Inside Police Custody 2 If it is foreseen that due to their financial situation the defendant will be unable to pay the costs of the procedure or parts of it, authorities may grant them cost reduction, entailing that the fee and the costs of the defence counsel are advanced and borne by the state. In the Hungarian system, this equals the “means test” in terms of the Recommendation on legal aid. With regard to this, it may be raised that conditions for cost reduction are too rigid, and the question arises whether cost reduction is indeed available for all indigent defendants. In addition, research shows that defence counsels are appointed on the basis of the means test very rarely. The current Hungarian legal framework meets the requirements of Article 3(2) of Directive 2013/48/ EU as regards the time from which the right of access to a lawyer is in place, since the right to defence and the right of access to a lawyer are granted to the future defendants even before the suspicion is communicated to them. Earlier research results showed that in the investigation phase, provisions of the Old CCP related to the notification and the presence of defence counsels at interrogations, or the lack of such provisions could lead to deficient implementation of the requirement set forth in Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48/EU. The New CCP has brought about positive change in relation to notifying the defence counsels about the interrogation of suspects as well: it sets forth that authorities shall wait for the defence counsel for at least two hours before they can commence with the interrogation. However, as a main rule, the presence of the defence counsel remains non-mandatory at the interrogations of suspects, even if defence is otherwise mandatory. On the other hand, it is a positive development that the New CCP made the presence of the defence counsel mandatory for example at the interrogations of juvenile defendants. The New CCP introduced an important safeguard also with regard to the time available for consultation when setting out that authorities shall grant one hour for consultation as a minimum if the consultation could not take place earlier due to reasons beyond the defence counsel and the defendant. In addition, new rules make it possible in mandatory defence cases (for example for defendants who are detained or are unfamiliar with the Hungarian language) to consult with their defence counsel before the interrogation via phone, in accordance with Article 3(3)(a) of Directive 2013/48/EU and also Recital 23 of the Directive’s Preamble. In line with Article 3(3)b and 3(3)c, the New CCP sets out that defence counsels may, in addition to the interrogation of the suspect and confrontations, be present at certain further investigative acts, corresponding with Article 3(3)c of Directive 2013/48/EU. As far as the active participation of defence counsels at procedural acts is concerned, the new CCP sets out explicitly that the defence counsel may consult with the defendant also in the course of the procedural acts, and continues to make it possible for the defence counsel to actively participate at interrogations, including the posing of questions, making comments and putting forth motions. The significant limitation of the defendants’ procedural rights, such as the right of access to a lawyer, could – in compliance with Article 12(2) of Directive 2013/48/EU – lead to the exclusion of their testimony as evidence. As a response to the criticisms of the appointment system under the Old CCP, the New CCP introduced a significant change: it made the selection of the appointed defence counsel the task of the respective regional bar association instead of the proceeding authority, prescribing that selection should be random, but proportionate. On the other hand, it gives rise to concerns that there is still no system “to 72