The document contains just a few specifics and it is difficult to deduct from those such conclusions as the ones that aroused concern after the press conference. Still, several critical points remain. Below, we will discuss a few of these.
In the fourth point of the preliminary regulation, among other things, both parties declared their will to stand up against unlawful software use. The Act XCII of 2003 on the order of taxation does not mention that the APEH has any role in the field of illegal software use.
According to the act, the APEH handles all tax, budget support, tax return requests, tax returns, state guarantee allocations and claims and in cases of levying public dues, provided it was not assigned by law to another authority. However, we were unable to find any implications that the APEH should handle such tasks as criminal investigations that are in the competence of the police.
The only point of connection is Act XIX of 1998 on criminal proceedings
’(1) Everyone has the right to report a crime. Reporting crimes is obligatory, the failure to do so is a crime.
(2) A member of the authority and authorized personnel, as well as the public body, where the law states, also have the obligation to report a crime. naming the perpetrator, if known.
Thus, APEH has an obligation to report solely if the crime is uncovered in their jurisdiction, and can only take action regarding illegal software use if, during their examination of taxation they uncover facts that are criminally suspicious.
The Agreement Between the Hungarian Tax and Financial Control Administration (APEH) and Business Software Alliance (BSA) Has to
On Friday the HCLU have called upon the APEH to make public the cooperation agreement with BSA on the grounds of public interest data. The document was made accessible on the internet, even though previously the APEH stated that ’by unwritten law, such documents contain an obligation of secrecy, thus the original text will not be made public on the APEH’s webpage’.