Czechia / Constitutional Court / IV.ÚS 3524/20

J. M.
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Constitutional Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
06/04/2021
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:CZ:US:2021:4.US.3524.20.1
  • Czechia / Constitutional Court / IV.ÚS 3524/20

    Key facts of the case:

    The Plaintiff is a citizen of the Czech Republic against whom criminal proceedings were instituted in the Slovak Republic. A European Arrest Warrant was issued against him and he was taken into custody in the Czech Republic. When he was sentenced in Slovakia to an unconditional sentence of imprisonment, the Czech court ruled that he would not be transferred to Slovakia to serve his sentence as the conditions for non-transfer and recognition and enforcement of a foreign decision were met. However, the Plaintiff argued that he should be released because the criminal offence for which he had been convicted was already time-barred in the Czech Republic. (Criminal proceedings conducted in Slovakia do not result in the interruption of the limitation period in the Czech Republic. The limitation period thus expired in 2017, and the plaintiff considers that his criminal liability has thus lapsed). If he is kept in custody and a sentence is served, the principle of ne bis in idem, which is also enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter, will be violated.

    The plaintiff therefore lodged an unsuccessful appeal against the court's decision, and he subsequently lodged a constitutional complaint in which he reiterated his arguments and referred to Article 50 of the Charter.

     

    Key legal question raised by the Court: 

    Can a sentence imposed by a foreign state be executed in the Czech Republic if the limitation period for the criminal offence has expired in the Czech Republic? Is the execution of such a decision a breach of the ne bis in idem principle?

     

    Outcome of the case: 

    The Constitutional Court agreed with the lower courts and rejected the complaint. The Court stated that Article 50 of the Charter did not preclude the enforcement of the decision and that in these cases the execution of the sentence could be time-barred, but not the criminal liability for the criminal offence. The Czech authorities could initiate criminal proceedings against the plaintiff, thus preventing the limitation of criminal liability. However, such a procedure would result in each Member State concerned initiating its own prosecution, as it can never be certain that the criminal prosecution in the foreign state will be final before the expiry of the limitation period.

    The Constitutional Court confirmed the conclusions of lower courts that the expiration of the limitation period does not result in the cessation of criminal liability, and the decision of another EU state can be recognized and enforced in the Czech Republic. The plaintiff was therefore left in custody.
     

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    [The Plaintiff argues that the] limitation of criminal liability is a traditional historical principle of non-execution, from which the regulation of EU law has not departed. By analogy, this right is guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Slovak Republic must therefore respect that the plaintiff's criminal liability has already ceased in the Czech Republic. In accordance with the case law of the Constitutional Court, the conduct of criminal proceedings which the plaintiff could not have foreseen even on a general level, as criminal liability has already ceased, must be considered contrary to Article 39 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms]. It should be added that the alleged act dates from 2001 and 2002, and therefore the Plaintiff could not have foreseen the application of the institutions of EU law.

    […]

    The plaintiff subsequently exercised his right to reply, stating that the examination of the cessation of criminal liability across the Member States of the European Union was directly required by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in Article 50. The principle of ne bis in idem should also apply to the limitation period. The criminal relationship between the plaintiff and the Czech Republic expired, which cannot be bridged by the application of procedural rules. 

    […]

    Furthermore, it must be emphasised that such a procedure is not contrary to the rules of European Union law. On the contrary, the Plaintiff‘s application of the above legal provisions in the spirit of the plaintiff's interpretation would unduly violate the principles of ‘uniformity of the fundamental rights protection’ and in particular the ‘principles of mutual trust and recognition’ reinforced by European Union law (see similarly the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union from 2 February 2013, Case C-399-11 Stefano Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal). The Plaintiff's preferred interpretation of the principle of ne bis in idem (Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) would disprove those principles. The Plaintiff himself states that there was nothing to prevent the authorities of the Czech Republic from prosecuting the Plaintiff and thus preventing the statute of limitations. However, such a procedure would result in each Member State concerned initiating its own prosecution for certainty, as it can never be certain that the prosecution in a foreign State will be final before the expiry of the limitation period (all the more so for accused persons fleeing the State). According to the Constitutional Court, such forced multi-track criminal proceedings would rather weaken the principles of European cooperation in the field of criminal law. The Czech law enforcement authorities had no rational reason to prosecute the Plaintiff, as he had already been convicted in the Slovak Republic.  

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    [Stěžovatel namítá, že] promlčení trestní odpovědnosti je tradičním historickým principem nerealizování extradice, od nějž úprava unijního práva neustoupila. Analogicky je toto právo zaručeno čl. 50 Listiny základních práv Evropské unie. Slovenská republika tak musí respektovat, že v České republice již došlo k zániku stěžovatelovy trestní odpovědnosti. V souladu s judikaturou Ústavního soudu je třeba za rozporné s čl. 39 Listiny považovat vedení trestního řízení, které nemohl stěžovatel předvídat ani v obecné rovině, neboť již došlo k zániku trestní odpovědnosti. K tomu je třeba dodat, že spáchání údajného skutku spadá do období let 2001 a 2002, a tedy stěžovatel nemohl předvídat aplikaci institutů unijního práva.

    [...]

    Stěžovatel následně využil svého práva repliky, v níž uvedl, že zkoumání zániku trestní odpovědnosti napříč státy Evropské unie požaduje přímo Listina základních práv Evropské unie ve svém čl. 50. Zásada ne bis in idem by se měla uplatnit i u promlčení trestní odpovědnosti. Mezi stěžovatelem a Českou republikou promlčením trestní odpovědnosti zanikl trestněprávní vztah, což nelze překlenout aplikací procesních předpisů. 

    [...]

    Dále je třeba zdůraznit, že takový postup neodporuje předpisům unijního práva. Naopak, stěžovatelem aplikováním uvedených zákonných ustanovení v duchu stěžovatelem uplatňovaného výkladu by docházelo k nepřípustnému narušení principů "jednotnosti standardu ochrany základních práv" a především "zásady vzájemné důvěry a uznávání" posilovaných prameny práva Evropské unie (obdobně viz např. rozsudek Soudního dvora ze dne 26. 2. 2013 ve věci C-399-11 Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal). Stěžovatelem preferované pojetí zásady ne bis in idem (čl. 50 Listiny základních práv Evropské unie) by uvedené zásady rozvrátilo. Sám stěžovatel uvádí, že orgánům České republiky nic nebránilo zahájit proti stěžovateli trestní stíhání a tím zabránit promlčení trestní odpovědnosti. Takovým postupem by však došlo k situaci, že by každý dotčený členský stát pro jistotu zahájil vlastní trestní stíhání, neboť nikdy nemůže mít jistotu, že trestní stíhání v cizím státě bude pravomocně skončeno před uplynutím promlčecí doby (tím spíše u obviněných, kteří prchají ze státu do státu). Takto vynuceným vícekolejným vedením trestních řízení by se podle Ústavního soudu principy evropské spolupráce v oblasti trestního práva spíše oslabily. České orgány činné v trestním řízení neměly racionální důvod zahajovat trestní stíhání stěžovatele, neboť v Slovenské republice byl již (nepravomocně) odsouzen.