Act No. 77 / 2015 Coll.
Act amending Act No. 104 / 2013 Coll., on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, and other related laws
Valid
Law
Effective from 01.05.2015
Text versions:
01.05.2015
17.04.2015
77
THE LAW
of 19 March 2015
amending Act No. 104 / 2013 Coll., on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, and other related laws
Parliament has decided on this law of the Czech Republic:
Amendment to the Act on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters
Act No. 104 / 2013 Coll., on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, is amended as follows:
1. At the end of footnote 1, the sentence "Directive 2011 / 99 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a European Protection Order 'is added.
2. In the first sentence of Paragraph 213 (2), the words "legal authority 'shall be inserted after the words" in the case of a simplified transmission no later than 10 days after'.
3. In Article 251 (1), the words "the interim measure 'shall be inserted after the words" the promise'.
4. the following Title X is added to Part Five, including the title and footnotes No 39 to 42:
EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER
Common provisions
Scope
(1) The provisions of this Title shall be applied to ensure the continuation of protection against criminal activity on the basis of a European protection order in the territory of:
(a) another Member State, provided that a person has been provided with a protection order issued in criminal proceedings conducted in the Czech Republic; or
(b) the Czech Republic, provided that a person has been given a protection order issued in criminal proceedings in another Member State.
(2) Under this Title, action shall be taken with regard to other Member States for which binding European Union law governing the European Protection Committee39).
(1) The European Protection Order shall be issued on the basis of the protection order referred to in paragraph 2.
(a) a judicial authority under this law; or
(b) a judicial or equivalent body of another Member State under its law.
(2) A protective order means a judgment given in criminal proceedings by a court and in preparatory proceedings by a judge or public prosecutor, or a judgment given in criminal proceedings by an authority of another Member State, where it has been given for the purpose of protecting a person from a criminal offence which may endanger his or her life, health, freedom or human dignity, and imposes on a suspect, accused or convicted person:
(a) a prohibition of entry into certain places or demarcated areas by a person protected by a protection order visiting or residing;
(b) a prohibition or restriction of contact with a person protected by a protection order, including contacts through an electronic communications network or other similar means; or
(c) a prohibition or restriction on access to a person protected by a protection order closer than a specified distance.
(3) The protected person is the person for whose protection a protection order has been issued.
(4) The threatening person is the person who has been ordered to ban or restrict the protection order.
(1) In the course of the procedure under this Title, the judicial authority shall ensure that the person at risk does not know the place where the protected person is staying or any other information enabling him to contact him, unless his communication is necessary for the purpose of defining the prohibition or restriction imposed on the person at risk.
(2) The judicial authority shall cooperate in the procedure provided for in this Title with the competent authority of another Member State, in particular by exchanging all necessary information with it.
(3) The Ministry, at the request of the Court of Justice and the Prosecutor General, shall, at the request of the Prosecutor, provide synergies in identifying the necessary information, in particular when establishing the competent authority of another Member State to which a European Protection Order is to be sent or when verifying the conditions laid down in the law of that Member State for its recognition and for the adoption of follow-up measures. The same synergy shall be provided by the Ministry at the request of the authority of another Member State in order to establish the necessary information as regards the competent authorities of the Czech Republic or to verify the conditions laid down in the Czech legislation.
(4) For the purposes of reporting to the institutions of the European Union and facilitating cooperation with other Member States, the Prosecutor General and the courts shall provide the Ministry, at its request, with the necessary information, in particular on the number of European protection orders sent to other Member States for the recognition and adoption of follow-up measures and on the outcome of such proceedings in other Member States, as well as similar information on European protection orders sent to the Czech Republic by other Member States.
Recognition of the European Protection Order of another Member State and adoption of follow-up measures
Conditions for taking over a European protection order
(1) A European protection order issued by another Member State may be taken over for the purpose of a decision on its recognition in respect of a decision given by:
(a) by a judicial or equivalent authority of another Member State on the basis of a protection order issued in criminal proceedings; and
(b) at the request of a protected person who resides or resides in the Czech Republic or intends to reside or reside there.
(2) A European protection order shall not be taken over unless the protection order described in the European protection order imposes any of the prohibitions or restrictions referred to in § 341 (2).
(3) Where a protected person requests the issue of a European protection order by a judicial authority and the protection order on the basis of which a European protection order is to be issued has been issued in another Member State, the judicial authority shall immediately forward the request to the competent authority of another Member State.
Jurisdiction
(1) In order to proceed under this Part and Part 1, the district court in whose territory it resides or the protected person resides shall be responsible. If the person does not reside in the Czech Republic or does not reside there, the district court in whose territory he intends to reside or reside shall be responsible.
(2) The change in the facts relevant for the determination of local jurisdiction following the initiation of the procedure shall not be taken into account.
(3) Where a European Protection Order has been sent to an authority which is not competent to proceed under this Part and Part 1, it shall forward it to the competent court without delay and at the same time inform the competent authority of the other Member State which sent it to it of the referral. If the court to which the European Protection Order has been referred has doubts about its jurisdiction, it shall proceed accordingly in accordance with Article 24 of the Penal Code.
Procedure for the recognition of the European Protection Order and for the adoption of follow-up measures
(1) The procedure for the recognition of the European Protection Order and the adoption of follow-up measures shall be initiated when the European Protection Order issued by another Member State has been served on the competent court.
(2) If the conditions for taking over the European Protection Order are not fulfilled, the Judge-General shall terminate the proceedings and terminate the proceedings and shall immediately inform the competent authority of another Member State, the Prosecutor, if he has already been active, and the person protected.
(3) If the proceedings cannot be resumed for a reason which is not a ground for non-recognition of a European protection order, the Judge shall inform the competent authority of another Member State thereof and ask him to express whether he insists on the recognition of a European protection order within the time limit set for that purpose. If the competent authority of another Member State does not express its views within a time limit or if it fails to state the circumstances which refute the ground for which it is not possible to proceed, the Judge-Rapporteur shall close the proceedings and inform the competent authority of another Member State, the prosecutor, if he has already been acting, and the person protected, of the reasons which led to it without delay.
Decision on recognition of the European Protection Order and adoption of follow-up measures
(1) If a single Judge does not consider a European Protection Order sent by another Member State to be sufficient to provide for a decision on its recognition and the adoption of follow-up measures, he shall request the competent authority of that Member State to send him the necessary additional information within the time limit set by him. Where another Member State has not sent additional information within the time limit laid down, without stating the essential reasons for which it did not do so, it shall terminate the proceedings and inform the competent authority of another Member State, the public prosecutor, if he has already been active in the matter, and the protected person of its termination. Such consequences shall be brought to the attention of the competent authority of another Member State.
(2) Whether or not the European Protection Order is recognised or recognised and the follow-up shall be decided without delay by a single Judge.
(3) The decision on the recognition of the European Protection Order and the follow-up measures shall be delivered by a single Judge to the public prosecutor and the protected person without undue delay. If the Judge is aware of the European Protection Order, the decision shall also be delivered to the person at risk. If the Judge has not recognised the European Protection Order, he shall inform the protected person of the conditions under which he may apply for interim measures under the criminal rules. The recognition of the European Protection Order and the follow-up measures, including the consequences of its infringement, shall be notified by the Judge without undue delay by the competent authority of another Member State; in the event of non-recognition, it shall also inform it of the reasons for such a procedure.
(4) If the decision referred to in paragraph 3 cannot be delivered to the person at risk on account of his or her unknown residence and the place of his or her residence cannot be ascertained using the cooperation provided by the competent authority of another Member State, the Judge shall close the proceedings and inform the competent authority of another Member State, the public prosecutor and the protected person of the termination of the proceedings without delay, indicating the reason for such action.
Reasons for non-recognition of the European Protection Order
(1) A single Judge shall not recognise a European protection order issued by another Member State where:
(a) the recognition of the European Protection Order and the adoption of follow-up measures would be contrary to the obstacle to the matter decisively decided;
(b) the act for which the protection order described in the European protection order is issued does not fulfil the nature of the offence under the law of the Czech Republic;
(c) the person at risk shall enjoy, under the law of the Czech Republic or international law, privileges and immunities for which he is excluded from the jurisdiction of the law enforcement authorities;
(d) the person in danger would not be held liable for the conduct for which the protection order described in the European protection order was issued because of his age under the law of the Czech Republic;
(e) the criminal liability for the conduct for which the protection order described in the European Protection Order has been issued is limited under the law of the Czech Republic and such a protection order has been issued for an act whose prosecution under the law of the Czech Republic is under the jurisdiction of the authorities of the Czech Republic,
(f) the prohibition or restriction imposed on the endangering person by the protection order described in the European Protection Order does not comply with the prohibition or restriction referred to in Article 341 (2); or
(g) the prohibition or restriction imposed on the person in danger by the protection order described in the European Protection Order is part of the punishment or protection measure, the execution of which is subject to amnesty in the Czech Republic, and such prohibition or restriction has been imposed for an act whose prosecution is under the jurisdiction of the Czech authorities under the law of the Czech Republic.
(2) Where there is doubt as to whether or to what extent the person at risk is excluded from the jurisdiction of the law enforcement authorities, the Supreme Court shall decide on a proposal from that person, the prosecutor or a single judge.
(3) A self-judge may not recognise a European protection order if the protection order described therein has been issued for an act committed in whole or in part in the territory of the Czech Republic or outside the territory of the Czech Republic on board a ship or another vessel, or an aircraft or other means of air transport registered in the Czech Republic; taking into account in particular the circumstances of the act.
(4) Furthermore, a self-judge does not need to recognise a European protection order if it is manifestly incomplete or not translated into a Czech language or another language in which the European protection order can be accepted according to the Czech Republic declaration (40). Before a decision not to recognise a single judge, the competent authority of another Member State shall invite it to send to it, within the time limit laid down by it, the completed version of the European Protection Order or its translation into the relevant language. At the same time, he shall be advised that, if he does not do so within the time limit set, he shall not recognise the European Protection Order without giving any relevant reasons for which he could not do so.
Recognition and adoption of follow-up measures
Where the case referred to in Article 345 (2) or (3) or in Article 346 (1) or in the second sentence of Article 352 (1) is not the case, or where there is no grounds for non-recognition of a European protection order, a self-judge shall recognise a European protection order in the territory of the Czech Republic and, at the same time, impose a follow-up measure on the endangering person, which is always based on the interim measures referred to in Article 88c of the penal order, which by its nature corresponds to the prohibition or restriction imposed in the protection order described in the European protection order, regardless of the stage of criminal proceedings, in another Member State. When imposing a follow-up measure, it shall proceed mutatis mutandis in accordance with § 88b to 88m of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is also a lesson in the resolution on the consequences of violations of the follow-up measure.
Complaints procedure
(1) A decision under § 347 (1), (3) and (4) or § 348 is admissible for a complaint having suspensory effect. The complaint cannot be challenged by the reasons for which the European Protection Order or the Protection Order described in it was issued in another Member State.
(2) The Court of First Instance ruling on the complaint shall dismiss the contested decision and close the proceedings if it finds the ground referred to in § 345 (2) or (3) or in § 352 (1) second sentence. If he finds the reason referred to in Article 345 (3), he shall first inform the competent authority of another Member State of that fact and ask him to express whether he insists on the recognition of the European Protection Order within the period laid down for that purpose. The proceedings shall not be terminated unless the competent authority of another Member State has expressed its views within a time limit or indicates circumstances which refute the ground for which the proceedings cannot be resumed.
Follow-up measures
(1) Unless otherwise provided for in this law, in the execution of a follow-up measure, a single judge shall act mutatis mutandis in accordance with the provisions of the criminal rules governing the execution of interim measures; Paragraph 88n (1) of the Penal Code shall not apply. If the person at risk infringes the follow-up measure, the individual judge may impose an order-by-order fine only.
(2) They shall notify the competent authority of another Member State of the infringement of a follow-up measure threatening a single Judge without undue delay. A notice of infringement of a follow-up measure shall be sent by means of a form provided for in European Union law governing the European Protection Command (41), translated into the official language or one of the official languages of that Member State, or in the language in which that State accepts notification pursuant to its declaration (40).
Repeal and amendment of the follow-up measures adopted
(1) If the authority of another Member State changes the protection order described in the European Protection Order, the Judge-Rapporteur shall decide whether to amend the follow-up measure imposed on the basis of the European Protection Order in such a way, to impose others in its place or to leave it in its original form. Where the amended protection order imposes an obligation other than that provided for in Paragraph 341 (2), the self-judge shall decide to maintain the follow-up measure in its original form; the same procedure shall apply where the grounds for non-recognition of a new European protection order referred to in Article 347 (4) are given and the competent authority of another Member State fails to comply with its call within the time limit set without giving any substantial reason. The decision shall be delivered by a single judge to the prosecutor, the protected person and the person in danger. There is an admissible complaint against this decision which has suspensory effect. The complaint cannot be challenged by the reasons for which the European Protection Order or the Protection Order described in it was issued in another Member State.
(2) A self-Judge shall inform the competent authority of another Member State of a change to the follow-up measure imposed on the basis of a recognised European protection order or of its retention, including an indication of the reasons for which it could not be amended. If a single Judge leaves in force a follow-up measure imposed on the basis of a recognised European protection order, he shall ask the competent authority of another Member State whether it should continue to exercise it or cancel it.
(3) A single judge shall, without undue delay, decide to repeal the follow-up measure where:
(a) the competent authority of another Member State shall inform the court that it does not insist on further enforcement of the follow-up measure imposed on the basis of the original European protection order;
(b) the protected person no longer resides in the Czech Republic or no longer resides there;
(c) the competent authority of another Member State shall inform the court of the revocation of the European protection order;
(d) is the case referred to in the second sentence of Paragraph 352 (2); or
(e) there is another fact that cannot be followed by a follow-up measure imposed on the basis of a recognised European protection order.
(4) The competent authority of another Member State shall inform the competent authority of the withdrawal of the follow-up measure referred to in paragraph 3 and of the reasons for such action without undue delay.
Conflict of proceedings
(1) If the protection order described in the European Protection Order has been sent to the Czech Republic for the purpose of the procedure referred to in Title IV or IX and a single judge becomes aware of this fact before deciding on the recognition of the European Protection Order and the adoption of follow-up measures pursuant to Article 348, the decision shall be postponed until a final decision is taken on the recognition and enforcement of the protection order pursuant to Title IV or IX. Where, in a procedure under Title IV or IX, it has been definitively decided to recognise and execute a protection order, the self-judge shall terminate the procedure for the recognition of the European protection order and the adoption of follow-up measures and shall inform the competent authority of another Member State, the public prosecutor and the protected person thereof, including the grounds therefor. Otherwise, the single judge shall continue the proceedings.
(2) Where a protection order described in the European Protection Order has been sent to the Czech Republic for the purpose of the procedure referred to in Title IV or IX and a single Judge becomes aware of this fact only after he has ruled that the European Protection Order is recognised by law and that a follow-up measure is imposed pursuant to Article 348, the enforcement of the follow-up measure shall continue until a final decision on the recognition and enforcement of the protection order under Title IV or IX has been taken. Where, in proceedings under Title IV or IX, a decision has been final and the protection order has been recognised and executed, the self-judge shall decide to abolish the follow-up measure; otherwise it shall maintain the follow-up measure in force.
Costs
The costs of the proceedings for the recognition of the European Protection Order and the adoption of follow-up measures shall be borne by the Czech Republic.
Ensuring protection of a protected person in another Member State
Issue, modification and revocation of the European Protection Order
(1) The judicial authority responsible for the execution of a protection order may, at the request of a protected person, issue a European protection order if the protected person is present or if he is resident in or intends to reside in the territory of another Member State. When considering whether to issue a European protection order, the judicial authority shall, in particular, take into account the period during which the protected person intends to stay or reside in another Member State and the degree of threat thereof. Before issuing a European protection order, the judicial authority shall verify that the protection order on the basis of which it is to be issued imposes any of the prohibitions or restrictions corresponding to the prohibitions or restrictions referred to in Article 341 (2). If the judicial authority does not issue a European Protection Order, it shall decide to reject the application of the protected person.
(2) The European Protection Order is issued using the form laid down in European Union law governing the European Protection Committee42) and contains the particulars set out therein.
(3) Where the procedure laid down in Title IV or Title IX is taken into account in respect of a protection order against the same Member State, the judicial authority shall, as a priority, follow the provisions of those Titles.
(4) The European protection order or decision rejecting a protected person's application for extradition shall be served by the judicial authority on the protected person. A protected person may lodge a complaint against a decision rejecting an application for a European protection order.
(5) Where the protection order has been amended or revoked, the judicial authority which issued the European protection order shall amend it accordingly or withdraw it. The amended European Protection Order shall be delivered by the judicial authority to the competent authority of another Member State and shall inform the protected person accordingly. The judicial authority shall inform the protected person and the competent authority of another Member State of the revocation of the European protection order.
Sending a European protection order to another Member State
(1) The judicial authority which issued the European Protection Order will send it to the competent authority of another Member State in which the protected person is staying or resides or intends to reside or reside, for the purpose of its recognition and the adoption of follow-up measures.
(2) The European Protection Order shall be sent by the judicial authority to the competent authority of another Member State, translated into the official language or one of the official languages of that Member State, or in the language in which that Member State accepts it according to its declaration (40).
(3) At the request of the competent authority of another Member State, the judicial authority shall provide the additional information and additions required for the purposes of the recognition of the European Protection Order and the adoption of follow-up measures.
Consequences of sending a European protection order to another Member State
(1) Recognition of a European protection order by an authority of another Member State and the adoption of follow-up measures do not prevent the execution of the protection order on the basis of which the European protection order was issued.
(2) If the authority of another Member State which has recognised the European Protection Order and has taken a follow-up measure notifies the judicial authority that the person at risk has infringed that follow-up measure, it shall be treated in a similar manner as if the person at risk would have infringed the conditions laid down in the protection order in the Czech Republic unless the execution of the protection order has been transferred to one of the Member States.
(3) The judicial authority shall without delay inform the competent authority of another Member State of any decision, measure or fact which makes it impossible to continue the enforcement of measures taken by another Member State on the basis of a recognised European protection order.
39) Directive 2011 / 99 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a European protection order.
40) Article 17 (3) of Directive 2011 / 99 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a European protection order.
41) Annex II to Directive 2011 / 99 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a European protection order.
42) Annex I to Directive 2011 / 99 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a European protection order. '.
Paragraphs 340 and 341 are renumbered Articles 357 and 358.
Amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure
In Section 88n of Act No. 141 / 1961 Coll., on Criminal Procedure of the Court (Criminal Code), as amended by Act No. 45 / 2013 Coll., the following paragraph 5 is added:
"(5) Where a European Protection Order has been issued pursuant to the Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters and the amendment or revocation of such interim measure has been decided by a criminal authority which is different from that of the European Protection Order, it shall send its decision to that judicial authority. ';
Amendment of the Judicial Act on Youth Affairs
In Part One, Title II of Act No. 218 / 2003 Coll., on the Liability of Youth for Illegal Acts and on Judicial Affairs in Youth Matters and on the Amendment of Certain Laws (Law on Judicial Matters in Youth Matters), as amended by Act No. 383 / 2005 Coll., Act No. 253 / 2006 Coll., Act No. 345 / 2007 Coll., Act No. 129 / 2008 Coll., Act No. 41 / 2009 Coll., Act No. 181 / 2011 Coll., Act No. 357 / 2011 Coll., Act No. 7, Act No. 375 / 2011 Coll., Act No. 459 / 2011 Coll., Act No. 193 / 2012 Coll., Act No. 390 / 2012 Coll., and Act No. 45 / 2013 Coll., Part 7 is added as part 8, including the title:
International judicial cooperation in juvenile criminal matters
(1) A decision imposing on a minor a replacement measure for detention which may be sent to another Member State for recognition and enforcement in accordance with the procedure laid down in Parts 2 and 3 of Title IV of Part Five of the Act on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, is a final decision by the Prosecutor or a court which has been decided to keep the accused minor at liberty or release him from custody while replacing the detention by a guarantee, promise, supervision by a probation officer or preliminary measure under the criminal order or by placing him in the custody of a trusted person under that law.
(2) A decision imposing a financial penalty or other financial performance on a minor that can be sent to another Member State for recognition and enforcement in accordance with the procedure laid down in Part Five, Title VI, Part 2 of the Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, shall be a final decision by the court which has imposed a financial measure or which has been ordered by a suspended execution of a financial measure or which has been decided on the obligation of a convicted minor to pay the costs of criminal proceedings for the benefit of the State, as well as by the law of the law enforcement authority which has been imposed on a minor in criminal proceedings.
(3) A decision imposing on a minor the forfeiture or the prevention of property, property or other property values which may be sent to another Member State for recognition and enforcement in accordance with the procedure laid down in Part Five, Title VII, Part 2 of the Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, subject to the conditions laid down by the Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, shall be the final judgment of the court seised by:
(a) criminal measures for the forfeiture of a case or other assets;
(b) forfeiting the replacement value for the proceeds of crime;
(c) a safeguard measure prevents a case or other property value; or
(d) prevent replacement values for the proceeds of crime.
(4) A decision imposing a juvenile penalty linked to the deprivation of liberty, which may be sent to another Member State for recognition and enforcement in accordance with the procedure laid down in Part Five, Title VIII, Part 2 of the Act on International Criminal Cooperation, shall be a final decision by a court which has imposed criminal measures of unconditional imprisonment or has been decided to exercise the remainder of the sentence, including where the execution of a suspended criminal sentence has been decided, the execution of alternative criminal measures of imprisonment or of a criminal offence which has been imposed on an unexecuted criminal offence of domestic arrest or a criminal offence of general good cause, or which has been subject to security detention, constitutional protection or protective custody.
(5) A decision imposing a juvenile penalty not linked to the deprivation of liberty, supervision or restriction or to an obligation which, when the conditions laid down in the law on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters are fulfilled, may be sent to another Member State for recognition and enforcement under the procedure laid down in Title IX of Part Five, Part 2 of the Act on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, a final judgment of a court which has been suspended from the imposition of criminal measures on a condition of imprisonment, or which has been suspended from the execution of criminal measures on criminal grounds of deprivation of liberty, imposed by the supervision of a probation officer who has been subject to a probation programme, an educational obligation or an administrative restriction, and a final decision of the court which has been imposed on a minor person by a domestic prison, in general benefit, a prohibition of activity, a prohibition of entry into sports, cultural or other social action or an ambulance.
(6) The enforcement of a decision of another Member State directed towards a minor which has been recognised in accordance with the procedure laid down in Part Five, Titles IV, VI, VIII and IX of the Act on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters shall be governed by that law and by the Code of Criminal Procedure. ';
Amendment to the law on victims of crime
In Section 14 of Act No. 45 / 2013 Coll., on the Victims of Crime and on the Amendment of Certain Acts (Act on Victims of Crime), paragraph 8 is added as follows:
"(8) The judicial authority shall issue a European protection order under the conditions laid down in the Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters. '
EFFECTIVE
That law shall take effect on the first day of the first calendar month following its publication.
Hamlet v. r.
Zeman v. r.
Sobotka v. r.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | Act No. 77 / 2015 Coll., amending Act No. 104 / 2013 Coll., on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, and other related laws |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | Law |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 17.04.2015 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | 01.05.2015 |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0