The prosecution questioned Péter Magyar as a suspect in the phone theft case, the prime minister announced on his social media page. Magyar added that he gave a brief statement and “did not admit to committing the crime he was accused of.” Shortly before the post, he had still written that he would be attending a cabinet meeting lasting until the evening. The Hungarian Parliament suspended Péter Magyar’s immunity on September 28.
The theft case stems from an incident at Ötkert, a downtown Budapest nightclub, just days before Péter Magyar took up his seat in the European Parliament in 2024.
Witnesses reportedly gave accounts of Magyar behaving in an exceptionally disruptive manner for hours after consuming a large amount of alcohol.
The alleged victim, István Szendre, a mechanical engineer said the confrontation began after he started recording Magyar at the nightclub, Magyar Nemzet reports.
He added that Márk Radnai, Magyar’s fellow party member, noticed him first and began gesturing threateningly in his direction. Magyar then approached him and told him to stop recording. Szendre refused, at which point, according to his account, the later prime minister grabbed the phone and ran away. The man said that Magyar then went to the bar and tried to delete the videos, but was unsuccessful. According to István Szendre, when Magyar approached him again, he quickly put the phone in his pocket.
The man claimed that while he was asking for his phone back, Magyar struck him amid a series of political insults, prompting young people present at the scene to step between them. Security personnel then escorted Péter Magyar out, Szendre said. According to the alleged victim, on the street the future prime minister repeatedly denied having the phone, and then, near the Danube embankment, threw it into the river. Divers managed to recover the phone, and the data extracted from it is being used as evidence.
A police investigation into Péter Magyar’s scandal began that same day, following several criminal complaints, on suspicion of disorderly conduct and property damage.
The case was made particularly complicated by Magyar’s constitutional status. Just a few days before the incident at Ötkert, he had been elected a Member of the European Parliament. The results of Hungary’s 2024 European Parliament election were announced on June 14, meaning that, according to the European Parliament’s subsequent position, Magyar was already considered an MEP at the time of the June 21 incident.
For this reason, then-Prosecutor General Péter Polt wrote to the President of the European Parliament on September 26, 2024, requesting that Magyar’s parliamentary immunity be lifted.
The request was based on suspicion of the misdemeanor of theft involving property of relatively low value. The case was subsequently referred to the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee. The process lasted nearly a year, and Magyar was heard by the committee on June 24, 2025. On September 23, 2025, the committee adopted, by 20 votes in favor, four against, and no abstentions, a position recommending that his immunity be maintained. On October 7, 2025, the European Parliament’s plenary session ultimately decided not to lift Péter Magyar’s immunity. The prime minister had previously said on several occasions that he would not hide behind his immunity. Nevertheless, he did not call on MEPs to waive his immunity and allow him to face the prosecution.
As Hungary Today reported, on September 28, 2026, the Hungarian Parliament ultimately suspended Magyar’s immunity, clearing the way for the investigation to proceed.
The measure was approved unanimously, with 139 lawmakers voting in favor and no votes against or abstentions.
Zoltán Lomnici Jr. previously told Magyar Nemzet that the legal classification potentially applicable to the case involving Péter Magyar could be theft involving property of relatively low value, which is considered a misdemeanor. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment, although a fine, community service, or a suspended prison sentence may also be imposed. According to the constitutional lawyer, given the nature of the case, a fine or another more lenient sanction is more realistic than an actual prison sentence.