témavezető: Herke Csongor
helyszín (magyar oldal): PTE ÁJK Büntető és Polgári Eljárásjogi Tanszék helyszín rövidítés: AJK
A kutatási téma leírása:
In most cases, effective criminal procedure is unimaginable without using coercive measures. These coercive measures can violate various civil rights, but out of them the right to personal freedom deserves special attention. This special attention is reasonable not only because of the fact that this is one of the most fundamental human rights, but also because personal freedom is a civil right which is typically violated during the criminal procedure.
Personal freedom and other civil rights have to be respected at all times in criminal procedure, and can be restricted only in cases, and only in ways prescribed by law. The cases prescribed by law means the several coercive measures and the conditions of their application in the Hungarian Code of Criminal Procedure. Regarding the lawful ways of their application, four factors has to be taken into consideration: the coercive measure can be ordered only by a lawful authority with a lawful warrant for a period of time defined by law, and the coercive measures have to be executed according to the rules prescribed by law.
The Hungarian Code of Criminal Procedure lists a number of coercive measures which can restrict personal freedom. The code sets out the following coercive measures: custody, preliminary arrest and its surrogate institutions (prohibition to leave one’s place of residence, house arrest, restraining order, bail), the temporary forced treatment of the mentally ill accused, and the prohibition to leave the country.
Till the end of the 19th century the decision of ordering preliminary arrest by a judge became general in the democratic states. Two models were developed on ordering the preliminary arrest: the common law model and the continental model. In the common law model the arrest is an actual act of the law enforcement authorities: it happens either with a preliminary permission from a judge (arrest warrant), or without it, but the judicial decision comes always after the arrest was made, which decision excludes the opportunity for bail, or determines the opportunity to bail out the arrested person, and the amount of bail. In the event of this latter decision the magistrate issues the arrest warrant and declares on the back of the warrant, that the arrested person shall be set free if the bail was paid according to the conditions determined in the warrant. Practically, in the common law system the police have the opportunity to hold the suspect in captivity and interrogate him actually a few days before filing the indictment. The continental system developed from the French model. In this model the arrest and the investigational captivity (remand) was separated: whereas the arrest (which is equivalent to the custody in the recent law) could last only for a few days and could be ordered also by the police, on the captivity of the accused for a longer period of time (investigational captivity) only the court was allowed to decide, under conditions. The preliminary arrest in recent law is an equivalent of the investigational custody developed in the continental system. The Hungarian system follows the continental model, but the historical-comparative review of the legal conditions of several coercive measures limiting personal freedom can reveal the combination of the models mentioned above.
However, the doctoral research program intends to point out not only the existing deficiencies in the current regulation, but also the practical problems, and pays attention to the aspects of legal history and comparative law as well.
felvehető hallgatók száma: 10
Jelentkezési határidő: 2017-06-13
2024. IV. 17. ODT ülés Az ODT következő ülésére 2024. június 14-én, pénteken 10.00 órakor kerül sor a Semmelweis Egyetem Szenátusi termében (Bp. Üllői út 26. I. emelet).
Bejelentkezés
