The Constitutional Court found No 64 / 2024 Coll.
Findings of the Constitutional Court sp. zn. I. ÚS 1534 / 23 on the claim of the injured party in criminal proceedings for compensation for damage caused by maladministration
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
19.03.2024
64
FIND
The Constitutional Court
of 15 November 2023
sp. zn. I. ÚS 1534 / 23 on the entitlement to compensation for damage caused by maladministration
On behalf of the Republic
On 15 November 2023, the Constitutional Court decided on a constitutional complaint by the complainant F. V. against the order of the Supreme Court No 30 Cdo 500 / 2023-201 of 21.3.2023, the judgment of the Municipal Court in Prague No 62 of 114 / 2022- 147 of 27.7.2022 and the judgment of the District Court of Prague No 18 C 3 / 2021- 111 of 27.10.2021
as follows:
I. By order of the Supreme Court No 30 Cdo 500 / 2023-201 of 21 March 2023, the judgment of the Municipal Court in Prague No 62 Co 114 / 2022- 147 of 27.7.2022 and the judgment of the District Court in Prague No 18 C 3 / 2021-111 of 27.10.2021, the complainant's right to compensation for damage caused by maladministration by the State authority pursuant to Article 36 (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms was infringed.
II. Resolution No 30 Cdo 500 / 2023-201 of 21.3.2023, judgment of the Municipal Court in Prague No 62 of 114 / 2022-147 of 27.7.2022 and judgment of the District Court of Prague No 18 C 3 / 2021-111 of 27.10.2021 is hereby repealed.
Justification
(legal opinions expressed in a finding of general scope)
1. The subject-matter of the proceedings before the General Courts was the claim by the complainant to compensation for the damage caused by the maladministration of Officer L. K., who, in criminal proceedings, has been found guilty of misconduct of an abuse of the authority of an official under § 329 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code.
2. The complainant was stopped on 2. 9. 2016 by police patrol. One of the police officers physically assaulted the complainant during the documentary check, and then took him to a service where he had been detained for several hours. On 5 September 2016, the complainant filed a criminal complaint against the intervening police officers at the workplace of the General Inspection of Security Corps. He specifically stated that he was attached as a victim to criminal proceedings with a claim for compensation. The two police officers A.D. and L. K. were subsequently prosecuted jointly.
3. The criminal courts have concluded that the police have caused non-property damage to the complainant in violation of his constitutionally guaranteed rights pursuant to Articles 8 (1) and 10 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter '). The act A. D. was further caused by non-property damage in violation of Article 7 of the Charter and by the act L. K. in addition damage of CZK 1 100. Nevertheless, criminal courts pursuant to Article 229 (1) of Act No. 141 / 1961 Coll., on criminal proceedings of the judicial (criminal order), as amended by Act No. 181 / 2011 Coll., referred the complainants to civil proceedings. They stated that the conduct of the police officers should be seen as acting in the performance of the tasks of the State and therefore the State is responsible for the damage suffered by the State under Act No. 82 / 1998 Coll., on liability for damage caused in the exercise of public authority by decision or by maladministration and amending the Act of the Czech National Council No. 358 / 1992 Coll., on notaries and their activities (notarial order), as amended (" OdšZ').
4. The complainant claimed his claim for compensation for the damage caused by L. K. with the Ministry on 16.11.2020, i.e. within six months of the final judgment. However, he did not get a reaction and therefore brought an action against the State at the District Court for Prague 7. It assumed that the limitation period had started to run first by declaring a final judgment. However, the Ministry objected to the statute of limitations. In relation to the claim to the recovery of the non-material injury, it stated that the six-month limitation period started on 2 September 2016 when the complainant became aware of the injury suffered as a result of the police procedure. The claim was thus barred on 3 March 2017.
5. In the judgment under appeal, the District Court dismissed the complainant's action and stated that the infringement of the police officer's conduct was an incorrect official procedure under Paragraph 13 of the OdšZ, but the limitation period began to run on 2 September 2016 and expired on 2 March 2017, the complainant claimed his claim to the defendant until 19 November 2020. To the alleged contradiction of the objection of limitation with good manners, the District Court stated that the maladministration in this case was not accompanied by any other specific circumstances which would create this contradiction.
6. The Municipal Court confirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance in response to the complainant's appeal, which was fully in agreement with the legal argument of the Circular Court. The Supreme Court rejected the complainant's appeal as it agreed with the conclusions of the Court of Appeal of the parties to the beginning of the limitation period and the objection to the limitation period.
7. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly dealt with a six-month subjective limitation period pursuant to § 32 (3) of the OdšZ. It is its length at the very limit of constitutionality [cf. sp. zn. I. ÚS 3391 / 15 of 14.11.2017 (N 209 / 87 SbNU 413)], especially knowing that it is a special arrangement derogating from the three-year limitation period under the Civil Code. In abstract, however, it is not unconstitutional [cf. sp. zn. I. ÚS 1532 / 16 of 14.9.2016 (N 176 / 82 SbNU 713)].
8. A constitutional correction to the short-term nature of this limitation period may, in specific cases, be the contradiction of the limitation objection (raised by the State) with good morals pursuant to Section 2 (3) of the Civil Code (cf. The Institute of Good Forms opens the scope for the general courts to have a constitutional conformal interpretation of the DezšZ, if the exceptional circumstances of a particular case would lead to the conclusion that, by complying with the objection of limitation, Article 36 (3) of the Charter would infringe Article 36 (3) of the Charter [cf. In addition to Article 36 (3) of the Charter, commitments under the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are added (cf. Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Case No 22978 / 05).
9. It is therefore true that the State's objection to a claim for non-property damage is contradictory with good manners not only in cases of abuse of law. As the Supreme Court points out, the opposition to a limitation with good manners in these matters will also establish exceptional and special reasonable circumstances which have created a serious obstacle on the part of the injured party which prevented him from exercising his claim in due time and for which the conclusion of the limitation on the claim claimed would have been disproportionate to him (cf. Case C-2224 / 2022 of 27.2.2023). The application of these conclusions must be sensitive to the constitutional basis of the rights claimed.
10. The Constitutional Court, in its settled case-law, stresses the obligation to protect the rights of victims and victims of crime. Criminal courts have an obligation to seek, through their procedure, to fulfil the conditions for granting compensation already in adhesion proceedings. It is true that the State has a constitutional obligation to establish the most effective system of procedural institutes to make good the damage caused by criminal activity (cf. sp. zn. II. ÚS 297 / 22 of 26 June 2023). The protection of the rights of victims of an offence committed by an official whose conduct is attributable to the State should not be significantly weaker than the protection of victims of other offences.
11. Offices of officials are particularly serious from a constitutional point of view. They are generally the most serious form of injury caused by the State and the most serious form of maladministration under Article 36 (3) of the Charter. The cornerstone of the democratic rule of law is that state power serves all citizens (public interest) and can only be applied to this end in cases, within the limits and in the ways laid down by law (Article 2 (3) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic). It is therefore necessary that the State does not only effectively discourage officials from the infringement, but also to enable the injured persons to effectively claim compensation under Article 36 (3) of the Charter, especially in the case of criminal offences.
12. The fact that the rule of law does not solve the relationship between criminal proceedings and OdšZ is highly problematic. If the complainant were to contact the Ministry of Agriculture, the State Department of Nuclear Security or the National Sports Agency, the complainant would have to refer it to the Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Administration (cf. § 6 OdšZ) pursuant to § 14 (2). If they did not do so, the limitation period under the second sentence of Paragraph 14 (2) of the Departmental Agreement would not have occurred. It is somewhat surprising that when they turn with confidence to the General Security Corps inspection, the rule of law does not remember anything similar.
13. This lack of regulation can be corrected by the constitutional interpretation of § 46 of the Penal Code and § 3 (4) of Act No. 45 / 2013 Coll., on victims of crime and on the amendment of certain laws (Act on Victims of Crime). In accordance with Section 46 of the Criminal Code, law enforcement authorities are obliged to instruct the injured party about his rights and to give him the full opportunity to exercise them and, as part of the instruction, to draw his attention to the possibility of seeking compensation or non-property damage caused by the offence. In accordance with Article 3 (4) of the Law on victims of crime, they are also obliged to inform the victim in a comprehensible manner of the rights of the victim and to allow him to fully exercise them.
14. The above provisions are interpreted strictly by the General Courts in the sense that the lesson relates exclusively to procedural rights under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the law on victims of crimes. Paragraph 46 of the Penal Code lays down, however, a clear obligation for law enforcement authorities to draw the attention of the injured party and to the possibility of seeking to satisfy claims for compensation or non-property damage caused by the offence. Such a claim may also be a claim under the OdšZ if the offence was caused by an injury resulting from an act which can be classified as an maladministration under the odšZ, i.e. an injury attributable to the State. The rule of law must be seen and interpreted as one whole, which should make sense in its entirety.
15. In some cases (especially in the initial stages of the proceedings) it is not easy for law enforcement authorities to determine whether the State is responsible for the damage because it is liable to harm, or whether it is the so-called excesses for which the pest is responsible (cf. Resolution of the Supreme Court, sp. zn. 28 Cdo. 2699 / 2010 of 15.6.2011). In such cases, the injured party must therefore be warned that he may simultaneously claim an adhesion claim and a OdšZ claim in order to avoid limitation.
16. The Charter imposes an obligation on the State not only to ensure that the substantive claim for compensation is met, but also to establish a sufficiently effective procedural system for its application (to the nature of the positive commitments, see page II of the ÚS 1413 / 21 of 25.10.2021). At the same time, the current legislation is unintuitive in relation to the claim to compensation for damage caused by an offence committed by an official and, for a legal layman, a victim of a crime, confusing. The injured person, believing that he has exercised his claim, is awaiting the outcome of a lengthy criminal procedure in order to find that, while waiting, the short period of time for the claim under the judgments under appeal has elapsed. Even though he has proven to have claimed his harm to the state authorities, no one has informed him that he should claim it to other state bodies. Therefore, it is essential to insist on his lessons. Only such interpretation shall satisfy the requirements of Article 36 (3) of the Charter.
17. The State or the authorities involved in criminal proceedings have made a significant contribution to the limitation of the complainant's claim for compensation for non-property damage, by failing to fulfil their obligation to teach and failing to notify the complainant that he may claim compensation for damage to the Ministry of the Interior according to OdšZ.
18. The complainant has already registered as damaged on the third day following the illegal police procedure, i.e. at the time of the limitation period under the OdšZ. He expressly applied his claim, which was subsequently assessed as adhesion pursuant to § 43 (3) of the Criminal Code, and was not instructed to apply it to the Ministry of the Interior in accordance with the OdšZ procedure.
19. The criminal record shows that the law enforcement authorities led the complainant to be damaged from 5 September 2016 until the final judgment was delivered. It was only in the judgment of the Circular Court that the State was responsible for the damage caused. This was repeated in the final judgment of the Regional Court in 2020. By that time, however, the claim had long been barred.
20. Thus, there was a rather paradoxical situation that, although the complainant had already filed a criminal complaint three days after the procedure, he made himself known to the State authority as a injured party and claimed compensation, he left despite the conviction of the police officers and the finding of injury with nothing.
21. The State's objection to the limitation period must therefore be considered as an objection to a contradiction with good manners, taking into account Article 36 (3) of the Charter. In fact, the failure to fulfil the obligation of instruction in conjunction with the current legislation has established exceptional and special considerations which have created a serious obstacle on the part of the injured party which prevented him from applying his claim in a timely manner and for which the conclusion on the limitation of the claim claimed would have been disproportionate to him (cf. Case C-2224 / 2022, p. 30 of 27.2.2023). The opposite interpretation would be a violation of the law under Article 36 (3) of the Charter.
22. Therefore, if the injured in criminal proceedings
(a) in the case of a criminal authority, claim a claim for compensation for non-property damage pursuant to Article 43 (3) of the Penal Code within the limitation period provided for in Article 32 (3) of the DezšZ
(b) he has not been informed of the possibility of claiming entitlement under the OdšZ procedure as soon as the facts have come to light suggesting that the offence may have been committed by an official person;
The State's objection to the State's limitation on the claim of the injured party to compensation for the non-material damage under the OdšZ will generally be contrary to good manners.
23. The Constitutional Court has treated the case in accordance with the principle of restraint and has interpreted the provisions of sub-constitutional law in a constitutional manner. As a result, it was not necessary to approach the repeal of the provisions of the law, to declare the unconstitutional loopholes in law, nor to question the settled case law of the Supreme Court. However, this does not change the fact that the current legislation is unfriendly and confusing for laymen. It is up to the legislator to consider its adjustment.
President of the First Chamber of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Šámal v. r.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found no 64 / 2024 Coll., sp. zn. I. ÚS 1534 / 23 on the claim of the injured party in criminal proceedings for compensation of damage caused by maladministration |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 19.03.2024 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0