DV in Criminal Law in Hungary:a case in worst practice or just a long

beginning of the road?

Regional Conference on Domestic Violence Legal ReformFebruary 12-14, 2008

Judit WirthSofia, 13 February 2008

NANE Women’s Rights AssociationHungary

Internet: www.nane.hu

E-mail: info@nane.hu

Mail: 1447 Bp. Pf. 502.

Advocacy for legislation

Public awareness raising (1994 ) Learning in an international environment

(Sofia 1997 –>) Targeting decision-makers (Baden

Conference Report 1998 Min. of Social Affairs; CEDAW Shadow report 2002 and letters to Min. of Social Affairs; position papers to Min. of Justice 2002, 2004, 2006 and on; Silent Witness Marches from Supreme Court to Parliament, from Min. of Justice to Parliament, etc.; NGO statistics)

Signature collection campaign (2002-2003)

Fora of the debate

Ministries (Justice, Social Affairs, Interior)PoliceParliamentConstitutional Court (mostly „infortmally”)Conferences (sites of backlash and of progress)Media

Politically loaded, gender blind and biased „legal arguments”, WHR standards disregarded, international results selected according to needs of backlash (mediation, family group conf.) – grim scene

Legal changes

„Soft law” 34/2002 Ministry of Interior Order 13/2003 (III. 27.) Chief of Police Provision 45/2003 (IV. 16.) Parliament Decree on the

creation of a national strategy to prevent and effectively combat DV

„Hard law” Code of Penal Procedure: Restraining Order

(effective as of July 1, 2006, drafts in 2004, 2005) Penal Code: Harassment (effective January 1,

2008)

A law limited by legislators: ignorance, indifference or cynicism?

Court decision Well founded suspicion of crime punishable by prison sentence if

there is reason to believe that accused would interfere w/ the criminal procedure by intimidating the victim complete the crime, or commit another (punishable by prison)

agst victim(language presupposes a kind of pre-judgement – lack of

training!) In case of private motion crime, the motion is required for the

application for restr. order Issued for 10-30 days Court sends the decision to victim and prosecution „If the accused deliberately breaches the rules of restraining and

fails to supply adequate reasons for that later, his/her pre-trial detention may be ordered or – if the latter is not necessary – a disciplinary penalty may be imposed on the accused”

„Reported missing”

DV not defined, not even mentioned Not immediate (no deadline for court) Private motion-crime catch 22 (+ no remedy in case of

offences) Non-renewable, no extension Inadequate in case of violation of the order Non-coordinated „response”, no victim-support Safety of victim(s) lost (rather, „safety” of procedure) Non-response for cases where parties never lived

together

Result in effect: restraining order is used, instead of arrest

Harassment (stalking) in the Criminal Code

Art. 176/A (1) Who, with the goal of intimidating (terrifying) another person, or in order to arbitrarily intrude upon another person’s private life, or everyday routines, regularly or for a lengthy period perturbs that person, especially (not exclusively) by contacting them through means of telecommunication or in person, if no graver crime is committed, commits a misdemeanour punishable by an imprisonment of up to one year, public service, or a fine.(2) Who, with the goal of intimidation (terrifying) threatens another person, or a relative of the target person, with the act of violence against person or an act causing public danger commits a misdemeanour and is punishable by imprisonment of up to two years, public service, or a fine.(3) Who commits the stalking against

a) an ex-spouse or ex-common law partner, b) a person under his/her education, supervision, care or medical

care,in case of section (1) above will be punishable by imprisonment of up to two years, public service or a fine, in case of section (2) above will commit a crime and will be punishable by imprisonment of up to three years. In effect as of January 01, 2008.

Still missing

Result vs. „goal” of perpetratorThreatening non-relativesEx-officio procedure – linking w/ restr. orderFine in cases when parties live together?!

Some of the recommendations of NGOs were implemented... but may be useless because of the formulation „goal”

How many more victims will have to suffer for the legislator to take a stand?