40/2014 Sb.
The communication from the
The Constitutional Court
The plenary adopted the Constitutional Court under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/-14 day 4.
March 2014 in the composition of Stanislav Package, Louis David, Norman F
(Judge-Rapporteur), Jan Filip, Vlasta Formankova, Ivana Janů, Vladimir
The Crust, Jan Musil, Pavel Rychetský, Vladimir Sladecek, Radovan Suchánek,
Catherine Simackova, Milada Tomková, Jiří Zemánek and Michael April
on a proposal from the Senate the Constitutional Court i. pursuant to § 23 of the Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the
The Constitutional Court, in the case of the legal opinion and management led by appeal under
SP. zn. I. ÚS 1662/13, SP. zn. I. ÚS 1677/13 and SP. zn. I. ÚS 2164/13,
which deviates from the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court has issued in
the award of 2 July. March 2004, SP. zn. I. ÚS 180/03 (N 32/32 SbNU 293) and
in the report of 16 April 2004. 6.2011, SP. zn. I. ÚS 864/11 (N 116/61 SbNU 695),
This opinion:
The constitutional complaint is inadmissible if the complainant in criminal proceedings
the law does not give leave to appeal in the prescribed manner (section 75 (1) of law No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended).
Justification:
(I).
The reasons for the submission of opinions
1. At present, the judge-rapporteur in the idea of three constitutional complaints,
in which the complainants stated that they are of the opinion that in their case
There is no reason pursuant to section 265b dovolací criminal code and against
the previous decision therefore submitted a constitutional complaint, without
would have run out before an extraordinary legal remedy in the form of appellate review. In
all three cases, the complainants no longer a two-month deadline to submit
the appeal has passed.
2. On 22 November. 5. the Constitutional Court delivered a constitutional complaint
the complainants l. v. and j. v., below the SP. zn. I. ÚS 1662/13.
The applicants in the constitutional complaint argue that the courts did not take into account the
their proposals on the taking of evidence, in particular on the implementation of the local inspection,
which was proposed already in the preparatory proceedings, since, from the crime scene were
taken just the lack of photos. According to the complainants was not
the testimony of the witnesses established that the complainants would have committed the listed
criminal offences. The Court of appeal, according to the complainants did not deal evaluation
evidence individually, and in mutual context and the courts in their
nevypořádaly, stating the reason has not been performed
designed by evidence from the defendants. The complainants are of the opinion that
in their case it has been violated the right to a fair trial, as well as
the right to equality of the participants.
3. On 23 December 2005. 5. the Constitutional Court delivered a constitutional complaint
the complainant, j. v., conducted under SP. zn. I. ÚS 1677/13. The complainant argues
completely faulty and unconvincing facts which
the existence of a criminal conviction was based on the identification of
offenders and determine their roles in the legislative storyline, in principle on a single
evidence on the testimony of a witness, which, objectively, is based on the důkazně
useless and contrary to the law made by the recognition. On the basis of
theories about the fruits of the poisoned tree is according to the complainant, this dismissal
also unusable. As a result of arbitrariness of the courts in determining
the actual state of affairs, and given the formal rejection of the opposition completely
the defence was, according to the complainant, violated the right to a fair trial and
has not been honoured by the principle of the presumption of innocence contained in the article. 40 para. 2 of the Charter of
fundamental rights and freedoms ("the Charter").
4. On 12 December 2003. 7. the Constitutional Court delivered a constitutional complaint
the complainant, P. O. S., under the SP. zn. I. ÚS 2164/13. The complainant
pleads infringement of the principle of equality of arms, since, in its opinion, the courts
prevented the implementation of the key evidence of the defence and took position to the
dubious evidence clearly unreliable witnesses. Furthermore, according to the
the complainant has also been a violation of the right to proper justification of the decision
and a breach of the prohibition of arbitrariness in decision-making of the courts. The unconstitutionality of and
nepřezkoumatelnost decision the complainant also sees in the neglected
evidence. From the judgment of the Court of appeal from the complainant, it is clear that the
its objections, nor to her proposed evidence did not respond in any way. The complainant
It considers that the courts of both its constitutionally guaranteed has been infringed by degrees right
enshrined in article. 8 (2). 1, 2 and 5 of the Charter, as well as the right to a fair
process.
II.
5. According to the provisions of § 72 para. 3 and § 75 of the Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the
The Constitutional Court, as amended by later regulations (hereinafter referred to as "the law of
The Constitutional Court "), is a constitutional complaint inadmissible, if the complainant
all process has not exhausted the resources of the law to protect its
the law provides; This is true even for an extraordinary legal remedy that
the authority which decides on it, can be rejected as inadmissible for reasons of
Depending on his discretion, (amended effective from 1. 1.2013).
6. the relevant provisions of the Act of the Constitutional Court according to the
the opinion of the Constitutional Court and Senate quite unequivocally the obligation to
the complainants to exhaust before filing a constitutional complaint all process
the resources that the law the complainants to protect their rights provides,
Therefore the obligation to exhaust in criminal matters and the extraordinary appeal
a resource in the form of an appeal, if this is permitted.
III.
The existing practice of the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal in criminal
matters
7. it is clear from existing case-law, that the Constitutional Court has in the past to
the issue of the obligation of exhaustion of appeals in criminal matters
knowing whether a completely uniform. In finding SP. zn. I. ÚS 180/03 of 2 December.
3.2004 (N 32/32 SbNU 293), the Constitutional Court stated the following. "The complainant
his case has not submitted the appeal [section 265a et seq. of the code of criminal procedure (
"tr.")] and so it had to be built beyond a reasonable doubt that the
exhausted all the procedural means to protect their rights, because
According to the beliefs of the Constitutional Court may be the objections contained in the constitutional
the complaint effectively applied under any of the grounds under dovolacích
UST. section 265b para. 1 tr row. ... In this condition, with regard to the content of the
the contested decision and on the claims included in a constitutional complaint, could not
The Constitutional Court to reach a desirable degree of certainty to the conclusion that the complainant
has not exhausted all the procedural means to protect their rights, as has
referring to the provisions. section 75 para. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,
because of such means shall be deemed to act exclusively with funds
to allow effective defense against interference with constitutionally guaranteed rights and
freedoms. The current practice of the criminal dovoláních does not give the
guarantee that all the cases that the Supreme Court deliberates on the initiative of
the appeal brought by the accused, shall be assessed from the perspective of maintaining
constitutionally guaranteed rights to a fair trial, because the Supreme Court
in some decisions explicitly does not allow for substantive review of the
terms of the objections relating to the infringement of the procedural steps,
prescribed for the discovery of the facts and the assessment of evidence (§ 2
paragraph. 5 and 6 tr row.), and regardless of the severity of the consequences for
fair decision of the case (article 36, paragraph 1, of the Charter and article 6, paragraph 1,
Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms). " In essence,
the same line of argument, the Constitutional Court also used in finding SP. zn. I. ÚS
864/11 of 16 April 2003. 6.2011 (N 116/61 SbNU 695). In both cases, so
The Constitutional Court considered the constitutional complaint as permissible, even though the
the complainant has not exhausted all available means of protection of their rights.
8. Similarly, the Constitutional Court was also in several resolutions. For example, the
in its resolution SP. zn. IV. TC 3407/11 of 5 December 2002. 12.2011 [well resolution sp.
Zn. IV. The CS 430/11 of 2 December. 3.2011 (available as well as all other
the Supreme Court decision on http://nalus.usoud.cz)]
The Constitutional Court stated that "the Constitutional Court, in its decision-making practice, does not insist on
in criminal matters has always been against the meritornímu decision
Court of second instance shall be lodged before the attacks the decision of the constitutional complaint
the appeal, unless the constitutional complaints have been applied such objections,
that
prima facie
meet one of the dovolacích reasons according to the code of criminal procedure. This is because
both in terms of legal provisions, dovolacích reasons, as well as from the perspective of
judikatorní the practice of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the requirement of a constitutional
Court on the previous mandatory review was for the most part would be dovolací
formalistickým by adhering to the rule of inefficient usage of amending
resource. In addition, such a requirement would unduly delaying the possibility of
the Constitution of the review of the decision of the courts in those cases
When the complainant is perceived violation of the constitutionality of the technique, without at the same time
It considered that, in his case there is any dovolací reason embodied in the
the provisions of § 265b criminal procedure. "
9. The admissibility of a constitutional complaint with regard to (not) the exhaustion of appellate review in the
criminal proceedings are dealt with by the Constitutional Court in a resolution on SP. zn. IV. TC
851/11 of 18 May. 4.2011, saying: "it should be noted that the appeal of the
in criminal proceedings represents an extraordinary legal remedy that
the complainant is not, having regard to the limited circle of dovolacích reasons
strictly obliged to exhaust before submitting constitutional complaints. " To the said
the issue also applies the resolution SP. zn. II. TC 1707/09 dated March 6.
4.2012, where the Constitutional Court expressed this view: "in terms of the procedure for
a constitutional complaint is thus to be considered as a last appeal process
a means of protecting rights only if it can be applied within the
the opposition, which could be accommodated under the so-called. dovolací reasons. "
10. According to resolution SP. zn. III. TC 3458/10 of 14 April. 2.2011, is
primarily things the complainant, in order to assess whether the opposition, which is against
previous decisions of the general courts, can be effectively applied in the
the appeal, or whether you may apply directly to the Constitutional Court. "In the first place
It should be noted that the provisions of section 265a para. 1 and 2 of the code of criminal procedure (hereinafter the
"tr.") It follows that the appeal is admissible in such cases
an extraordinary remedy, however, due to the taxativnímu enumeration
dovolacích reasons (section 265b 1 tr row) may not always be "last
the procedural means by which the law to protect its rights to the complainant
provides "(article 72, paragraph 3, section 75, paragraph 1, of the law on the Constitutional Court). Is
While primarily a thing of the accused, to assess whether the objections,
against the decision of the Court of appeal (and, indeed, the Court of first
grades), can be "effectively" invoked in the appeal, or whether it can turn
"directly" on the Constitutional Court (However, if the answer a question incorrectly, you may
The Constitutional Court's procedure to find as "due to all the procedural
resources "within the meaning of section 75 para. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court and the constitutional
complaint to refuse to). " Similarly, the Constitutional Court also expressed in the resolution
SP. zn. II. CS 1157/11 of 17 November. 5.2011.
11. Podřaditelností the complainant put forward objections under legal
dovolací reasons for the Constitutional Court dealt with e.g.. in its resolution SP. zn. III.
TC 3242/01 of 28 June. 2.2008, States the following: "Since he founded
the constitutional complaint for the most part to the objections that are not
prima facie
podřaditelné under legal dovolací reasons referred to in the provisions of section 265b
tr. of the order, on the exhaustion of this remedy is not fitted
take place if a similar submission to meritornímu dovolacímu
the review did not lead; The Constitutional Court therefore considered the constitutional complaint as a
permissible (cf. e.g. resolutions SP. zn. II. the TC 405/03). " In its resolution
SP. zn. II. the TC 405/03 of 5 June 2003. 5.2004, the Constitutional Court stated that "no longer
repeatedly in its case law the Court held that appellate review is an extraordinary
remedy to rectify the law explicitly defined
procedural and substantive defects, however, is not intended to review the facts and
legal findings made before the courts of first and second instance.
Due to the fact that the complainant is building its argument in the constitutional
complaints about the objections, which are not under legal podřaditelné dovolací
the reasons given in section 265b code of criminal procedure, there is no need to take
the exhaustion of this remedy, since his Administration would clearly
did not lead to meritornímu of the review. In the present case, the Constitutional Court has come to the
the conclusion that the constitutional complaint is admissible. "
12. Podřaditelností the complainant put forward objections under legal
dovolací grounds, the Constitutional Court also dealt with e.g.. in its resolution SP. zn.
IV. TC 400/04 of 7 December 2004. 11.2005, when the Constitutional Court after an assessment of the
the complainant put forward objections concluded that these objections were based on
the opinion of the Constitutional Court can be accommodated under the dovolací a reason referred to in section
265b para. 1 (b). (g)) code of criminal procedure, the complainant thus had available
a further appeal in the form of appellate review and the constitutional complaint so
was considered as inadmissible. Similarly, the Constitutional Court proceeded also in
resolution SP. zn. II. TC 1707/09 dated March 6. 4.2010. The Constitutional Court also
He insisted on the exhaustion of appeals before filing a constitutional complaint in the case
populate the other dovolacích reasons-for example, in its resolution SP. zn. IV. TC
2/05 of 11 November. 4.2005 (section 265b, paragraph 1 (b), (d)) code of criminal procedure),
resolution SP. zn. II. the TC 207/05 (12/37 SbNU 747) of 31 July 2003. 5.2005 (section
265b para. 1 (b). h) code of criminal procedure), resolution SP. zn. I. ÚS 99/06 of
on 19 December. 4.2006 (section 265b para. 1 (b) (c)) code of criminal procedure), or resolutions
SP. zn. III. TC 3507/10 of 12 October. 9.2012 (section 265b (1) (a). l)
the criminal procedure code).
13. The Constitutional Court is therefore in the resolutions referred to in paragraphs 11 and 12
in fact, dealt with the objections put forward under the podřaditelností the complainant
legal dovolací reasons and on the basis of his or her own conclusion about the
nepodřaditelnosti referred to the opposition under the dovolací reasons under section 265b
Code of criminal procedure stated that there is no need to insist on the exhaustion of appellate review
and the constitutional complaint as permissible (e.g. case
resolution SP. zn. II. the TC 405/03 or SP. zn. III. TC 3242/07). On the contrary, in
other resolutions (e.g., resolution SP. zn. IV. TC 400/05 and more, see
above), the Constitutional Court held that the complainant claimed the opposition was
in the opinion of the Constitutional Court can be accommodated under the grounds referred to in § dovolací
the criminal procedure code, 265b complainants should be available next patch
the resource and their constitutional complaint was assessed as
inadmissible. Such a practice, when the Constitutional Court itself shall be assessed
the (non) existence of dovolacích reasons and decision-making activities
The Supreme Court, however, appears to be inconsistent with the principle of subsidiarity
a constitutional complaint.
IV.
The current decision of the Constitutional Court concerning the appeal in criminal
matters
14. Currently, the Constitutional Court dealt with the condition of the exhaustion of appellate review in the
criminal matters in resolution SP. zn. I. ÚS 3315/1 of 6 September 2005. 11.2013,
where the Constitutional Court on the condition the exhaustion of appeal in criminal matters takes
and States that "... the procedure for appeal, and in any of its stages, with
cannot find themselves outside the constitutional framework for the protection of fundamental rights. If there are
in the law restricting the right of access to court under this
an extraordinary appeal, it is required to interpret the dovolací Court
and apply the conditions of admission of the appeal so that it followed the maxims of law
to a fair trial as defined by the European Convention for the protection of human
rights and fundamental freedoms and by the Charter. In other words, when deciding on the
dovoláních in the context of criminal proceedings criminal procedure code must be interpreted as
constitutionally Conformal manner and conditions of admission of the appeal pursuant to section 265b
the criminal procedure code should be interpreted so as to satisfy the Constitution
provided for the obligation of the courts to provide individuals the protection of his
of fundamental rights. ... It follows that the Supreme Court is obliged to
the appeal judge, that it has in earlier stages of the procedure
violated the fundamental rights of dovolatele, including his right to a fair
process. ... In other words the objections to violations of the right to a fair trial
are always eligible reason such extraordinary appeal under section 265b para. 1 (b). (g))
Code of criminal procedure (see, mutatis mutandis for civil proceedings, resolution sp.
Zn. III. TC 772/13 of 28 July 1999. 3.2013, paragraph 11). ... The Constitutional Court would
therefore exceeded its powers if it submitted a constitutional complaint
has discussed without to namítanému violations of the right to a fair
the process had the opportunity first to express Supreme Court. " Judge
in that resolution, the rapporteur also points out that in this case does not share the views of the
referred to in resolutions, SP. zn. III. TC 3050/09 and SP. zn. IV. TC 3407/11,
It is considered obsolete even with regard to the new wording of section 75 para. 1
the law on the Constitutional Court effective from 1. 1.2013. In connection with the
the resolution is also should be noted that this decision was not
the complainant is prevented from access to the Constitutional Court, due to the fact that the
at the time of issue of the decision to the complainant still ran two-month time limit to
filing an appeal to the Supreme Court.
In the.
The principle of subsidiarity a constitutional complaint
15. the provisions of section 75 para. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court has its legal
the basis of the principle of subsidiarity a constitutional complaint, which also goes by the principle of
minimizing interference into the activity of the Constitutional Court of the public authorities,
which means that the constitutional complaint is a last means of protection
rights, emerging when the axle before such bodies is no longer
the standard procedure is possible. Constitutional justice is primarily built
on the principle of review things finally concluded, in which any
the unconstitutionality is no longer correct, the other way, IE. procedural
the resources are served from the legislation, governing the competent
(judicial) proceedings. The Constitutional Court does not belong to circumvent the law, since the show
is not part of the system of general courts (resolution SP. zn. III. TC 3507/10
of 12 October. 9.2012). Above all, the general courts
a priori
It is addressed to the imperative of formulated in article. 4 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic
(hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"). The protection of constitutionality in the rule of law cannot
only be the task of the Constitutional Court, but shall be the task of the entire judiciary.
The constitutional complaint, therefore, is a means of
Ultima ratio
[see, e.g. find SP. zn. III. TC 117/2000 of 13 October. 7.2000 (N 111/19
SbNU 79)] and is an instrument of protection of fundamental rights, after the incoming
the exhaustion of all available effective means to protect the rights of
applicable in conformity with the law on the system of public authorities
(resolution SP. zn. IV. The CS 2891/08 3. 4.2009).
16. the Purpose and functions of the constitutional complaint is remediation decisions or other
the intervention of a public authority to the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the complainant. To
This remedy, however, cannot occur without being exhausted all remedies
resources from law enforcement authorities, which are
available to the complainant. If the Constitutional Court would be contrary to the principle
of subsidiarity ruled myself without first have been exhausted all
options to achieve remedy of the infringement, could
while avoiding hitting the powers of other government agencies (here
General courts) and undermine the principle of the Division of competences. Therefore, in cases
When the complainant does not use all available procedural means of redress,
the Constitutional Court considers the constitutional complaint inadmissible (order sp.
Zn. III. TC 3507/10 of 12 October. 9.2012).
Vi.
To the decision-making activities of the Supreme Court
17. Dovolací control is in no way your stage is not outside of the constitutional
the framework of rules of a fair trial as defined Charter of fundamental
rights and freedoms and the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
(hereinafter referred to as "the Convention") and the decision-making practice must not interfere with the constitutional principle of
the equality of the parties. Likewise, the decisional practice of the General
courts to interpret domestic law with the obligations arising for the conformally
The Czech Republic of the relevant international treaties (article 1, paragraph 2,
Of the Constitution). The Constitutional Court notes that article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention (right to
to a fair trial) includes provisions, which must be the provisions of the
the legal procedural law is interpreted souladně, including those
the provisions of the code of criminal procedure, which define the grounds referred to in dovolací
the provisions of § 265b criminal procedure [find SP. zn. I. ÚS 55/04 of 18 May.
8.2004 (N 114/34 SbNU 187), similarly find SP. zn. II. TC 669/05 dated
5.9. 2006 (N 156/42 SbNU 275)].
18. Stand up or a plea that the competencies of the Court of dovolacího
deal with dovoláními by for reasons other than the reasons
resulting from the Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the code of criminal procedure.
Mandatory standards of competence are also for the Supreme Court article. 4, art. 90
and article. 95 of the Constitution in order to bind judicial power to protect fundamental rights. In
This spirit is to be interpreted as well as the legal definition of the dovolacích reasons of
which cannot be inferred the decision-making procedure that would
diversity in the ability to access different groups of the parties to the
The Supreme Court (find SP. zn. I. ÚS 55/04 of 18 May. 8.2004, similarly
find SP. zn. II. TC 669/05 of 5 July. 9.2006).
19. If the appeal Is an exceptional remedy, the purpose of which is
In addition to unifying the Judicature and the protection of fundamental rights, in particular,
then the constitutional complaint, the constitutional terms of their definition, cannot be
built next to the appeal in cassation, arguing that the defects, which are the interpretation of the excluded
of any review under the dovolacího of proceedings may be soothed in the
proceedings on constitutional complaints. This would become a constitutional complaint
dedicated an extraordinary legal remedy to correct the procedural and
factual errors of general courts, which, however, cannot, having regard to the
the constitutional definition of the role of the Constitutional Court (article 83 the Constitution).
Conversely, you can request that the Supreme Court interpretation of the provisions on the way
Code of criminal procedure of appeal to ensure the fulfillment of both these purposes control
of appeal (find SP. zn. I. ÚS 55/04 of 18 May. 8.2004).
20. the grounds for appeal are specified in an exhaustive manner in section 265b
paragraph. 1 (b). and to (b).) l) code of criminal procedure. Dovolací the reasons are
so framed that their content is not in the decision-making activity
The Supreme Court no doubt. In some cases, however, arise
doubts in application because under section 265b dovolacího para. 1 (b).
(g)) code of criminal procedure, pursuant to which the appeal may be filed, if the
"the decision is based on an incorrect legal assessment of the deed or other
an incorrect assessment of the material ". The interpretation of this dovolacího because of
shortly after its introduction, amendment to the criminal procedure code no. 265/2003 Coll.
carried out by Act No. 265/2001 Coll., implemented the Supreme Court very
in a restrictive manner, and the Constitutional Court, this approach to the control of
constitutionality of the repeatedly expressed. Delivered its opinion, in accordance with which too
restrictive interpretation of the merits test appeal is constitutionally untenable. In this
the context of the Constitutional Court recalled that dovolací control is in no way your
the stage is not outside the constitutional framework the rules of a fair trial
the finding of the Constitutional Court (SP. zn. II. TC 669/05 of 5 July. 9.2006).
the provisions of article 21. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair
process and article. 6 (1). 2 the Convention guarantees that the guilt of the accused must be
demonstrated in a lawful manner. The basic principle of fairness of the proceedings,
in particular, the principles of equality of arms and adversarial, is necessarily subject to the
and on the taking of evidence, in particular on how the evidence. The European Court of
human rights in their practice the doctrine, according to which the proceedings as
all must have a fair character of the required article 6 of the Convention,
including how to obtain evidence to the detriment and in favour of the accused
(cf. judgment of the Barbera et al. against Spain from 6 June. 12.1988
A146, section 68, or the judgment of the Schenk against Switzerland of 12 October. 7.1988,
A140, § 46n or Tseber currently, the judgment against the Czech Republic from the date of
22.11. 2012 No. 46203/08). Compliance with the rules of evidence, including
the taking of evidence, the credibility of the evidence Act guarantees
as a precaution against breaking the law-enforcement authorities in criminal proceedings,
ensures that the rights and freedoms of the citizen, is hitting only within the limits of the law and
guarantees the legitimacy of the law of the State to punish so (Repík, (B). the European Convention
on human rights and criminal law. Prague: Orac, 2002, pp. 194-195).
Checking compliance with these rules from the perspective of the right to a fair
the process does not belong only to the Constitutional Court, but agrees to the general courts.
22. The Constitutional Court is of the opinion that even a single evidence
(e.g. witness, scene recognition, inspection, etc.) and the way
its measures (call interception and recording of telecommunications, domestic
inspection and inspection of other premises, shipment tracking, etc.) or its
the omission may have a significant impact on the decision on the substance and its
the unconstitutional nature of the may violate the right to a fair trial (article 6
The Convention) or other right guaranteed by the Convention (article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention).
23. The opinion of the Constitutional Court referred to in the award SP. zn. I. ÚS 4/04 dated
23.3. 2004 (pursuant to which the incorrect assessment of the facts cannot be
strictly separated from the incorrect legal characterisation of the deed, because these
two categories are essentially inseparable), however, does not mean that
The Supreme Court in any case where leave to appeal even in
relation to the factual findings, had to be considered pursuant to section dovolací reason
265b para. 1 (b). (g)) code of criminal procedure for the
prima facie
filled with. When dovolatel argues fair trial rights violations in
the field of taking of evidence (dovolací reason pursuant to section 265b para. 1 (b) (g))
Code of criminal procedure), or another of the reasons set out in § dovolacích
265b para. 1 code of criminal procedure is based on the article. 4, art. 90 and article. 95
The Constitution of the United States is always the duty of the Supreme Court, duly consider and
decide whether the dovolatelem referenced the reason or not a reason for such extraordinary appeal.
It is the only legitimate authority, which at this stage is for the
assess the fulfillment of a specific dovolacího the reason (see paragraph 54 of the judgment
The European Court of human rights in the matter of Janyr and the other against the United
Republic of 13 October. October 2011, no complaints 12579/06, 19007/10 and
34812/10) and that assessment is mandatory as a condition for any
a constitutional complaint (article 75, paragraph 1, of the law on the Constitutional Court).
VII.
The preamble of the operative part
24. From the wording of the provisions of section 75 para. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by
effective from 1 January 2005. 1.2013, clearly shows the obligation of the complainants
exhaust all means that they act to protect their
the law therefore provides an extraordinary legal remedy in the form of an appeal
in criminal matters, if the appeal is admissible in the case. If it is in
the provisions of section 75 para. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court established an obligation to
exhaust and an extraordinary legal remedy, which the authority about him
Decides, it may be rejected as inadmissible for reasons that depend on
his discretion, the complainants must exhaust the extraordinary appeal
in the case where a resource is this permissible (section 265a code of criminal procedure).
25. the constitutional complaint is a means of protection of the rights, which is a subsidiary
to the standard "institutional" institutes. Above all, the general courts are
called upon to protect the rights of natural and legal persons, and only if it is not
achieved under the general remedy of the judiciary, may to the extent
limited aspects of the protection provided by the review of the constitutionality of the exercise
Of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court cannot consider itself meet
the terms of that open space to meritornímu dovolacímu review
This role is not for him. The question of whether the complainant meet the objections
one of the dovolacích reasons, should be considered by the Supreme Court, as if
so the Constitutional Court has made without this assessment, while avoiding interfering
in the activities of the Supreme Court and, by extension, the General of the judiciary.
26. the standards of competence are also Binding for the Supreme Court article. 4, art.
90 and article. 95 of the Constitution in order to bind judicial power to protect fundamental rights.
Dovolací control cannot be located outside the constitutional framework for the protection
fundamental rights and the rules of due process, as defined by the Convention, and
By the Charter. The Supreme Court is therefore obliged, in the context of appellate review to assess whether the
has not been in previous stages of the procedure violated fundamental rights dovolatele,
including the right to a fair trial. Any reasonable objection to infringement
constitutional rights is the basis for the annulment of the contested decision in the proceedings
about the appeal. The Supreme Court is in this stage of the proceedings shall, when assessing the
the appropriate dovolacího this rule is due to apply and
do not transfer this responsibility to the Constitutional Court. It follows that the
the claim of the complainants party inefficiency in the use of appeal
the form of the appeal cannot succeed.
VIII.
The conclusion of the
27. Since the conclusions of the legal opinion, deviating from Constitutional
the Court in finding SP. zn. I. ÚS 180/03 of 2 December. 3.2004 (N
32/32 SbNU 293) and in finding SP. zn. I. ÚS 864/11 of 16 April 2003. 6.2011 (N
116/61 SbNU 695), and the Constitutional Court. under section 23 of the Act
No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, the question of the complainant's duties
exhaust in criminal matters and an extraordinary legal remedy in the
form of appeal in relation to the admissibility of a constitutional complaint for assessment
the plenum of the Constitutional Court, which, with its line of argument in its entirety
identified and adopted a legal opinion, which is mentioned in the operative part of this
the opinion.
28. With regard to the rights of the parties and, in particular, with regard to the
the principle of legal certainty, this opinion apply to the constitutional complaint
submitted to the Constitutional Court on the day following the date of publication of the opinion of the
in the collection of laws.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský, v. r.
Different opinion referred to in section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,
as amended, have taken to justify the opinion of the full Court
judge Vladimir Sladecek, and Radovan Suchánek.
