20/2006 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic
The Constitutional Court ruled 8 February. November 2005 in plenary in the composition of Stanislav
Package, the judge-rapporteur, Francis Skinner, Vlasta Formankova, Turgut
Güttler, Pavel Holländer, Ivana Janů, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jiří Mucha,
Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodým, Pavel Rychetský, Miloslav Výborný, Eliška
Wagner and Michael Židlická in the matter of the proposal of the District Court in the affirmative,
for that is the President of the Senate by Mgr. l. k., on abolition of the provisions of section 53
paragraph. 1 and section 54 of Act No. 218/2003 Coll., on liability for youth
unlawful acts and the judicial system in matters of youth and change some
laws (the law on the judicial system in matters of youth),
as follows:
The proposal is rejected.
Justification
(I).
1. Day 2. June 2004 the Constitutional Court delivered a draft of the District Court
in the affirmative, which the appellant seeks the release of the award, which would be a Constitutional
the Court annulled the provisions of § 53 paragraph. 1 and section 54 of Act No. 218/2003 Coll.
juvenile liability for unlawful acts and the judiciary in matters
Youth and on amendments to certain acts (the Act on the judiciary in matters
Youth).
2. the applicant stated that the District Court in the affirmative is proceeding,
SP. zn. 4 Tm 25/2004 in the criminal case the accused young person L. B.,
NAR. 26.11. 1986, and co., which the prosecution blamed that committed
the offences of theft under section 247, paragraph. 1 (a). b) and d) (a). 3 (b).
(b)) of the criminal code, and more. The District Court in the affirmative is when the criminal
things shall in the case of an accused young person L. B. and other
the defendants, apply the law on the judicial system in matters of youth as a whole
even in the moment when he decides to order and carry out a major version.
3. According to the applicant, it is the provisions of § 54 paragraph. 1 of the law on the judiciary in
matters of youth in conflict with the article. paragraph 96. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter the
"the Constitution"), and with the article. paragraph 38. 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms
(hereinafter referred to as "the Charter"), the provisions of § 53 and section 54 paragraph. 2 and 3 of the law on
the judicial system in matters of youth are in breach of article. 17 paragraph. 1, 4 and 5
Of the Charter.
4. the applicant pointed to the fact that prior to the effectiveness of section, paragraph 54. 1
the law on the judicial system in matters of youth, with regard to public participation in
the main version and a public session, apply to the adjustment of the juvenile
the provisions of § or § 297, paragraph 200. 3 (b). and the code of criminal procedure). According to the
This edit has been accurately and strictly defined reasons, when you can admit
an exception to the principle of the public. On the application of such derogations in the context of the
the present case, the Court had to decide, and it was and is a
decisions of a procedural nature, against which there is no appeal.
From my own experience and from information in Kladno District Court concludes that
before the efficacy of the Judiciary Act in matters of youth cases in which
an exclusion of the public, "was a minor little, slightly, in the
relative to other things we ended up well below one percent and
Surely we could rather talk about tenths of one percent of all
Court cases ", while after the effectiveness of the Judiciary Act
in matters of youth is the public is absent in the range of seven to eight
percent of the criminal cases, pending in the District Court in the affirmative.
In the opinion of the appellant, the law on the judicial system in matters of youth
has not adhered to in the least "democratic principles and the rule of law and
disputes and threatens "one of the fundamental constitutional kautel, consisting in the
the public exercise of judicial power, and in particular article grossly contradicts. paragraph 96. 2
The Constitution, which permitted the exclusion of the public only in exceptional
cases, with the exemption, even if "on the basis of the law, nearly one-tenth
criminal cases from public hearings, is not the fulfilment of the spirit
Of the Constitution. The claimant further explains that the public court proceedings
means "any citizen of the State of law and the persons who are not citizens
the State of the executing judicial power ", to participate in the main version and the
public meeting. At the same time it is so declared willingness on the part of the State
to exercise the judicial power democratically, transparently, publicly, on the basis of the
laws. The presence of the public in the courtroom has an informative function and
awareness and is a means of public control over the legal system.
5. the applicant does not agree with the fact that as a result of the application of the provisions of section 53
paragraph. 1 and § 54 paragraph. 2 and 3 of the law on the judicial system in matters of youth
priority the interest of the young person before, to the widest possible group of citizens
should the immediate and proper knowledge and experience from the operation of the courts,
in particular, in order to "people commonly met and presented as public
at the meeting of the courts, if such a State defines as legal and
Democratic (article 1 of the Constitution), and he wants to make it as such
seen even by the citizens who live in it ". Points out that, after
the effectiveness of the law on the judicial system in matters of youth courts in proceedings against the
adolescents are getting to the position of the so-called. "the Cabinet of justice". Projector
recalls that the findings of the Constitutional Court often mention principle
proportionality as the scale of the assessment of the constitutionality of the statutory standards. According to the
his opinion, "the legislature has been inappropriately and definite-unevenness ancestor of interest
the individual above the interest of society as a whole, consisting
by the way of such individuals, as is the defendant a youthful ".
It is considered, that cannot be restricted even in the media citizens access to information in the
so widely for so large a group of people solely on the basis of a hypothetical
the possibility of adverse effect on the future life of the accused
juvenile criminal prosecution. The "Media Watch"
the case of the murder of the teacher concludes that protection from disclosure of information
the reference by the Act on the judiciary in matters of youth "
ineffective ".
II.
6. the Constitutional Court challenge filed pursuant to section 69 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the
The Constitutional Court, as amended, through the mouth of its President.
Lubomir Zaorálka representation of the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament
of the Republic. The Commission noted that the law on the judicial system in matters of youth
accesses to address unlawful acts in a broad context of all their
moral and social aspects. Unlike the criminal codes for
adult criminal law for juveniles is oriented to the future and
the focus of his interest, therefore, lies in the adoption of such measures,
through which you can avoid a relapse. The intention of the legislature was
incorporate into the law on the judicial system in matters of youth, starring the so-called.
restorative justice (restorative), which puts the emphasis on a balanced
fair response company on juvenile crime, which
does not waive its co-responsibility for his failure and draws from it
consequences not only for himself, but also for solving other
interested persons and groups associated with the crime. The provisions of section 3 of the
paragraph. 5, § 53 and section 54 Judiciary Act in matters of youth for
special rights of minors to protection from intrusion into their personal
Privacy in the interest of minimizing the possible effects of stigmatizujících management
and his results in the cases pending before the courts for Youth Affairs.
A special interest in the protection of privacy and personality of juveniles justifies the
confidentiality of information relating to its unlawful acts before the constitutionally
protected principle of public proceedings before a court and the right to information, and
due to the largest removal of harmful effects on management
the young person, including the effects of the difamujících of his person, and on the basis of the constitutional
the principle of the presumption of innocence. Specific rights of minors contained in the
the provisions of § 53 and 54 Judiciary Act in matters of youth is to be
to assess whether or not in relation to the article. paragraph 32. 1 the second sentence and article. paragraph 32. 6
Of the Charter. The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic also pointed out
that the right to information or the principle of public court proceedings
do not have an absolute nature. The ability to limit the effectiveness of the public in the criminal
the proceedings against a juvenile and the right to information and the major
international treaties by which the Czech Republic is bound. It is necessary to take into
account of the article. paragraph 96. 2 of the Constitution, article. paragraph 38. 2 of the Charter and article. 6 (1). 1
Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the article. 40
paragraph. 2 point vii) of the Convention on the rights of the child. Against the opinion of the
the petitioner, the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic considers
It approved the provisions of § 53 and 54 Judiciary Act in matters of youth
the optimal way to balance the interest of the young person of the accused on one and
intermediate objectives, which is to ensure the application of the principles to the public, on the
the other side. In conclusion, she expressed the opinion that the legislature acted
in the belief that the law is adopted in accordance with the Constitution, the constitutional
policy and legal regulations of the Czech Republic. The assessment of the constitutionality of the
context of the proposal the District Court in the affirmative is then according to the Chamber of Deputies
the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic to the Constitutional Court.
7. the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic through the mouth of its President doc.JUDr.
Petr Pithart in its representation of the recounted navrhovatelovu
arguments and prefaced that in its own committees and plenum Chamber
the contested provisions of the proposal were expressed to any comments. From
the general debate is, however, recalled some of the beliefs that
to address the present then subsided after the draft law on the judiciary in
youth matters. A majority recognised that the aim of the Act on the judiciary in
youth matters is to achieve better results in the balance of delinquency
Youth and crime in General, particularly in terms of recidivism, and more
criminal careers of offenders. You can only stop the negative development in the
age category of youth, and that the methods of positive action. In
news coverage of the Constitutional Law Committee, pointed out that the draft law
shall ensure that the reduced side "labelling" of a young
the perpetrators, which is solved by limiting the disclosure of information concerning the accused and
convicted minors, including the newly introduced penalties for exceeding the
these prohibitions. Contrary opinions were based on the contrary from the belief that
stopping piracy is in all age categories should be clear and
a hard warning (threats). The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic underlined that
indirect constitutional support of the contested provisions is to be expected
in particular the provisions of article. 32 of the Charter. Comprehensive protection of youth
contained in the Convention on the rights of the child of 1989, in which article. 40 paragraph. 2
It is reminded that in all stages of the criminal proceedings was fully
recognised the privacy of the child. The Senate also points out that the legislature was at
the adoption of the contested provisions encouraged also the conclusions of the other
international documents in the field of the treatment of delinquent youth.
It was the UNITED NATIONS documents, in particular "the minimum standards of the judiciary over the
the youth "(the so-called. Peking rules-resolution 40-33 of 1989), but also
Council of Europe document, eg. Recommendation R (87) 20 on social reactions
on juvenile delinquency. The proportionality of the contested provisions of the Act (exception
of constitutional rights) should be looked at through the lens of the meaning of the specific adaptations
the judicial system in matters of youth. The accent is more naturally placed on
support of the subjective rights of minors than on the value of the "collective"
for example. control of the judiciary to the people, in particular the protection of minors
law enforcement is its aim in the public interest on the term
stop the growth of crime. Exceptions to the constitutional rights of the public
proceedings before the Court and the law on the dissemination of information have a direct link with the
the purposes expressed in section 1 of the law on the judicial system in matters of youth. The Senate
The Parliament of the Czech Republic also pointed out that the legislature
i followed along the lines of the case-law of the European Court of human rights.
The Senate recalled further that the provisions of the article. paragraph 96. 2 of the Constitution and article. 38
paragraph. 2 of the Charter acknowledges the existence of exceptions laid down by law. Also
the right to seek and disseminate information may be in accordance with the article. 17 paragraph. 4
The Charter limit by law. The contested provisions of section 53, paragraph. 1 and § 54 paragraph. 2
and 3, represent "a very subtle legal restrictions". Small intensity
the exception is evidence e.g., the fact that according to the article. 3 (b). (e)) "the ethical
the code of journalists of the CZECH REPUBLIC "is journalist invited to strict compliance with the rules
neidentifikovat related offenders or victims without their clear
permission. The Senate said that, in the contested provisions of § 54 paragraph. 3 sentences
the last act of the judiciary on matters of youth is given the option of
the President of the Senate, to consider whether the priority granted to the one or other
the law in conflict of the freedom of information dissemination with the law on the protection of
Privacy is justified. The necessity of limiting the right to disseminate information
expressed in the contested decisions brings positives in perspective
the action of the law when the phasing out of the criminal careers of juvenile
offenders, the downside of the restriction of freedom of speech in favor of the
modification of the right to privacy do not appear to be significant. Finally, The Senate
The Parliament of the Czech Republic expresses its opinion on the draft law on
the judicial system in matters of youth has passed in a majority belief that the
the draft law is in line with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and
international obligations of the State. It is on the Constitutional Court to assess
the constitutionality of the contested provisions of the proposal and decided.
III.
8. The Constitutional Court shall be in accordance with the provisions of section 68, paragraph. 2 of law No.
182/1993 Coll., as amended, dealt with the question of whether the law,
which is namítána the unconstitutionality of the contested provision was adopted
and within the limits of the Constitution provided for issued and constitutionally prescribed
in a way. This is the law No 218/2003 Coll., on liability for youth
unlawful acts and on the judiciary in matters of youth and change some
laws (the law on the judicial system in matters of youth). In this direction of
the relevant Council prints, těsnopiseckých reports and data on the course of the
the vote, the Constitutional Court found that the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament
the draft law of the Republic duly approved at its meeting held on 21.
May 2003 and the Senate of the Czech Parliament approved the proposal as amended by the
transferred deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic at the meeting
held 25 March. June 2003. After the signature of the President of the Republic and the
the Prime Minister has been promulgated in the collection of laws under no. 79 in the amount.
218/2003 Coll., the law in question was adopted and published within the limits of the Constitution
established competence and constitutionally prescribed way.
IV.
9. the provisions of which the applicant is challenging and requires the following: cancel
"section 53
(1) unless otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall in any way
disclose any information that explains the name, or names,
and the last name of juvenile, or which contains information that would
allow this youthful key.
§ 54
(1) the main version and a public meeting may participate only
the accused juvenile, his two důvěrníci, 27), his lawyer, legal
representatives and relatives in direct tribe, siblings, spouse or friend,
damaged and his agent, witnesses, experts, interpreters, the competent authority
the socio-legal protection of children, officials of the probation and mediation service and
a representative of the school or educational facility. On a proposal from a young person may be
the main version or public meeting took place in public. 28)
(2) publishing information on the progress of the trial or the public
the meeting, which would have led to the identification of a juvenile in public
the media or other means, is prohibited. As well as
It is prohibited to publish any text or images
concerning the identity of the young person.
(3) the judgment shall be published publicly in the main proceedings in the presence of
the young person. Condemning judgement may be published in a public
the media only without the indication of the name and the last name of juvenile and
When a reasonable protection of juveniles against unwanted effects of its
the publication. President of the Chamber may, taking into account the nature and character of the
wrongdoing and adequate protection of the interests of the young person to decide about another
the method of publication and on restrictions with the United. Against such
the resolution of the complaint is not admissible. "
In the.
10. The Constitutional Court first dealt with the question of whether the applicant is-
The District Court in the affirmative-action for annulment of the contested shall be entitled to the provisions of the
the lodge. The appellant correctly pointed out that the contested provisions must apply
in criminal proceedings, as he challenged the indictment against a juvenile
the accused, and then comes on the agenda of the main regulation therefore
version. The Constitutional Court ruled that the contested provisions related to
the decision-making activities of the applicant and, therefore, the District Court in Kladno
authorized by the applicant in accordance with article. paragraph 95. 2 of the Constitution and § 64 paragraph. 3
the law on the Constitutional Court.
VI.
11. After this discovery came the Constitutional Court to assess the content of the
the contested provisions of the law on the judicial system in matters of youth in terms of
their compliance with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic [article 87, paragraph 1,
(a). and) of the Constitution].
The appellant set out its proposal for two constitutional objections, and that the
the provisions of § 54 paragraph. 1 of the law on the judicial system in matters of youth is in
contrary to the provisions of the article. paragraph 38. 2 of the Charter (the right to public
consideration of the case) and that the provisions of section 53, paragraph. 1 and § 54 paragraph. 2 and 3 are in the
contrary to the provisions of the article. 17 paragraph. 1, 4 and 5 of the Charter (the right to
the information). The third objection lies in the fact that the challenged provisions of the Act
about the judiciary in matters of youth distorts the proportionality between the interest on the
protecting the privacy of minors prosecuted on one and the law on the
information on the other side, in favour of the protection of the privacy of the criminal
prosecuted minors.
The Constitutional Court předesílá that both the provisions of the article. paragraph 38. 2 of the Charter,
article. 17 paragraph. 1 do not confer any rights on the unlimited public hearing things
or information. In both cases, it is up to lawmakers, to
what extent the right to public hearing or the right to information
the law limits. Due to the fact that a number of provisions of the Charter, together
related, they should be interpreted together, mutually system
subordinačně, which is the "freedom of the legislature by the Charter precisely and strictly
regulated "(cf.. F. Šamalík, the character of the constitutional order and its
protection, Lawyer No. 1/1998, p. 23). When assessing whether the law
restricting fundamental rights and freedoms constitutionally conformist or not, is
then usually need to take into account aspects of the právněfilosofické,
právněhistorické and komparatistické.
12. General legal note traditionally sees the right to public hearing
things as a tool of public control of the judiciary. The purpose of the public hearing
"is that each přesvědčiti might have about how it is held by the State
Justice, which control the audience impossible becomes all the
strannost of judges "(cf. the password" Public ", in: Encyclopaedia, Rieger
IX, Prague, 1872, p. 997). The purpose of the public hearing of the case was
in the Czech lands for a long time considered to be the only one. From the case law of the
the Czechoslovak first Republic the Supreme Court has repeatedly
serves that purpose, "which the law with the provisions of the neveřejnosti the main
version only tracks, i.e. proceedings held without a permit
public control. In this single purpose public capital
the trial is not in accordance with the law the distinction between proceedings before the jury and before
the Senate and does not monitor or when the jury Act, in particular, the intention, it would be a powerful
the impression of the mood of his audience in the Hall of the jets at the jury Assize "[cf..
decision No. 4336/1932, in: f. serious Decision of the Supreme Court
Czechoslovak Republic in criminal matters (hereinafter referred to as "serious"), XIII,
1932, p. 568]. Likewise, it took the Supreme Court to prvorepublikový
the conclusion that "the purpose of the Act is the public accountability of the venue
Justice, judging on the white day, not in the dark secret of the
the proceedings. Therefore, the concept of the public served as opposed to secret and is
just a matter of praktikability, to what extent can the audience be given
access to the version for the investigation of unbreakable postulátu inadmissibility
adversely impact operating on the legal procedure and the factors to
It súčasněné "(cf. decision No 1729/1925, in: Serious, VI, 1925
p. 549).
Interwar Czechoslovakia belonged together with Germany (in 1923) and the
Austria (in 1928) to the States, which have adopted laws on the judiciary in
youth matters [cf. e.g. closer H. Válková, responsibility for youth from
the perspective of criminal policy, in: E. Alexa B. Cooper, (eds.), Sudeten Germans
1999-2005, Pilsen, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "Válková, Responsibility"), pp. 128-129].
The provisions of section 48, paragraph. 1 of law No 48/1931 Coll. and n., of the criminal
the judiciary over the youth, specifically regulates the exclusion of the public in
the proceedings against a juvenile as opposed to the General arrangements of the criminal proceedings.
The public could judge by the cited provisions excluded under the conditions
the consent of the Attorney or legal representative, and that it was "on the
the benefit of the accused. " To benefit the young person was, indeed, put the accent
in the decision of the Court on the exclusion of the public in the main version and the
public meeting against a juvenile and criminal procedure code in section 233 87/1950
Coll. and section 297, paragraph. 3 (b). and) the criminal procedure code no. 141/1961 Coll.
From the above, legally, the Constitutional Court ruled the historical reminiscence,
that in the Czech lands have been traditionally perceived as such constitutionally Conformal
the legislation, which was based on the premise that public participation is
conceived as a guarantee of public control of the judiciary and at the same time that, in the
limiting public participation in proceedings against a juvenile is placed a special
the emphasis on the interests and benefit of the juvenile. The Constitutional Court adds that
the provisions of § 101 of the Constitutional Charter No. 121/1920 SB. z. a n. was similar
article. paragraph 38. 2 of the Charter, since it allowed the public "dressed in the trial
be excluded only in cases laid down by law ".
Above the traditional premise fills in the opinion of the Constitutional Court and the
the contested provisions of § 54 paragraph. 1 of the law on the judicial system in matters of youth.
According to the cited provisions is left to the mladistvém, whether the chosen
the variant offered by the last sentence of section, paragraph 54. 1 of the law on the judiciary
in matters of youth, i.e.. will propose that the main version or public meeting
It took place in public, or not. Although this proposal may formally
According to the cited provisions do only youthful, not to be overlooked,
It will be able to-with regard to the necessary defence in proceedings against the
it-consult with your attorney. On the contrary, does not allow editing by
the Court, without the existence of legitimate reasons to exclude the public from the main
version or public meeting, and thus would not address the question of whether-speaking
in the words of the appellant-"is dokladována the willingness on the part of the State to perform
the judicial power democratically, transparently, publicly, on the basis of the laws. "
The right to a public hearing of the case is a fundamental right of the tenderer,
and not the Basic Law of the Court or the judge. The Constitutional Court of its
After the effectiveness of the decision-making practice of the law on the judicial system in matters of youth
has not experienced that application in the context of the juvenile section, paragraph 54. 1
the law on the judicial system in matters of youth seeking protection of their right to
public hearing of the case according to the article. paragraph 38. 3 of the Charter, since the challenged
the provisions of the emergence of such a situation logically significantly narrows.
The Constitutional Court is in conformity with the doctrine that a law on the judiciary in
youth matters is consistently subordinated to the interests of the juvenile. It does so with
regard to the age and intellectual maturity of young people. These starting points are in
an effort to minimize the stigma of minors from the ongoing management
reflected in the provisions of § 54 paragraph. 1 of the law on the judiciary in
youth matters. The legislature came from the consideration that the requirement of the protection of
the personal privacy of minors throughout the proceedings is determined by the interest of their
protection from the harmful effects of the external environment and the publicity (cf.. And the.
Sotolář, to protect the privacy of minors under the law on the judiciary in
youth matters, criminal law review, no. 4/2004, p. 128-129).
The contested provisions of § 54 paragraph. 1 of the law on the judicial system in matters of youth
It is Conformal with article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention for the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms, which allows you to exclude the public ... for the entire
or part of a process ... required by the interests of the minors, or ...
should, owing to special circumstances, public proceedings could be on
prejudice the interests of Justice. The Constitutional Court is aware that, with "a certain
dose of simplification "can be recorded in the current trestněpolitickém
the development in this field has already been indicated above, two contradictory trends. The first
the trend, which is typical for Great Britain and Scandinavia,
where is the model of the UNITED STATES is pushing the neo-classical criminal law doctrine,
based on the indeterminismu of the will of the individual and of the consequent
as a result of the company-the law to respond strictly and uncompromisingly on
any violation of the standards of criminal law, regardless of age, mental
or moral maturity of the perpetrator. The rate is determined by the degree of responsibility here
the severity of the offences committed by the personality of the offender, rather than deployed.
The second trend, applied for example. in Austria, Switzerland, Germany and the Czech
Republic, based on the contrary. of the key role of age and closely
related to the degree of progress of reason and intellectual development, to
on the contrary, the importance of a particular background gives way to the severity of the committed tort
(cf.. Válková, Responsibility, p. 132). This second trend, which
and Czech Republic, found in relation to the contested determination section 54
paragraph. 1 of the law on the judicial system in matters of youth support in a variety of
international documents in the field of the treatment of delinquent youth
for example. in the Convention and the rights of the child of 1989 (Note red.: published under the No.
104/1991 Coll.). Peking rules-UN resolution 40-33
"The minimum standards of judicial supervision" of 1989, and last but not least
a number of the recommendations in the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe to Member States concerning the
with new ways of dealing with juvenile justice delikvencí and mission
[year of youth. (2003) 20 (hereinafter "the recommendation Rec (2003) 20"]. To conclude,
"if it's age, and other special features of the child, as well as the circumstances of the
the criminal process, the modified permit, with the participation of selected management and
informing the general interest would be sensible to remove
Justice was more transparent, could meet (cf. the decision of the
The European Court of human rights in case T. v United Kingdom
of 16 June. December 1999, stíž. No 24724/94, and in the United.
the Kingdom of 16 June. December 1999, stíž. No. 24888/94).
13. The Constitutional Court when considering the constitutional conformity of the contested
the provisions of § 53 paragraph. 1 and § 54 paragraph. 2 and 3 of the Act on the judiciary in
youth matters-based in terms of the General právněfilosofický-preview
from the same considerations as in the assessment of the constitutionality of § 54 paragraph. 1 of the law on
the judicial system in matters of youth.
The Constitutional Court also dealt with the issue of the right to information from multiple
aspects. In doing so, took into account that traditionally is perceived in the Czech lands
as logical, that the boundaries of the public, and thus to some extent options
to implement the right to information directly at the court hearing, is limited.
Repeatedly it was judikováno that "the question is, to what extent praktikability
the audience may be given access to the version "(cf. decision No.
1729/1925, in: Serious VI, 1925, p. 549, and decision No. 4218/1932
in: Serious XIII, 1932, p. 340).
The Constitutional Court is aware that the public hearing of the case has a secondary
the possibility of potential educational activities [cf.. K K, The Constitutional
right, good water (2002, p. 338.] This objective is of course to serve
and the realization of the right to information. In this context, the Constitutional Court took in
that recommendation Rec (2003) 20 in the article. In, the last sentence of paragraph 25,
expressly lays down the requirement of neuveřejňovat information that identifies
youthful offender and the victim.
The educational activity of the Court, or the educational effect of the criminal proceedings on the
the recipient of the information is not, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court shall be associate
always just with the identification of the offender. More profound information for
education to respect for the rights and justice are of course related information
with the facts and their legal assessment that can be used for
the effectiveness of the contested provisions to get at the public announcement of the judgment
and that can be used without any kind of restrictions to freely manifest and
spread. Cannot be disregarded in this direction given in moderation right § 54 paragraph.
3 the law on the judicial system in matters of youth to the President of the Senate.
The Constitutional Court took into account the fact that similar restrictions on freedom
search for and disseminate information also contains the article. 3 (b). (e)) code of ethics
journalists of the CZECH REPUBLIC.
14. The Constitutional Court finally examined the contested provisions with regard to
proportionality of the relation between interest in protecting the privacy of the criminal
prosecuted minors on the one, and the right to information on the other side.
He came to the conclusion that the legislature nevybočil the limits of his
By the Charter.
In this respect, the appellant only stated that in the "meat" of between seven and eight
percent of the cases is from 1. 1.2004 the public away. The Constitutional Court
He said entirely the opinion of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic,
the downside of the restrictions on the freedom of speech in favor of the modification of the law on
Privacy does not appear to be significant compared to the positives of those in
the perspective of the action of the law when the phasing out of criminal careers
juvenile delinquents.
15. Then, when the participants agreed, dropping the Constitutional Court under section
paragraph 44. 2 of the law on the Constitutional Court from the oral proceedings and after
management proposal for the District Court in the affirmative on the repeal of the provisions of section 53, paragraph.
1 and § 54 paragraph. 1, 2 and 3 of the law on the judicial system in matters of youth,
Since this provision in abstracto, are not in conflict with article. paragraph 96. 1 and
2 of the Constitution, article. paragraph 38. 2 and article. 17 paragraph. 1, 4 and 5 of the Charter (article 70, paragraph 2
the law on the Constitutional Court).
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
