Statistical data: 1 January 1996 - 30 April 1996

• Judgments of the Plenary Session: 12
• Judgments of the Chambers: 27
• Other decisions of the Plenary Session: 6
• Other decisions of the Chambers: 400
• Other procedural measures: 5
• Total: 450

Important decisions:

Identification: CZE-96-1-001
a) Czech Republic / b) Constitutional Court / c) Third Chamber/d) 22.02.1996/e) III.US 232/95/f) Criminal defendant's right not to be removed from the jurisdiction of his statutory judge / g) / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
General principles - Legality.
Institutions - Courts - Procedure.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights -Procedural safeguards - Access to courts.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights -Procedural safeguards - Fair trial - Rights of the defence.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights -Procedural safeguards - Fair trial - Public hearings.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Criminal procedure.

Headnotes:
A decision taken by a court which is not competent for the case violates the right of access to courts.
 
Summary:
The complainant submitted a constitutional complaint against the final resolution of the District Court in Prague-East concerning the prolongation of his criminal custody. He asserted that his fundamental rights under Article
 38.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms had been violated, because instead of his case being decided in the proper forum - that is, by the District Court in Miada Boleslav - it was decided by a court that lacked competence in respect of that decision.
The Constitution of the Czech Republic provides that it is a law-based State founded on respect for the rights and freedoms of persons and of citizens. The protection of these rights and freedoms falls upon courts. In carrying out their duties, courts are independent, and when making decisions, judges are bound only by law. These constitutional guarantees of an independent judicial branch, as well as the impartial exercise of its power, are given special emphasis by a further constitutional command, that is, that nobody may be removed from the jurisdiction of his statutory judge. This constitutional imperative must be considered as an indispensable condition of the due exercise of that branch of State power which has been entrusted to courts by the Constitution. On the one hand, this imperative builds up and strengthens judicial independence; on the other hand, for each party to a judicial proceeding, it represents a guarantee that his case will be assigned to courts and judges in accordance with rules prescribed in advance, such that the principle of strict adherence to the allocation of a court's case-load is observed, and so as to rule out the choice, for various reasons, of courts and judges ad hoc.
Under the terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the proper venue for the decision concerning the prolongation of the complainant's custody was the District Court in Miada Boleslav. Neither the argument that the decision itself was substantively correct, nor that this procedural defect was subsequently cured, carries any weight. Not merely historical experience, but also recent experience with the totalitarian regime convincingly demonstrates how dangerous it is for the individual and how harmful for society if, in the determination of rights, courts and judges are assigned to do justice from an expedient perspective or by selection. In fact, there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure permitting the defect of a court's lack of competence to be cured. In addition, the court heard the State Attorney's petition for the prolongation of custody in a closed session, that is, without the accused being present, so that he did not have the opportunity to assert the objection of in proper forum. By proceeding in this erroneous fashion, the court had unconstitutionally infringed the complainant's fundamental rights and, as a result, the Constitutional Court annulled the contested decision.

Languages: Czech.

Identification: CZE-96-1-002
a) Czech Republic / b) Constitutional Court / c) Plenary Session / d) 10.04.1996 / e) PI.US 34/95 / f) Special protection of the rights of children and youths in relation to the security information service's intelligence gathering power / g) / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Fundamental rights - General questions - Limits and restrictions.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights – Rights of the child.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Data protection / Security information service.

Headnotes:
Article 32.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms guarantees special protection to children and youths. However, Article 32.6 further provides that detailed rules shall be set by statute. In keeping with Article 41.1, the above-mentioned rights may be claimed only to the extent they are implemented by statute, and none has yet been issued in this area, so that in relation to the powers of the Security Information Service, there is no special legal regime for children and youths.

Summary:
A group of parliamentary deputies submitted a petition seeking the annulment of a part of paragraph 16.1 of Act no. 154/1994 Sb., on the Security information Service (BIS), which enabled the BIS to file, store, and use data on natural and legal persons if such was necessary to carry out tasks within their authority, as provided for in paragraph 5.1 of Act no. 153/1994 Sb., on Intelligence Services, so that, among other things, BIS could secure information on aims and activities directed against the democratic foundations, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of the Czech Republic, on activities which may result in a threat to the security or the vital interests of the Czech Republic, and on organised crime and terrorism.
The petition sought to have natural persons excluded from this grant of authority, because that legal category includes children and youths who enjoy special protection under provisions of the Constitution and international treaties on human rights, which provide that children may not be exposed to an arbitrary intrusion into their personal lives, family, home, or correspondence, nor to an unlawful assault on their honour or reputation. The Constitutional Court rejected the petitioners' arguments and thus rejected the petition for the annulment of the abovementioned part of the Act no. 154/1994.
The reasoning of this decision stated that while Article 32.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms guarantees special protection to children and youths, Article 32.6 further provides that a statute should make more detailed provisions, and that, in harmony with Article 41.1, the above-mentioned right may be claimed only to the extent provided by the law which implements it. At present, in contrast to the recent past, special statutory regulation of the area does not exist. However, in the future there is nothing to prevent, by means of the ordinary legislative process, changes being made in the current legal rules. The submission of such a bill is not, however, conditioned upon the Constitutional Court's annulment of some provisions of the Act. Article 7 and Articles 10.1 and 10.2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms have a broader general character and relate generally to the inviolability of privacy and family life. Article 16 of the Convention on the Rights of Children has a similar character- in relation, of course, to children.
Nonetheless, in contrast to international treaties on human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms contains special provisions with regard to dealing with any sort of information on persons. Article 10.3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms lays down the right to protection from unauthorised gathering, publica-tion, or other misuse of data on persons. However, this means protection only from unauthorised handling of information, that is, conduct not permitted by law. The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms prescribes no other conditions or restrictions.
The current legal rules show that the Constitution has not been violated and that no detriment to the rights of children has been caused. Naturally, this does not rule out the possibility that a specific case of manipulation of personal data of a private or family nature could occur and could qualify as a violation of rights and freedoms under Article 7 and Articles 10.1 and 10.2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms.
If public officials conduct themselves incorrectly, that may give rise to a proceeding before the Constitutional Court, which could result in the quashing of a particular decision or the prohibition of such an intrusion. It is not, however, grounds for the automatic annulment of the legal provisions under which public officials proceed, unless these legal provisions would unequivocally and without exception bind them to specific conduct or behaviour which would be in conflict with the Constitution or with an international treaty on human rights.

Languages: Czech.

Identification: CZE-96-1-003
a) Czech Republic / b) Constitutional Court / c) First Chamber/d) 30.04.1996/e)I.S2/95/f) Court decision without a hearing in straightforward cases / g) / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Sources of constitutional law - Categories – Written rules - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Fundamental rights - General questions - Limits and restrictions.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights - Procedural safeguards - Fair trial - Rights of the defence.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights - Procedural safeguards - Fair trial - Public hearings.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Citizenship, dual.

Headnotes:
Only in straightforward cases, in particular if there is no doubt that an administrative decision was based on the correct determination of the facts of the case, may a court make a decision on a complaint without a hearing.

Summary:
The complainant submitted a constitutional complaint against the decision of the Municipal Court in Prague which had rejected his complaint against a final administrative decision. The administrative body had determined that the complainant could not be issued a certificate of citizenship of the Czech Republic under paragraph 13.c and paragraph 17 of Act no. 40/1993 Sb., on the Acquisition and Loss of Citizenship of the Czech Republic, because he had lost his citizenship due to the fact that, of his own free will, he had taken up citizenship of the Slovak Republic. He objected that this manner of proceeding had infringed his rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Czech Republic and by international treaties on human rights because he was deprived of his Czech citizenship without his consent, despite the fact that there is no express prohibition on dual citizenship.
First of all, the Constitutional Court reviewed whether all constitutional procedural rules were observed in the proceeding before the ordinary court. Under Article 38.2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms, everyone has the right to have his case heard in public, without unnecessary delay and in his presence, and to be allowed to state his view on all the submitted evidence. Under Article 14.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, everyone has the right to be fairly and publicly heard by an independent and impartial court which will decide either on his rights and duties or on any sort of criminal accusation made against him. An exception to the principle that court hearings must be oral and public is governed by paragraph 250.f of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is inserted in the part of the Code on decision-making concerning complaints against administrative decisions. Under this provision, in straightforward cases, in particular if there is no doubt that the administrative decision was based on the correct determination of the facts, so that it is only a matter of assessing a legal issue, the court may make a decision on the complaint without a hearing. It shall proceed in the same manner if the contested decision is unreviewable because it is incomprehensible or because it lacks sufficient grounds to support it.
The Court came to the conclusion that the proceeding as a whole had not been in conformity with the principles of fair procedure laid down in Articles 90 and 96.2 of the Czech Constitution, in Article 38.2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms, and in Article 14.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Despite the fact that it was not a straightforward case, the court heard and decided it while the complainant was not present and, in addition, he had not been questioned and was not permitted to give his views on the evidence at either level of the administrative proceeding. Thus, the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that the conditions for applying paragraph 250.f of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been met, and it therefore quashed the contested decision. The court or the administrative body could in further proceedings correct the errors made in relation to fair procedure.

Languages: Czech.