84/1999 Coll.



FIND



The Constitutional Court



On behalf of the United States



III. the Senate's Constitutional Court decided on 13 June. November 1997 in case

the constitutional complaint against the resolution of the Supreme Court from 20. August 1997 sp.

Zn. 2 Tvno 33/97 and the High Court in Prague from 25. July 1997, SP. zn. 4

NTV 28/97 on the extension of the binding



as follows:



1. The Supreme Court's Resolution of 20 November 2003. August 1997, SP. zn. 2 Tvno 33/97

is hereby repealed.



2. the complainant's Proposal to repeal the resolution of the High Court in Prague of the day

July 25, 1997, SP. zn. 4 Ntv 28/97 is hereby rejected.



3. The position of the intervener, J. Ch., t. no remand prison in

České Budějovice, unacknowledged.



From the grounds



(legal opinions expressed in finding that have general meaning)



1. According to the article. 8 (2). 5 the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, no one shall be

taken into custody, but on the grounds and for the period provided by law and on the basis of

the Court's decision. From the constitutional maxims, in conjunction with a legal

condition of detention only in the strictly necessary time, as well as in conjunction

with the opinion of the Constitutional Court expressed in case SP. zn. PL. ÚS 4/94 (No.

214/1994 Coll.), the time the definition of binding, or one of its extensions in

specific things need to be even more specifically, after due justification, provided

and cannot arise directly from the law. The period provided for by law, by

that provision of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms represents

the maximum legal limit of the duration of the binding (and thus a limitation of personal

freedom), in any case, after finding that merits test the bindings in the

the Court decision is not an automatic definition of the length of its duration. Is

the task of the courts when deciding on custody, and its extension

determine its duration in a particular case. The Constitutional Court

repeatedly stresses in this context the fact that when

deciding on the extension of the binding, in addition to the existence of a legal pre-trial detention

Therefore, necessary to establish serious reasons which result in the past

the time limit could not terminate the proceedings and, therefore, deciding on the extension of the

the binding is, therefore, a procedure to which it is necessary to relate the higher requirements

before the decision on custody. For this reason, it is the task of the courts when you return

things to outof-State Prosecutor and the related extension of the

binding specifically to deal with a possible relation to the accused on his basic

law arising from article. 38 para. 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms in the

conjunction with article. 8 (2). 5 the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, i.e.. deal with

the question, to what extent may be further extending the binding

sufficient grounds, in addition to the existence of the grounds for detention, and removing the

serious defects of the preparatory proceedings [section 188 (1) (b), (e)) of the criminal

order]. In other words, to what extent can serious misconduct by State

justify its continuation as a serious limitation of personal freedom, which is

binding.



2. following the referral back to the Court to the Prosecutor for investigation does not begin a new

preliminary proceedings, but rather a matter of status returns to the preparatory proceedings (§ 191

paragraph. 2 of the code of criminal procedure). As the case returns to the status of the preparatory

control and does not start a new preparatory proceedings, it follows that also in

the case of the continuation of the binding (as in the case of the preliminary

hearing an obligate decided--§ 192 criminal procedure)

without any doubt, this is a limitation of personal freedom, which in

that point does not begin, but continues, and it's at the stage of preparatory

control. For this reason, the time covered by the definition of the resulting

of the relevant decisions of the courts regarding custody or to extend

binding, and it is in relation to the initial restriction of personal freedom. If

the courts in the context of a referral back to the preliminary proceedings shall

to address this, in which direction it is necessary to supplement the preliminary proceedings and the

that fact should be clarified, where appropriate, that the operations should be

done (section 191 (1) of the criminal procedure code), and in detention matters at the same time

decide on the duration of other links, it is not possible from the perspective of article. 8 (2). 5

The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms and section 71 paragraph 1. 2 of the code of criminal procedure as

make no particular determination of necessary the period of detention.



The Chairman III. the Chamber of the Constitutional Court:



JUDr. Holländer in r.