According to the Ombudsman the present system creates a possibility where in certain cases a relationship of dependence may develop between the investigating authority and the defence counsel.

For example some of the lawyers acting as defence counsels need to have such appointments for making a living, and it might result in their unwillingness to confront the authorities which help them to earn a living by appointing them for the defence, even if such confrontation would be necessary for professional reasons.

This legal environment, which in general creates unworthy circumstances for appointed defence counsels, hinders the enforcement of the fundamental rights of defence and decreases the effectiveness of the legal institution of the appointed lawyer.

Already in 1996 the Ombudsman in office at the time called attention to the formal nature of the enforcement of the fundamental rights of defence, which has not changed ever since, as we can infer from the latest report of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights. Instead of the present system of appointments, defence counsels should be chosen according to the methodology adopted and supported by the Bar Association, guaranteeing general and individual quality assurance – says the Commissioner in his report.

The present regulation of the legal institution of the appointed defence counsel infringes the requirement of legal certainty, the fundamental rights of defence, as well as the fundamental right to due process.

Máté Szabó thus recommended to the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice to review the legal provisions relating to the appointment of defence counsels and to initiate their modification, taking into account the proposals of the Hungarian Bar Association, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights.

Source: obh.hu