Magazine Státní zastupitelství 2/2013

JUDr. Ivo Pospíšil, Ph.D., vedoucí analytického odboru Ústavního soudu, odborný asistent na Fakultě sociálních studií a Právnické fakultě MU, email: ivo.pospisil@usoud.cz
Mgr. Lenka Popovičová,analytička Ústavního soudu, doktorská studentka na Katedře mezinárodního a evropského práva Právnické fakulty MU, email: lenkapopo@mail.muni.cz

The article analyses the right to a hearing within a reasonable time and to compensation for the breach thereof, in connection with the “abolition part” of the presidential amnesty of January 2013 (published under no. 1/2013 Coll.). With reference to the relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Right s and the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, the authors rebut the allegation of presidential advisors that the obligation to discontinue the proceedings lasting more than six years follows from the ECHR case law. The authors show that such a general boundary has never been established by the ECHR or the CC; on the contrary, when assessing the reasonableness of the length of criminal proceedings, both courts take into consideration several criteria (in particular the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and the importance of the proceedings to the applicant); the outcome therefore differs based on the circumstances of each individual case. Likewise, the courts have never laid down an obligation to compensate the victim by discontinuing the proceedings. Such a redress may be accepted by the courts, but only when additional conditions are satisfied (first and foremost it is necessary to consider the protection of other participants of criminal proceedings). The authors come to a conclusion that if the objective of the amnesty was to follow the jurisprudence of the courts, the President missed the target completely.

Ladislav Vyhnánek, Katedra ústavního práva a politologie, Právnická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity, Brno, email: ladislav.vyhnanek@law.muni.cz

The article deals with the countersignature of the presidenťs decision in the Czech constitutional order. Firstly, it clarifies the concept of countersignature, its historical roots and the reason of its existe nce. Then, it analyses the key issues connected with the countersignature of the presidenťs decisions, i.e., which decisions may or must be countersigned, what form should a countersignature have, who is entitled to countersign a presidenťs decision, who is entitled to discretion or what are the legal effects of the countersignature. Followig this analysis the article comments on some interpretation problems which arose after the announcement of amnesty by the president at the beginning of 2013. In this conte xt, the artile concluded that the Prime Minister is clearly entitled to reject his countersignature in case he does not agree with a presidenťs decision for political reasons.

Mgr. Jiří Pavlík, Okresní státní zastupitelství v Písku, email: jpavlik@osz.psk.justice.cz
JUDr. Kateřina Přepechalová,interní doktorand katedry trestního práva PF MU Brno; email: 124206@mail.muni.cz
JUDr. Miroslav Růžička, Ph. D.,Nejvyšší státní zastupitelství; email: ruzicka@nsz.brn.justice.cz

The paper discusses the topical issue of the presidential amnesty announced on January 1, 2013. It elaborates on the amnesty from a wider penal aspect. It mentions some highly topical application problems of the presidential amnesty of January 2013 which have a more general impact.

Mgr. Jiří Pavlík, státní zástupce Okresního státního zastupitelství v Písku; email: jpavlik@osz.psk.justice.cz

The paper contains a review of the abolition provisions of presidential amnesties from 1918 to 2013, with their brief evaluation. The author then compares the abolition provision of the presidential amnesty of 1 January 2013 with those from the past. The author of this paper concludes that the presidential amnesty of 1 January 2013 shows significant differences from the usual practice in its abolition part.

JUDr. Ivan Bernátek, okresní státní zástupce v Liberci; email: ibernatek@osz.lbc.justice.cz

The aim of this paper is to warn of possible interpretation problems which can arise in the decision to apply the amnesty of President Václav Klaus. Referring to his own practical experience in dealing with the 1975 amnesty the author discusses practical impact of the presidential decision from both the procedural and material and legal aspects which are the consequence of the loss of the institutional memory pertaining to former amnesties and the proper contents of President Klaus’s amnesty. The point is the solution of disputes on the area of jurisdiction in the decision on the application of the amnesty with persons serving their term in prison, and a possible impact of a problematic condition of the requested impunity in the future under Article 111 Paragraph 1, for some of the pardoned persons.

JUDr. Milan Bicko,doktorand Katedry TP PF Panevrópskej VŠ, Bratislava; email: koncipient@stonline.sk

The paper compares ·the legislation on amnesty in the legal system in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. It briefly describes the amnesties granted so far in the Slovak Republic. Likewise it compares the impact of the amnesty No. 1/ 2013 of the presidents of both states in relation to the number of pardoned persons and the public reaction.

Mgr. Radek Bělor,státní zástupce, Krajské státní zastupitelství v Ústí nad Labem; email: rbelor@ksz.unl.justice.cz
JUDr. Pavel Rameš, advokát ; email: kancelar@akrames.cz

Public Prosecutor Radek Bělor and lawyer Pav el Rameš examine what may surprise them in a negative way or, on the contrary what they are pleased about when encountering each other at or outside the court. These may be either the general characteristics of public prosecutors and lawyers, or the nature of respective personalities.