You are here:

Slovakia / Constitutional Court / I. ÚS 183/2019-194

claimant: XX, an individual, Hungarian national, against the defendant: General Prosecutors Office of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter only as “General Prosecutors Office”)

Deciding Body type:
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding Body:
Constitutional Court
Type:
Decision
Decision date:
11/02/2020
ECLI:
ECLI:SK:USSR:2020:1.US.183/2019
Key facts of the case:
On 15 December 2015, the Zagreb County Court issued a European arrest warrant (“EAW”) to the claimant (under no. K-US-50/14), on the basis of which an alert was entered in the Schengen Information System (hereinafter referred to as "SIS II"). The claimant, a Hungarian national as CEO and Chairman of MOL Plc., the parent company and major shareholder of Slovak company Slovnaft, may not personally attend meetings of the Board of Directors and also general meetings of Slovnaft, as well as other business meetings in the Slovak Republic. In its submissions to the Slovak General Prosecutors Office he sought a preliminary review of the alert and repeatedly requested the General Prosecutors Office to issue instructions to the National SIRENE Bureau to indicate the record (a flag) which constitutes an obstacle to his detention. In the meantime a new decision of the Court of Justice of the Hungarian Capital was issued, on 23 August 2018, under no. 33.Beu.945/2018/3 (results of the proceedings unknown). Therefore, the claimant objected to the violation of the principle ne bis in idem since the act for which the European arrest warrant has been issued resulted in a judicial decision in Hungary. The claimant, a Hungarian national, turned to the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter “Constitutional Court”) with a request to review the legality of the abovementioned notification of the General Prosecutors Office, which according to him violated his rights. The rights at issue are: * Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, * Article 46(1) and Articles 1(1) and 2(2) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, Act No. 460/1992 Coll., as amended (Ústava Slovenskej republiky, zákon č. 460/1992 Zb., v znení neskorších predpisov), * Articles 45(1), 47 and 50 of the Charter, * Article 54 The Schengen acquis - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders.
 
Key legal question raised by the Court:

The extent to which it is necessary to examine a SIS II. record in accordance with the Article 12 of Act no. 154/2010 Coll. (Act no. 154/2010 Coll. on the European Arrest Warrant) and to assess whether the General Prosecutors Office has examined the record to the extent that follows from Article 12 of Act no. 154/2010, is a constitutionally relevant question. (note for a reader: According to Act no. 154/2010 Coll. “(General Prosecutors Office is obliged) to examine all grounds that may represent a reason for non-execution of the EAW, including reasonable suspicions of violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms and may not be limited to the reasons stated in Article 23(1) of the Act. In addition, the case law of the ECJ recognizes as

mandatory grounds for refusing to execute an EAW a violation of the fundamental right to a fair trial and any other violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms.")

 
Outcome of the case:
The fundamental right to other legal protection under Art. 46(1) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, The right to judicial and other legal protection and the right to a fair trial and the fundamental right to a fair trial according to Art. 47 of the Charter were violated by the notification of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Slovak Republic no. V GPtm 54/18/1000-18 of November 27, 2018. The notification of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Slovak Republic no. V GPtm 54/18/1000-18 of 27 November 2018, has been cancelled and the case was returned for further proceedings to General Prosecutors Office.