23/1997.



FIND



The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic



On behalf of the United States



IV. the Senate of the Czech Republic's Constitutional Court decided on 28. November

1996 in the matter of a constitutional complaint against the resolutions of the regional court in Ústí

nad Labem-branch in Liberec, Czech Republic of 22 July. July 1996, no. 28

191/96-15



as follows:



Resolution of the regional court in Ústí nad Labem-branch in Liberec from the day

July 22, 1996, no. 28 191/96-15 is deleted.



Justification



In a timely filed a constitutional complaint against the above resolution

The regional court in Ústí nad Labem-branch in Liberec, which was

rejected the complainant's complaint against the decision of the District Court in Liberec

of 30 March 2004. May 1996 No. 18 Nt 1258/96-6 about taking the complainant to

links for reasons of § 67 (a). and), (b)) code of criminal procedure, the complainant maintains

your opinion that the contested resolution was breached the provisions of article

8 (2). 2, 3, 5, of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms ("the Charter").

General courts ruled on the binding on a proposal from the State

a representative contrary to the provisions of § 77 para. 1 of the criminal procedure code, as

time limit his personal freedom has exceeded 24 hours. Institutions of detention

suspects under the provisions of § 76 code of criminal procedure and the guarantee referred to in

§ 14 para. 1 (b). (d)), e) of the Act No. 283/1991 Coll., on the police of the Czech

Republic, as amended, are completely identical in substance.

Therefore, if the Charter in article 8 (2). 3 provides that an arrested person must

within 24 hours be released, subject to the

the provisions as to the procedure provided for in § 76 para. 1 code of criminal procedure, as well as on the

procedure in accordance with the provisions of § 14 para. 1 (b). e) of the Act No. 283/1991

Coll., as amended. For these reasons, the complainant should be

immediately released, so deciding on the custody

not at all taken into account. Courts on custody, moreover, properly

not even whether there are reasons the binding defined by law. From

for these reasons, the complainant contends that the constitutional complaint was

granted for a breach of article 8 (2). 2, 3, 5 of the Charter and to the contested

the resolution was withdrawn.



The regional court in Ústí nad Labem-branch in Liberec, said in the comments

President of the Chamber, that, if the complainant was secured pursuant to section 14 of the Act

No. 283/1991 Coll., as amended, cannot be this time

ensure the count towards the period of detention of the complainant, in accordance with relevant

the provisions of the code of criminal procedure. The time limit of 24 hours, in which the Prosecutor

According to § 77 para. 1 code of criminal procedure required to question the detained person to the Tribunal

with the proposal for custody, begins to run only from the moment of detention

the accused pursuant to § 76 para. 1 code of criminal procedure. This view, as in

the observations also States comes not only from the above-cited provisions of the

the criminal procedure code, but is in line with the commentary to the criminal procedure code and the

decision published under Act No. 10/1995 Collections of court decisions and

opinions. In the present case, then the reasons for custody

undoubtedly made.



The Constitutional Court, as already expressed in its findings, the Court is not

superior courts of the General, not the highlight of their system, and therefore no longer

cannot atrahovat the right to review supervision of their activities,

If these courts in their activity shall act in conformity with the contents of the head

the fifth of the Charter. In this respect, the Constitutional Court found the investigation file

The police of the CZECH REPUBLIC, the Regional Office of investigations, workplace, Česká Lípa, no ČVS:

KVV-63/20-95, and the Czech Republic Police, record-based District

Headquarters in Česká Lípa, of 28 June. in May 1996, the complainant was

secured on 27. May 1996 at 1.30 pm. the District Directorate

The police of the CZECH REPUBLIC in Jeseník, and due to the suspicion of having committed a criminal

the activity was "extracting" taken to Česká Lípa, where he was placed in the

cell to ensure and 28 June. May 1996 in 12. was passed to the

investigators for questioning. From the log of the detention of the accused having

28 June 1999. May 1996 at 1:15 pm. The police of the CZECH REPUBLIC, the regional authority

investigations, workplace, Česká Lípa, it is also obvious that the complainant was

under section 75 of criminal procedure arrested and this detention was announced

the State Prosecutor on 28. May 1996 at 1.30 pm. The Police Of The CZECH REPUBLIC, Regional

Bureau of investigation, Česká Lípa, made after a letter dated

May 29, 1996, the regional public prosecutor's Office in Ústí nad Labem--

branch in Liberec in a proposal on the committal, and referred to the State

the Prosecutor's Office subsequently drafted the code of criminal procedure, according to section 68 withdrawal

the complainant into custody. This proposal was on 29. May 1996 passed

The District Court in Liberec, which in its resolution of 30 March 2004. May 1996 No.

18 Nt 1258/96-6 decided to withdrawal the complainant into custody for reasons of § 67

(a). and), (b)) code of criminal procedure. On the complaint of the complainant against this

the resolution decided the regional court in Ústí nad Labem-branch in Liberec

by order of 22 March. July 1996 No. 28 191/96-3 so that the

complaint under § 148 paragraph. 1 (b). (c)) code of criminal procedure. In the reasons for the

their decision notes that, when making a decision on custody is to be

consistently be based on the provisions of the code of criminal procedure, which is to judge

authoritative, and due to which to arrest the complainant occurred on 28.

May 1996 at 1:15 pm. Then, even before there was to ensure

the complainant, in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the Act No. 283/1991 Coll., on

as amended, it is not for the Court to review this procedure,

as for the judge determining the existence of grounds for detention is

the only relevant provision of authoritative code of criminal procedure. In the contested

resolution of the regional court also concluded that the complainant's side

given the reasons for custody under section 67 (a). and), (b)) code of criminal procedure.



Ensure, pursuant to section 14 of the Act No. 283/1991 Coll., in the original

the text was essentially a purely riot because its purpose was to

eliminate the imminent or ongoing negotiations

of a threat to life, or the life or health of the secured

other persons or property [section 14, paragraph 1, point (b) of the Act)], in

you try to escape when the demonstration according to § 12 para. 8 and § 13 para. 5 [section 14

paragraph. 1 (b). (b)) of the Act] or verbal insults on the

the Police Department, and that of another person or a police officer, or intentional

pollution or damage to the equipment or police assets [section 14

paragraph. 1 (b). (c)) of the Act]. The amendment to this Act made

Law No. 26/1993 Coll., amending and supplementing certain laws in

the internal order and security, and of the measures with the

However, so far, has extended related reasons ensure about the reasons

qualifying to ensure the person who was caught while committing

the offence of [section 14, paragraph 1 (b), (d))] or on the basis of

kriminalisticky supportable information is suspected of training, try to

or a crime [section 14, paragraph 1 (b), (e))]. This amendment to the

the Institute ensuring in both cases shifted into the revised

purely statutes of criminal procedure. Ensure does not track in later

these cases, a mere pořádkový purpose, for what it is, is in

the fact of detention of either the offender or the person suspected

from the preparation, attempt or Commission of an offence. The Constitutional Court therefore has the

doubts about the constitutionality of the current case-law of the general courts governed by the

the view expressed in the resolution of the regional court in Brno from day 1. February

1994, SP. zn. 9, 47/94 and published in the collection of court decisions and

the opinions below # 10/1995. According to this opinion, ordinary courts,

If it was the suspect's personal freedom limited by his security pursuant to section

14 of the Act No. 283/1991 Coll., as amended, cannot be a period

the count towards the period of detention of the accused by

the relevant provisions of the criminal procedure code. The Constitutional Court has considered that the

If there is to ensure that persons suspected of having committed an offence, it is

should be a time limit of 24 hours according to the provisions of § 14 para. 3 of the Act No.

283/1991 Coll., as amended, včítat to the 24-hour period

for detention under section 75, 76 code of criminal procedure. The alternative approach to the relation

collateral under § 14 paragraph 2. 1 (b). (d)), e) of the Act No. 283/1991 Coll.,

as amended, and detention under section 75, 76 code of criminal procedure,

How is not yet common in the proceedings before the general courts, it is, in the opinion

The Constitutional Court, in breach of article 8 (2). 3 of the Charter, according to which the

the detained person must be released within 24 hours of freedom

or committed to a court. The judge must question the detained person within 24 hours from the

the committal and decide on custody or released.



Therefore, if the complainant was secured already 27. May 1996 at 1.30 pm. for

suspicion of a criminal offence, 28 June. May 1996 at 1.15 pm

h. under section 75 of criminal procedure arrested and Court passed until 29 April.

in May 1996, it has already happened after the expiry of a 24-hour period. From

that will have to conclude that if a complainant should be released on

freedom (section 75 of the third sentence of the criminal procedure code) and State representative to do so

and, conversely, has filed under section 68 of the criminal procedure code, the complainant's proposal for a withdrawal to

the ordinary courts could not bind such a proposal mentioned above


nezhojitelným lack of rozhodovati in substance at all. By general courts

not take into account this intervention to the personal freedom of the complainant and, regardless,

statutory, the need for his release have accepted a proposal from the

the Prosecutor and decide on the custody, violated

app's constitutionally guaranteed rights enshrined in article 8 (2). 2, 3, 5

Of the Charter.



The Constitutional Court therefore without further could already examine the reasons for custody

under section 67 (a). and), (b)) code of criminal procedure, a constitutional complaint for violation of

Article 8 (2). 2, 3, 5 of the Charter, pursuant to the provisions of § 82 para. 2 (a). and)

Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, upheld and the contested order

According to the provisions of § 82 para. 3 (b). and) of the Act.



President Of The IV. the Chamber of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic:



JUDr. Zarembová in r.