Transparency International Hungary (TI) considers the application of reliability inquiries an effective anti-corruption instrument as long as their operation does not interfere with the constitution of democratic institutions. Not taking into consideration the confines of the constitutional state may provide opportunity for abuse which increases corruption risks.
According to TI, several points of the draft law include unconstitutional solutions violating the international commitments of the Republic of Hungary, specifically concerning the Rome Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed on 4th November, 1950. The introduction of the reliability inquiry appearing in the draft is solicitous in a sense that the inquiries are not efficiently controlled, furthermore the criteria of reliablility are not obvious. According to Noémi Alexa, director of TI Hungary, ’the draft gives opportunity for the misuse of the new instuments which not only raises unconstitutional solicitudes but also contradicts the international commitments of the Republic of Hungary. Additionally, it increases the risk of corruption in the country.
’TI also considers it problematic that for the time being, decrees and the commands of the ministry for home affairs regulate the tasks, institutional confines and details of fuctioning of the Protective Service of Law Enforcement Agencies (PSLE). In order to be able to fulfil its detection work, the PSLE disposes of similar rights and instuments as the national security services in course of which it may severely limit fundamental rights. Still, in an unconstituional way, rules relating to the functioning of the PSLE are not regulated at a normative level.
Dispositions determining the criteria of acceptable conduct are equally solicitous. The alteration defines as one of the three exclusive competences of the organ accomplishing internal crime prevention and detection tasks, to accomplish the monitoring of acceptable conduct concerning the member of the official file. According to the draft, acceptable conduct signifies that ’it fits the social expectations against those who belong to the official file’ meaning that ’the concerned person shows law-respecting behaviour, as their home and residential relations, along with their financial and income circumstances are all in order’. This definition includes several statements which violate legal security and therefore are unconstitutional. ’The meaning of social expectation against anyone is vague. Who determines, in which way and under which form the expectations of society?’- put the question TI legal expert Ádám Földes.
