Spitting at Stefania Road

The victim reported the case in writing to the prosecution service, and requested from the police via email that they acquire any (potential) CCTV footage. The prosecution service submitted the report to the court as they considered it slander (a crime with significantly lower penalty, with no reference to the hate motivation), in which case it is not the prosecution service, but the victim himself who prosecutes the case. The court ordered an investigation that was carried out by the district police, who identified the perpetrator. Meanwhile, based on the email about the CCTV footage, the Budapest Police also started an investigation of the case as violence against a member of a community, but the investigation was dragging on without the perpetrator being identified. When the investigation by the local police was finished, the court informed the victim of the successful investigation and summoned the parties to a hearing. When the victim learnt about the successful investigation by the district police, he informed the Budapest Police about it. It was only at this time that the police noticed there were two investigations in the same case. The victim also requested from the court the suspension of the slander case until the violence against a member of the community investigation is closed, stating that he would only want the slander case to progress if no charges are pressed against the perpetrator on account of violence against a member of a community. Rather than suspending the case, the court referred the case back to the prosecution service requesting investigation of the case as disorderly conduct (still disregarding the hate motivation in the case). Meanwhile, the Budapest Police based on the information they received from the district police closed the investigation, and requested from the prosecution service the prosecution of the case as violence against a member of a community. The decision of the prosecution service is pending.