementioned case was made in connection with several events of public interest, the press request required a precise and detailed response. As President of the Curia, I am not a member of the editorial board; therefore, I was unable to answer the questions based on my own experience. I can provide answers only on the basis of the administrative investigation. The investigation naturally led to the suspension of editorial work.
Second, let me explain the subject and scope of the investigation:
The public analysis that prompted the investigation concerned two questions: the decision itself that was delivered by a panel of the Curia and the publication of this decision in the BH.
The investigation did not cover the decision of the Curia’s panel either directly or indirectly. It is not my business, as President or as a judge, what decision other judicial panels deliver. The decision concerned has been available in the Collection of Court Decisions since last fall and anyone can access it on the website of the National Office for the Judiciary. That is, we know exactly as much as anyone else could know about this:
In the case in question, a petition for cassation was submitted to the Curia in favor of the second defendant to quash the final judgment, to order the court of first instance to conduct new proceedings, or to partially acquit the second defendant and reduce the sentence. The Curia’s judicial panel determined the petition, irrespective of the fact that the defendant had, in the meantime, been granted an executive pardon and a pardon discharge, as his guilt was not covered by the pardon. In its decision, the Curia upheld the adverse final judgment.
So, we know this from the published decision. This is a res judicata, so it is the truth. The investigation did not affect this at all because it could not have done so.
The publication of the decision is a different matter, and it could be examined.
The BH is not an official collection of legal documents, but a professional online journal. Like other journals, it was distributed on subscription in the past, but since 2022, it has been available free of charge. Its maintenance, publication and editing are not protected by judicial independence. Its editors are all judges of the Curia or judges assigned to the Curia, but they do not carry out their editorial or publishing duties by virtue of their judicial power. They do so on the basis of their judicial experience, but under an independent agency contract. The National Assembly provides independent budgetary resources for the publication of the journal, which is published by the Curia’s Werbőczy Institute.
The investigation is therefore not even loosely related to judicial independence. Anyone who saw something else behind the investigation is obviously unaware of all this; anyone who claims something else is wrong.
I entrusted the Vice-President, the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General of the Curia with the investigation, as the editorial board includes also administrative leaders; as a result, leaders of equal or higher rank had to be tasked with the investigation. Let me repeat that the investigation aimed at establishing facts and not at establishing responsibility. Its goal was to provide an accurate response to press enquiries.
Third, let me say a few words about the BH journal:
The investigation extended to a review of the very wide repertoire of documents that could be found in connection with the publication of the journal. On the basis of this, the following key findings can be noted:
The journal concerned has existed for more than 70 years. In the pre-internet era, it was the only source of information from which a wider professional audience and the representatives of the legal profession could learn of at least the most important supreme-court decisions. With the advent of legal digital databases and their subsequent availability on the Internet, the journal’s importance did not diminish because legal digital databases took over several cases from the BH and published them.
The turning point came in 2012. From that date, there has been an official database of court decisions, namely the aforementioned Collection of Court Decisions, which is operated by the National Office for the Judiciary. This database contains almost all case-closing decisions issued by the Curia and many other courts. It was at that time when it became necessary to reflect on the justification for the BH’s existence. The Curia examined the question and decided that the official collection contained so many decisions that an informal - if you like, bibliographical - selection of the most important ones continued to be necessary. Therefore, the BH was kept, and the then President of the Curia published the editorial principles that have been followed ever since. These are set out in the investigative report, and I will not go into detail here.
The next situation where decisions had to be made arose in 2020-2021, when, due to the introduction of the limited precedent system, the official collection of decisions started to play a more important role because case law would have to be adjust to this. As a result of the consultations held at that time, it was proposed that the BH should be published in the future, too for the reason discussed in 2012, in order to make it easier to identify new developments, not as an official publication but as a selection of professional literature. As a result of this consideration, the Curia took over the journal, which was run by an outside publisher on the media market until then, and the print edition was discontinued. Only the online version is published that it is free of charge and is taken over by various digital legal databases, too.
Fourth, I would like to share some information on the editing of the BH.
The editing process, which has remained unchanged for decades, is as follows:
The Curia’s adjudicating panels put forward a proposal on the publication of certain judgements that have been delivered, but they do not have to give reasoning in connection with their proposal. Uniformity decisions, uniformity complaint decisions, and chamber opinions are automatically published without any proposal.
Proposals on publication are discussed by members of the editorial board who belong to different fields of law and are made up of judges assigned to the Criminal Chamber, Administrative Chamber, or Civil Chamber. As a result, they decide which cases should be published.
The edited text is sent to the editor-in-chief, who only checks it from a formal point of view and then ensures that the given issue is compiled. This is checked - but only from a formal point of view again - by the editorial board and finally by the chairperson of the editorial board, who is also the publisher of the issue.
The exact cases to be included in an issue are decided only on the basis of page layout limitations and the manuscripts of those cases which have been edited and will be published are usually ready several months in advance.
Fifth, I would like to sum up the publication of Case No. BH2024.3.
The publication of the case in question took place precisely based on the aforementioned editorial practice, which – let me repeat once again – is several decades old. On the judicial panel’s recommendation, the publication was discussed by the BH’ editors who operate in the Criminal Chamber. The reasons for this are not generally recorded in writing, but in this case, those who conducted the investigation posed questions during the fact-finding process. They were able to do so because the editors were interviewed in their editorial capacity, and not in relation to their adjudicative duties as judges.
According to the findings of the investigation, the case was published because it contained an important interpretation of substantive law. This concerned an assessment of the crime of coercion in connection with an official proceeding, which falls into the category of crimes against the judicial system. As the criminal act in question is not listed among sexual offences, there was not any obstacle in the way of publication. This circumstance was given special consideration. Therefore, the aforementioned question of substantive law was the reason for publication, and not even tangentially the fact that the accused had in the meantime been granted an executive pardon.
Finally, let me explain the consequences of the investigation.
On the basis of the investigation, the fact-finding committee drew the following conclusions:
- The journal’s editorial principles and methods have not been changed for decades.
- The fact-finding committee did not propose any changes to the journal's editorial principles or methods.
- It noted that technical improvements to the publication could be considered in the light of the continuing development of IT tools.
On the basis of the above, the following answers could be given to the questions that were brough up:
- Case No. BH2024.3 was published by applying to the usual principles and methods of the journal.
- There were no circumstances whatsoever that would have prompted anyone to believe that the editors failed to perform their duties to the best of their knowledge and professional conviction.
- Case No. BH2024.3 was therefore published lawfully, in a regular and justified manner with due consideration. Any type of inappropriate intention could be completely excluded.
In view of the above, the Curia considers the investigation closed. I have withdrawn the suspension of the editing and publication of the BH. The investigation has no further consequences. The investigative report contains all answers to questions that have emerged so far and may emerge from now on. The report is published on the Curia's website together with this news conference.
I thank members of the fact-finding committee for their prompt and thorough work, and members of the editorial board for their cooperation.
The Curia wishes to make no further comment on this matter.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Budapest, 26 February 2024
The Communications Department of the Curia of Hungary