Hungary / County Court of Miskolc / Decision no. B.1725/2012/14
Country
Hungary
Year
Decision/ruling/judgment date
Incident(s) concerned/related
Related Bias motivation
Groups affected
Court/Body type
Court/Body
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'.