Act No. 177 / 2008 Coll.
Act amending Act No. 141 / 1961 Coll., on Criminal Procedure of the Court (Criminal Code), as amended, and Act No. 127 / 2005 Coll., on Electronic Communications and on the Amendment of Certain Related Acts (Act on Electronic Communications), as amended
Valid
Effective from 01.07.2008
Text versions:
01.07.2008
28.05.2008
177
THE LAW
of 23 April 2008
amending Act No. 141 / 1961 Coll., on criminal proceedings of the Court (Criminal Code), as amended, and Act No. 127 / 2005 Coll., on electronic communications and amending certain related laws (Electronic Communications Act), as amended
Parliament has decided on this law of the Czech Republic:
Amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure
Act No. 100 / 2006, Act No. 100 / 2004, Act No. 100 / 2004, Act No. 100 / 2004, Act No. 100 / 2006, Act No. 100 / 2004, Act No. 100 / 2004, Act No. 100 / 2004, Act No. 100 / 2004, Act No. 100 / 2004, Act No. 100 / 2004, Act No. 100 / 2004, Act No. 99 / 2004, Act No. 100 / 2004, Act No. 99 / 2004, Act No. 99 / 2004, Act No. 99 / 2004, Act No. 99 / 2004, Act No. 99 / 2004, Act No. 99 / 2004, Act No. 99 / 2004, Act No. 99 / 2004, Act No. 99 / 2004, Act No. 99, Act No. 99 / 2004, Act No. 2004, Act No. 2004, Act No. 2004, Act No. 99 / 2004, Act No. 2004, No.
1. Paragraph 8 (3) reads as follows:
"(3) For the reasons referred to in paragraph 2, the President of the Chamber may, on a proposal from the Prosecutor, order the monitoring of a bank account or account with a person authorised to register investment vehicles under a special law for a maximum period of six months. If the purpose for which the monitoring of the account has been ordered persists even after that period, the monitoring may be extended by a further six months, including repeatedly, on the basis of an order from a senior court judge and in a preparatory procedure, on a proposal from the district court prosecutor. Data obtained under this provision shall not be used for any purpose other than the criminal proceedings under which they were obtained. ';
2. In Article 30, the following paragraph 4 is added:
"(4) A Judge who took part in the decision in the previous proceedings shall be excluded from the procedure for reviewing the wiretap and recording of telecommunications traffic. The Judge who took part in the decision-making procedure on the review of the wiretap and recording of telecommunications traffic shall be excluded from the decision-making procedure. ';
3. § 88 reads:
(1) Where criminal proceedings are conducted for a particularly serious intentional offence or for another intentional offence which is bound by an international treaty declared to prosecute, an order may be issued for the interception and recording of telecommunications traffic, provided that it can reasonably be assumed that significant facts are obtained for criminal proceedings and that the purpose pursued cannot be otherwise or would otherwise be significantly impeded. The surveillance and recording of telecommunications traffic is carried out for the needs of all law enforcement authorities of the Czech Police. The conduct of wiretap and recording of telecommunications traffic between the defendant and the defendant shall be inadmissible. If the police authority finds that the defendant is communicating with his lawyer during the wiretap and recording of telecommunications, it shall immediately destroy the wiretap and not use the information it has learned in this connection. He'll file a record of the destruction.
(2) The President of the Chamber and in the preparatory procedure, acting on a proposal from the Prosecutor of the Judge, is authorised to order the wiretap and recording of telecommunications operations. A wiretap and recording order must be issued in writing and must be justified, including a specific reference to the declared international agreement in the event of criminal proceedings for an intentional offence committed by that international agreement. The wiretap and recording order shall specify the user's address or device and the user's person, if its identity is known, and the duration of the wiretap and recording of telecommunications traffic which shall not exceed four months; the justification shall state the specific facts justifying the issue of the order, including its duration. A wiretap and recording order shall be sent without delay to the police authority. In the preparatory procedure, the judge shall immediately send a copy of the wiretap order and the recording of telecommunications traffic to the prosecutor.
(3) The police authority shall assess on an ongoing basis whether the reasons for issuing the wiretap and recording of telecommunications operations continue to exist. If the reasons have passed, it shall immediately terminate the wiretap and recording of telecommunications operations, even before the end of the period referred to in paragraph 2. It shall immediately notify the President of the Chamber which issued the warrant for the interception and recording of telecommunications traffic in writing and, in the preparatory procedure, shall also to the prosecutor and the judge.
(4) On the basis of an evaluation of the current course of the wiretap and the recording of telecommunications traffic, a senior court judge and, in preparatory proceedings, on a proposal from the Prosecutor of the Judge of the Regional Court, may extend the duration of the wiretap and the recording of telecommunications traffic, including repeatedly, for a maximum period of four months.
(5) Without a warrant for the wiretap and recording of telecommunications traffic, the authority in charge of criminal proceedings may order the wiretap and recording of telecommunications traffic, or carry out it itself, if criminal proceedings are conducted for the offence of violence against a population group and against an individual (§ 196 and 19.7a), kidnapping pursuant to § 216 (1), trafficking in children pursuant to § 216a (1), extortion pursuant to § 235 (1) or restriction of personal liberty pursuant to § 231 (1) and (2) of the criminal law, if the user of the eavesdropping station so agrees.
(6) If the recording of telecommunications traffic is to be used as evidence, it shall be accompanied by a record indicating the location, time, manner and content of the record made, as well as the issuing authority. The other records shall be marked by the police authority, reliably stored in such a way as to ensure protection against unauthorised misuse of the records, and in a record based on the file, indicate where they are stored. In a criminal case other than the one in which the wiretap and the recording of telecommunications traffic have been carried out, the alert may be used as evidence if criminal prosecution for the offence referred to in paragraph 1 is also conducted in that case or if the user of the listening station agrees.
(7) If, during the wiretap and recording of telecommunications traffic, facts relevant to criminal proceedings have not been identified, the police authority shall, after the agreement of the court and in the preparatory proceedings of the prosecutor, immediately destroy the records three years after the final termination of the case. If the police authority has been informed of the lodging of an emergency appeal within that period, it shall destroy the records of the eavesdropping after the decision on the emergency appeal or, where appropriate, after the new final termination of the case. The record of the destruction of the surveillance record shall be sent by the police authority to the administrative representative whose decision has been final and to the President of the Chamber of First Instance in proceedings before the court for filing the case.
(8) The public prosecutor, whose decision has been final and, in proceedings before the court, the President of the Chamber of the Court of First Instance after the final decision has been taken, shall inform the person referred to in paragraph 2 of the ordered eavesdropping and recording of telecommunications traffic, if known. The information shall include a reference to the court which issued the wiretap and recording order, the duration of the wiretap and the date of its termination. The information shall include an instruction on the right to submit, within six months of the date of receipt of this information to the Supreme Court, a proposal to review the legality of the wiretap order and the recording of telecommunications traffic. The President of the Chamber of the Court of First Instance shall submit the information without delay after the case has been final; a public prosecutor whose decision has been final shall provide information without delay after the expiry of the time limit for examining his decision by the State Supreme Prosecutor pursuant to Article 174a.
(9) The information referred to in paragraph 8 shall not be submitted by the President of the Chamber or by a public prosecutor in proceedings involving a particularly serious intentional offence committed by an organised group, in proceedings for a criminal offence committed for the benefit of a criminal organisation, in proceedings for a criminal offence involving a criminal organisation, or in cases where more than one person has been involved in the commission of a criminal offence and, in respect of at least one of them, the criminal proceedings have not yet been terminated, or where the person to whom the information is to be disclosed is subject to criminal proceedings, or where the purpose of criminal proceedings, including those referred to in paragraph 6, could be undermined by the safety of the State, life, health, rights and freedoms of persons. ';
4. in Part Three, Title 20, the following Section 7 is added:
Procedure for reviewing the wiretap and recording of telecommunications traffic
On application by the person referred to in § 88 (8) The Supreme Court shall examine in private session the legality of the wiretap order and the recording of telecommunications traffic.
(1) If the Supreme Court finds that an order for the interception and recording of telecommunications traffic has been issued or its execution is contrary to the law, it shall give its order in violation of the law.
(2) There is no appeal against this decision.
(1) If the Supreme Court finds that a wiretap and recording order has been issued and its execution is in accordance with the terms of Paragraph 88 (1), it shall state by order that the law has not been infringed.
(2) There is no appeal against this decision. "
Amendment to the Electronic Communications Act
In Article 97 (2) of Act No. 127 / 2005 Coll., on electronic communications and amending certain related laws (Act on electronic communications), as amended by Act No. 290 / 2005 Coll., the word "participant 'is replaced by the word" user'.
EFFECTIVE
This Act shall take effect on 1 July 2008.
Wolf
Klaus v. r.
Topolánek v. r.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | Act No. 177 / 2008 Coll., amending Act No. 141 / 1961 Coll., on Criminal Procedure of the Court (Criminal Code), as amended, and Act No. 127 / 2005 Coll., on Electronic Communications and amending certain related laws (Act on Electronic Communications), as amended |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | - |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 28.05.2008 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | 01.07.2008 |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0