Hungarian Constitutional Court chief criticizes justice minister over prosecutor comments

Constitutional Court President László Gajdos has publicly criticized Justice Minister Judit Varga's remarks about Prosecutor General Péter Polt. Gajdos stated that Polt, in his capacity as chief prosecutor, possesses immunity akin to that of members of parliament, but stressed that this immunity does not grant impunity.

“

The question of political judgment and criminal liability cannot be conflated. The former can be a subject of public debate; the latter requires specific facts and the legal conditions for initiating criminal proceedings, and evidence assessed in due process.

Gajdos further elaborated that Polt, even as chief prosecutor, had immunity in 2004, and the Constitutional Court ruled that the chief prosecutor is not politically accountable to the National Assembly for decisions made in individual cases. He also noted that this does not exempt him from criminal liability for actions that constitute a crime.

"The question of political judgment and criminal liability cannot be conflated. The former can be a subject of public debate; the latter requires specific facts and the legal conditions for initiating criminal proceedings, and evidence assessed in due process," Gajdos wrote. He added that in Hungary, criminal liability is decided by independent courts acting under the law, not by ministerial Facebook posts. "The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right for everyone, not a political favor," he stated, directing a jab at Varga.

“

In Hungary, criminal liability is decided by independent courts acting under the law, not by ministerial Facebook posts. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right for everyone, not a political favor.

Gajdos also pointed out that the minister did not name any specific case, offense, or evidence but presented it as a fact that he would have to "account for my actions" before a state body to be established soon. "This is not legal reasoning, but a political pre-emption of the outcome of a procedure that has not even begun and of my personal responsibility," he indicated.

“

This is not legal reasoning, but a political pre-emption of the outcome of a procedure that has not even begun and of my personal responsibility.