Hungary / County Court of Miskolc / Decision no. B.1725/2012/14

Country

Hungary

Title

Hungary / County Court of Miskolc / Decision no. B.1725/2012/14

View full Case

Year

2013

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Incident(s) concerned/related

Incitement to violence or hatred

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

County Court of Miskolc (Miskolci Törvényszék)

Key facts of the case

The defendant informed the authorities anonymously over the phone that bombs had been placed somewhere in town by his 'Muslim brothers', and that these Muslims would detonate the bombs unless the authorities released certain people from prison. The authorities soon realised that it was an empty threat, and that the defendant used the cover of the alleged 'Muslim brothers' as a decoy.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The prosecutor pressed charges on the grounds of threatening with public endangerment; however, civil society organisations (e.g. Working Group Against Hate-crimes) argued that the defendant's action could also qualify as 'incitement to hatred against a member of a community' since the defendant used the name of Muslims to pressure the authorities.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The key issue was whether using the name of 'Muslim brothers' in a threat of public endangerment could qualify as incitement to hatred against the Muslim community.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The Court found the defendant guilty of threatening of public endangerment, while it did not find the charges on incitement to hatred against a member of a community legitimate. While the defendant certainly used the common misconception of connecting terrorism to Muslims, the Court found that the defendant's intention was not to commit a hate crime, but to make his story more credible to the authorities.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

Excerpt from the reasoning of the decision:
'Tekintettel arra, hogy a vádlott fenyegetése nélkülözte a konkrétságot, sőt, kifejezetten komolytalan volt, cselekménye kizárólag a közveszéllyel való fenyegetés vétségeként minősülhet.'

'Given that the defendant's action was without any grounds, in fact, it was not even sincere, he only committed the misdemeanour of threatening of public endangerment'.

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.