The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic of
The Constitutional Court ruled June 20. April 2010 in plenary in the composition of Stanislav
Package, Francis Skinner, Vlasta Formankova, Turgut Güttler, Ivana Janů,
Vladimir Crust, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodým, Pavel
Rychetský, Miloslav Výborný, Elisabeth Wagner (the judge rapporteur) and
Michael Židlická of design II. Chamber of the Constitutional Court for annulment of the
the provisions of section 74 paragraph. 2 the second part of the sentence for a semicolon to Act No.
141/1961 Coll., on criminal court proceedings (code of criminal procedure), as amended by
amended, with the participation of the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament
the Republic and Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic as parties to proceedings
I. the provisions of section 74 paragraph. 2 the second part of the sentence for a semicolon, including
semicolon, Act No. 141/1961 Coll., on criminal court proceedings (the criminal
regulations), as amended, which reads "; If the release of the
After the publication of zprošťujícího-binding judgment, has a complaint of the State
the representative of the suspensory effect only, if the State Prosecutor also
appeal against the judgment, "is cancelled on the date of publication of this finding in the
The collection of laws.
II. The accused will always be zprošťujícího immediately after the release of the judgment
released. The complaint to the public prosecutor against a decision of the
the release of the accused from custody after the release of zprošťujícího
the judgment does not have suspensory effect
Even the definition of things) and recap the draft
1. In proceedings on constitutional complaints conducted under SP. zn. II. the TC 331/10
the complainant m. demanded the cancellation of the resolution of. High Court in Prague of the day
22.12. 2009 SP. zn. 10 To 125/2009, as it had for that top
the court violated the constitutionally guaranteed right to guaranteed article. 8 (2). 1, 2 and 5
The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (the "Charter") and also the rights of
enshrined in article. 5 (3). 1 (a). (c)). 5 (3). 3 and 4 and article. 6 (1). 1
Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter as "
The Convention "). The resolution of the High Court in Prague has repealed the resolution
The regional court in Pilsen, Czech Republic of 7 April. 12.2009 no j. T 3/34 2008-9891,
which the complainant was released from custody. On the basis of the
the complaints of the public prosecutor of the District Public Prosecutor's Office in Pilsen
the High Court set aside the discharge resolution of the regional court, the complainant
kept in custody and his request for release rejected.
2. The essence of the constitutional complaint, the complainant's doubts about that
then, what has been handed down over him and it was decided whether the judgment of the
his release from custody, the Court decided the investigative complaint
the Court of appeal of the State Prosecutor, who also filed a notice of appeal and the
zprošťujícího judgment, to keep the complainant in detention. This procedure
According to the complainant, it is in breach of article. 5 (3). 3 of the Convention in the interpretation
traktované the European Court of human rights (hereinafter "ECHR") since
1968 (the decision of the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY in the Wemhoff. from 27 April. 6.1968). Violations of the
fundamental rights of the complainant, was also in the fact that he was not the Chief
the Court allowed a personal hearing in the context of deciding on the duration of custody.
According to the complainant, it was also the decision of the High Court for its General
justification in essence nepřezkoumatelné.
3. the second Chamber of the Constitutional Court did not consider it part of a constitutionally Conformal
a semicolon sentence of the second paragraph of section 74. 2 Act No. 141/1961 Coll., on criminal
judicial proceedings (code of criminal procedure), as amended, as
contradicts the requirement on the adequacy of the limitation of personal freedom, when
does not respect the requirement of prokázaní the presence of reinforced the reasons for
Another limitation of personal freedom, who shows how the case-law of the
The Constitutional Court [find Constitutional Court SP. zn. IV. TC 689/05 of 12 December.
12.2005 (N 225/39 SbNU 379) ^ *], the ECTHR case-law of the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY (Wemhoff.
of 27 June. 6.1968, Labita v. Italy of 6 April. 4.2000, Rokhlina in.
Russia of 7 July. 4.2005, available at http://www.echr.coe.int), respectively.
This literally denies the request. Therefore, the plenum of the Constitutional Court submitted
application for annulment of the cited provisions.
I. B) representation of parties
4. The Constitutional Court pursuant to the provisions of § 42 paragraph. 4 and section 69 of Act No. 182/1993
Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the law of
The Constitutional Court "), the present proposal on the annulment of the contested
the provisions of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
5. The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, represented by the President of the
Ing. Miloslav Vlčkem, in its comments of December 12. 3.2010 only
rekapitulovala the course of the legislative process leading to the adoption of
the current version of the contested provisions section 74 paragraph. 2 the second part of the sentence for
the criminal procedure code by semi-colons. At the same time agreed with by refraining from
the oral proceedings.
6. the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, represented by Chairman MUDr.
Přemysl Sobotka, in representation of 12 June. 3.2010 also described
legislative procedure of adoption of the current version of the contested provisions of section
paragraph 74. 2 the second part of the sentence for the criminal procedure code by semi-colons (Amendment
criminal procedure carried out by Act No. 265/2001 Coll.) By the Senate. Further stated,
the whole of the present amendment was amendments to the criminal procedure with
reform ambitions and in its whole and legally monitor the substantive
the direction of the so-called progressive. continuity and law enforcement. The Senate
consultation the amendment is directly affected by the alleged legal section
editing; but the debate was conducted, in part, to any other comparable material
the amendment, i.e.. a new State Prosecutor.
extending bindings in the preparatory proceedings. This proposal on stronger
the State Prosecutor and the Senate after critical výborovém plenary
the hearing eventually nerevidoval. From the context of the management of the debate can be
arguing about a shift of the Senate to the petitioner's opinion, that it was necessary to
changed the position of the Attorney General in criminal proceedings, duly
to project the Institute links. The Senate also expressed agreement with the
abandonment of the oral proceedings.
The conditions of the appellant's evidence is active
7. the proposal to abolish the sentence of the second part of section 74 paragraph for the semicolon. 2
the criminal procedure code for his conflict with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic was
filed (II). appeal to the Constitutional Court in the framework of the constitutional complaint
the complainant, m. z. conducted under SP. zn. II. the TC 331/10 when the essence of the
the constitutional complaint was of the opinion that any continuation of custody after
announcement of the zprošťujícího judgment of the Court of first instance is in contradiction with the
The Convention, with the possibility of continuation of the links is based on the relevant part of the
first instance appealed against the provisions of the code of criminal procedure. It is therefore a proposal submitted
According to § 64 paragraph. 1 (a). (c) the Act on the Constitutional Court) and the conditions for active
the evidence to its submission were therefore met.
The diction of the contested provisions
8. The contested provisions of the second part of the sentence with a semicolon for the provisions of section 74
paragraph. 2 Act No. 141/1961 Coll., on criminal court proceedings (the criminal
regulations), as amended, reads as follows:
"If the release from custody after the publication of the judgment, the zprošťujícího
the complaint to the public prosecutor have suspensive effect only if the State has filed
the representative also appeals against judgment. ".
A description of the legislative procedures, the adoption of the contested provisions of the Act
9. The Constitutional Court is in accordance with the provisions of section 68, paragraph. 2 of the law on
The Constitutional Court in proceedings for the annulment of laws and other legislation
obliged to examine whether the contested act or part of it has been received and
issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and the constitutionally prescribed
in a way. The provisions in question were adopted before 1993, therefore, the
before the validity and effect of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"),
that represents the reference criterion for the assessment of the constitutionality of
the legislative procedure, the adoption of the legislation [see resolution of the plenum
The Constitutional Court, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/98 of 22 December 1998. 4.1999 (32/14 SbNU
309) ^ *]. Because in a later period adopted the changes were only
formal language, respectively, for the related mainly with the substitution
the institution of the public prosecution institution of public prosecutor's Office, the Constitutional Court
the legislative procedure for the adoption of the provisions of the Act nepřezkoumával.
Terms of reference for the assessment of the proposal
In) Relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Convention
10. According to the article. 1 (1). 1 the Constitution of the Czech Republic is the rule of law
based on respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. In the very
the base of the rule of law is "principle, according to which freedom is
the individual and the State assumed its limitations is the exception "(cf.. (C).
Schmitt. Constitutional Theory. Durham and London: Duke University
Press, 2008, p. 204). The idea of the rule of law therefore logically grows and
the whole concept of the criminal proceedings. Even in criminal proceedings must be a maximum of
examined individuals ' rights and freedoms, because of the purpose and method of bagatelizací
the management of the criminal proceedings may be unjustified and disproportionate
interference in the private individual freedom (cf. Constitutional Court
SP. Zn. II.-1975/08, available at http://nalus.usoud.cz). From
the constitutional point of view is always a significant assessment of the questions to which
extent can (still) in the public interest, as defined in the criminal code to
punishment, legitimately restrict the basic rights of the accused in the specific
course of criminal proceedings (cf. Constitutional Court SP. zn. I. ÚS
1305/09, available at http://nalus.usoud.cz), which primarily falls
just the right to personal freedom.
11. The provisions of the article. 8 (2). 1 of the Charter guarantees everyone a personal
freedom, which belongs in a catalogue of fundamental rights and freedoms of the front place
[cf. section 25 award SP. zn. PL. ÚS 63/06 of 29 June. 1.2008 (N 21/48
SbNU 223; 90/2008 Sb.) ^***]. Space and borders for constitutionally aprobované
restrictions on the right to personal freedom then lays down, in particular, the provisions of article. 8
paragraph. 2 and article. 8 (2). 5 of the Charter [cf. Constitutional Court SP. zn.
IV. TC 689/05 of 12 December. 12.2005 (N 225/39 SbNU 379)]. A similar, indeed
even more detailed adjustment includes the Convention on the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms. According to its article. 5 (3). 1 no one shall be deprived of his
freedom in addition to exhaustively set out the cases. The deprivation of personal freedom
may occur only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. According to the article. 5 (3).
1 (a). (c)) of the Convention can be an individual get rid of freedom because of the legal
the arrest of the person or other deprivation of liberty for the purpose of presentation prior to the
the competent judicial authority for reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence
or if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to prevent her in
committing an offence or fleeing after committing. In the article. 5 (3). 3
The Convention is then stipulated that anyone who is arrested or otherwise deprived of the
in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (b). (c)) of this article, shall
be immediately brought before a judge or other official person empowered to
by law to exercise judicial powers and has the right to be tried within a reasonable
period or released during the proceedings.
In B) limitation of personal freedom bound
12. The Constitutional Court has on several occasions commented on the nature of the binding, which include
together with the detention and arrest of most serious procedural interventions in
the rights of the accused. The content of the legal Institute of the binding represents the definition of the
constitutionally acceptable default reasons for limitation of personal freedom of the accused with the
order to prevent the destruction or hinder achievement of the purposes of criminal proceedings
[cf. Constitutional Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 4/94 of 12 April. 10.1994 (N
46/2 SbNU 57; 214/1994 Coll.), find SP. zn. I-40/04 of 24 September. 2.
2004 (N 28/32 SbNU 261), SP. zn. IV. TC 689/05 of 12 December. 12.2005 (N
225/39 SbNU 379)]. Temporary limitation of personal freedom is bound under
the opinion of the Constitutional Court must comply with several conditions [cf. point 25
the finding of the Constitutional Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 63/06 (see above)]: "between the basic
understanding limitations of personal freedom bound (which must podústavní the right to
reflect the necessity to include the imposition of binding) and holding in it just for the
a specific legitimate purpose, proportionality between personal freedom of the individual
and the company's interest to limit this freedom, the need for restrictions on personal
freedom for the absence of other means to achieve the same objectives,
balancing the benefits of the limitation of personal freedom with regard to this
the resulting losses, and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to decide finally. ".
13. Due to the fact that the binding can represent enormous intervention in personal
the sphere of the individual, was given to her in the case law of the Constitutional Court
extraordinary attention. In his opinion, binding "represents an exceptional
measures concerning the restriction of personal freedom and has to be stored only
then, if there is no other kind, how to limit a particular concern for
the binding can be ordered "(cf. Constitutional Court SP. zn.
II.-897/08, available at http://nalus.usoud.cz). The uniqueness of this
ensuring the Institute is given by the fact that the binding has serious negative
effects: relieves the "freedom of the person presumovaně the innocent before the
the definitive findings of guilt, isolates the accused from his family and
the social environment has serious social and psychological consequences,
It can serve as a means of pressure on the accused, in order to achieve its
the confession "(Repík, (B). the European Convention on human rights and criminal law.
Prague: Orac, 2002, p. 228). Because the binding can seriously
the personal freedom of the individual, it has to be, as a legitimate
a statutory exception to the general rule of inadmissibility of intervention in the personal
the freedom of the individual, always be interpreted exclusively in a restrictive way, how to
Indeed, the ECTHR case-law confirms. It has a list of exceptions to rights
on the freedom of an exhaustive character, and therefore is only a narrow interpretation of the
compatible with the objective of the provisions of the article. 5 of the Convention (Giulia Manzoni against
Italy, 1997, Quinn against France, 1995). The use of this process
the Institute should be always considered from the perspective of proportionality to
fundamental rights of the accused.
14. The intervention into personal liberty is to be seen always in terms of time;
because the binding is exceptional, the Institute can take only essential
a necessary period of time. It takes a longer time than is strictly necessary, the measures
unreasonable, unduly involved in the fundamental right to personal
individual liberty guaranteed article. 8 (2). 1 of the Charter, which is a
the situation should be granted priority. According to the ECTHR is "the continuation of the
limitation of personal freedom justified only if there are
a specific indication of the real needs of the public interest, which, apart from the
the presumption of innocence, the principle of respect for outweigh personal freedom "
[cf. e.g. decision in Letellier against France of 26 June. 6.
1991, Muller against France from 17 May. 3.1997, Punzelt against Czech
Republic of 25 June. 4.2000 or Jecius against Lithuania of 31 May. 7.
2000, cf. also find Constitutional Court SP. zn. IV. TC 689/05 of 12 December.
12.2005 (N 225/39 SbNU 379)]. The continued restriction of personal freedom
the binding must be in relation to the proportionality of the constitutionally konformnímu
the public interest in the effective prosecution of criminal activity. They change over time
on the contrary, decreases the legitimacy of the restrictions of fundamental rights for the benefit of the public
interest in the fulfillment of the purpose of criminal proceedings and amplifies the need to restore the
respect for the fundamental rights of the individual.
15. In order to ensure the respect and protection of the fundamental right to personal freedom,
the ECHR HAS developed the so-called. the doctrine of reinforced the reasons. According to this doctrine must
General courts to respect the requirement of necessity of the existence of a reinforced
the reasons for the duration of the restriction of personal freedom, otherwise it cannot be continued
limitation of personal freedom, even to the imposition of binding could be based on the
a reasonable suspicion, aprobovat. When assessing the proportionality of the restriction
the personal freedom of the General Court shall deal mainly with the fact that the
strengthened or weakened by suspicion of having committed an offence, for
which the accused is prosecuted. Specifically speaking, the duration of the suspect
"a sine qua non for legality of continued ties, but after a certain
While more is not sufficient in itself. In such cases, the Court must
determine whether there are other (relevant and sufficient) reasons presented by
law enforcement authorities in criminal proceedings, that would justify this
the continued deprivation of liberty "(decision of 7 December 2004. 4.2005 in case
Rokhlina against Russia). The national court must therefore determine whether additional
the reasons presented by the law enforcement authorities in criminal proceedings may justify
the continued detention of the person concerned (cf.. Hubálková, E.
Convention on human rights and the Czech Republic. Prague: Linde, 2003, s.
16. Because the ECHR HAS always assesses the adequacy of the time restriction of personal freedom
binding, specifically expressed in many of their decisions when
in terms of time can be considered binding even for reasonable, and when no longer
a binding represents interference in the right to personal liberty guaranteed by the Convention.
According to the ECTHR there is in fact a time limit, that deprivation of liberty
a binding must not exceed. As well as the Constitutional Court stresses (paragraphs 13 and
14), it is also proved by the exceptional, binding time well-defined on
as long as necessary. While the determination of the beginning of this period, usually
It does not present a problem, quite a crucial question is the determination of the end
the period of detention, which would be more in accordance with the Convention. From the case law of the ECTHR
It follows that this period starts at the moment when the person was effectively deprived of the
freedom, and ends with the publication of the judgment of the Court of first instance, although still
become final (cf.. Repík, (B). the European Convention on human rights
and criminal law. Prague: Orac, 2002, p. 228).
17. this rule is expressed in the decision of the ECTHR Wemhoff against Germany from
27 June. 6.1968, according to which the binding ends with regard to the article. 5 (3). 3
The Convention on the date on which the decision is made on the indictment, even though the Court of first
the degree. This legal opinion of the ECTHR has confirmed in its decision the Labita
versus Italy of 6 April. 4. in 2000, in which he said that the end of the binding with
regard to the article. 5 (3). 3 of the Convention is the day when the decision is made to
the merits of the prosecution, even if only in the first instance. From these
the decision clearly shows that the detention of a person after having been exempted from
guilt, can no longer be covered with the exception of the připuštěnou article. 5 (3). 1 (a).
(c)) of the Convention. The ECTHR, although he admitted that a deadline for the execution of the decision of the
the release of freedom is often unavoidable, but this time must be
reduced to a minimum (Giulia Manzoni from day 1. 7.1997). An important
implications of this legal opinion is that the duration of custody cannot be
extended performance zprošťujícího suspensory effect of the judgment. In a similar
case the reason for the deprivation of liberty under article. 5 (3). 1 (a). (c) of the Convention)
ended up. From the case law of the ECTHR, it is possible to infer the conclusion that if the
Court of first instance declared the exculpatory judgment, the accused must be
immediately released, although the State Attorney immediately appealed (cf..
Repík, (B). the European Convention on human rights and criminal law. Prague:
ORAC, 2002, s. 229). If the accused is released, it must be stated,
that is a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed article. 5 (3).
1 of the Convention. To the further limitation of personal freedom may occur during filling
disposition of the anticipated article. 5 (3). 1 (a). and the Convention, which allows)
lawful incarceration after conviction by a competent court. A person who, after
condemnation disputes that lasted a long time because of the binding of the unreasonably delays in
the procedure for the appeal, cannot rely on article. 5 (3). 3 of the Convention,
but can only argue and prove violations of the rights guaranteed by article. 6
paragraph. 1 of the Convention.
In C) Inspiration elsewhere: practice in the Slovak Republic
18. The Constitutional Court States that the ECHR HAS found the response of the practice described in the Slovak
Republic. Slovakia has adopted an extensive amendment of the code of criminal procedure, which
should ensure respect for the fundamental rights of individuals, in accordance with
as interpreted by the Slovak Constitutional Court, and in particular the ECTHR. The Case Law Of The ECTHR
to the article. 5 (3). 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention has been comprehensively implemented in
Code of criminal procedure of the Slovak Republic. So Slovakia fulfils the commitments,
that arise from the Convention. The explanatory memorandum of the Slovak Ministry of
Justice of 2007 lists the specific changes that this amendment
points. One of them is the unconditional release of the accused from custody
After the liberation of the Court of first instance. The Ministry of Justice on the
This site referring to supporting the principles of the ECHR decision in the matter of Wemhoff
against Germany from 1968 (see p. 4). Explanatory memorandum on left
against Italy, Labita decision which States that the more the duration of custody
After the zprošťujícím the judgment already cannot justify the exception permitted under
article. 5 (3). 1 (a). (c)) of the Convention. In other words, binding after publication
acquittal decision loses backing in the provisions of subparagraph (c)) article. 5
paragraph. 1 of the Convention, the extent to which the procedural guarantee article. 5 (3). 3 of the Convention, which
It guarantees the right to be tried within a reasonable time limit, in relation to this
the provisions of the Convention. Therefore, it is not possible to hold a person in custody,
If it was about the legitimacy of the charges already decided. The explanatory memorandum
stresses that, in accordance with the decision in the matter of Wemhoff is
the date on which binding ends the day when deciding on the charges, albeit only by a Court of
first instance (cf. p. 23).
Your own review
19. The Constitutional Court and in the light of the above constitutional aspects
He had to judge whether the incriminated parts of the contested provisions comply with the
the requirements arising from the above principles, and came to the conclusion that the
This is not so.
20. The provisions of section 74 paragraph. 2 the second part of the sentence with a semicolon for the criminal
the order modifies the suspensory nature of the complaint, the public prosecutor after the publication
zprošťujícího judgment is under appeal at the same time. The exculpatory
the judgment is issued when not on the basis of the
the evidence established guilt of the accused, whether because of that (and) has not been proven,
that the offence for which the accused was prosecuted at all, or (b) in
plea, the proposal marked a deed is not a criminal offence, or (c) was not
evidence that the accused committed this deed (see § 226 criminal procedure
where are laid down and some of the other reasons). Following the release of
zprošťujícího judgment of the Court must examine the investigative phase, whether the reasons for custody
last or have not changed (see section 72 (1) of the criminal procedure code).
Since the accused was acquitted by a court decision, is entirely in the
the obvious, that the reasons for detention are no longer made, and that the duration of the
the binding is no longer justified. Just because the General Court immediately after the
release zprošťujícího of the judgment issued also a resolution on release from custody
to freedom. The current wording of the provisions of section 74 paragraph. 2 the second part of the sentence for
a semicolon criminal procedure then in effect represents the permissions
the Prosecutor's decision to the Court for release from custody, albeit on time
limited period of time, until the decision of the appeal court to reverse.
21. In terms of constitutionality is hardly acceptable to
the continuity of the limitation of personal freedom was not bound by the judgment zprošťujícím
in no way impaired. In the opinion of the Constitutional Court, this legislation
criminal procedure authorizing the Prosecutor to lodge a complaint with the
suspensory effect contradicts the narrow interpretation of the article. 5 (3). 1 (a). (c))
conjunction with article. 5 (3). 3 of the Convention. The text of the fallen part of the
the provisions of the code of criminal procedure is completely unambiguous and its deficits
Unable to overcome the constitutionally Conformal interpretation.
22. The Constitutional Court therefore came to the conclusion that the contested part of the provisions of section
paragraph 74. 2 of the code of criminal procedure is in direct contradiction with the requirements arising from the
the principles contained in the case law of the ECTHR (paragraphs 14 to 17), which are not
the Czech legislation are respected. The continued restriction of personal freedom
After the release of zprošťujícího judgment ceases to be justifiable from the
public interest in the effective prosecution of crime, as
It is not filled with the requirement of the presence of reinforced the reasons for the
the links (item 15). If the case law of the ECTHR, to cope with the resulting time
result has been increasing reasons that legitimised the continued duration of custody, it is
obvious that this requirement not part of challenged provisions of the criminal
the order of honour. Release zprošťujícího of the judgment in fact causes
the disappearance of these reasons. In other words, the waiver of the indictment represents a
the moment in the course of criminal proceedings when the reasons for leaving in the
custody disappeared or are selectively reduced to a minimum, because the charge is
showed the unauthorized, and that verdict, and therefore not given the public
interest on the duration of custody, which might prevail over the requirement of the
respect for personal freedom. If it is given by the Court of the obligation to deal with the
with that, whether it is strengthened or weakened by a suspect of committing a
the Act (section 15), following the release of zprošťujícího judgment
justification is refuted by the suspected by a court decision on the
neoprávněnosti charges. The release of the accused could not be considered
premature, even if it is given the option to appeal the Prosecutor in
against the accused, the Court of appeal. As the Constitutional Court has declared
already in the find sp.. SP. zn. IV. TC 689/05 of 12 December. 12.2005 (N
225/39 SbNU 379), the reason for the extension of the binding of a completely
neodůvodněném a hypothetical conclusion on the compliance of the appeal options
the Court of appeal "is completely arbitrary, contrary to the article. 8 (2). 2. 5
Of the Charter, not only by extending over the legal framework of the reasons for the restrictions
personal freedom, but also the fact that it puts the complainants charged to implicitly
the expected inability to rebut the Court of first instance
23. Suspensive effect of complaint raises the status of the public prosecutor, when the
from an individual required greater sacrifice than is possible from the person to whom it is indicative
the presumption of innocence-Court confirmed here, reasonably require. The constitutional
the Court cannot, therefore, accept the concept of the Czech legislation, according to which the
the links for the moment. Implementation of competence
set napadaným the provisions of the code of criminal procedure prosecutors leads to
undue and protiústavnímu to the fundamental right to personal
freedom, however, must be respected even in the formulation
criminal law standards. Therefore, we can conclude that the duration of the custody
cannot be extended through the suspensory effect of the decision on the release of
ties caused by complaints of the public prosecutor, since this construction leads
to undue interference with constitutionally guaranteed the right to personal freedom
of the accused.
24. The Constitutional Court has in a number of its decisions, the interpretation of the article.
paragraph 89. 2 of the Constitution [cf. Constitutional Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 2/03 of
19 July. 3.2003 (N 41/29 SbNU 371; 84/2003 Coll.), find SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
41/02 of 28 October 1999. 1.2004 (N 10/32 SbNU 61; 98/2004 Coll.), find SP. zn.
PL. ÚS 45/04 of 22 December. 3.2005 (N 60/36 SbNU 647; 239/2005 Coll.)],
According to which "the binding is not only the operative part of the award, but also the justification, or you
its parts, which include, ' reasons. " The provisions of section 74 paragraph. 2
the criminal procedure code will grant the contested part of the sound: "suspensory effect
My only complaint with the public prosecutor against a decision to release
the accused from custody and the parties to the complaint against the decision of the připadnutí
financial guarantees of the State. If, however, was the Prosecutor in the publication
such a decision, his complaint has suspensive effect only
then, if it was made immediately after the announcement of the decision. ". This provision
It will be necessary to unload the constitutionally conformally so that this standard cannot be applied
in the case of a judgment in the case issued exculpatory. The result of the abolition of
the part of the code of criminal procedure must be that the accused will always be after the release of
zprošťujícího judgment immediately released. The complaint
the public prosecutor against a decision to release the accused from custody on
the freedom after the release of zprošťujícího judgment does not have suspensory effect. The constitutional
the Court is aware that a time limit for the execution of the decision of the
release on freedom is necessary, however, recalls that in the case Labita
against Italy (item 17) was the delay in the release from custody of the reason
the necessity of the implementation of administrative formalities in the length of approx. 10 hours
the ECHR HAS found to be unreasonable.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
* Note. Red: a collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, Volume 39,
find no 225, p. 379
** Note. Red: a collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, volume 14,
the USN. No 32, p. 309
NB. Red: a collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, volume 48,
find no. 21, p. 223, no. 90/2008 Sb.