CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) CONVICTION FOLLOWING AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL … and impartiality of the judges, or its criticism that the trial court did not follow binding instructions, on the mere fact that the trial court made findings of fact and a conclusion as to the complainant’s guilt with which the Court of Appeal merely disagrees. In the case, the ECtHR concluded that the sequence of events in the applicant’s case was significantly indicative of a failure of justice whereby the overall fairness of the proceedings suffered. 75 The ECtHR therefore found that the proceedings in the case of the applicant, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for double murder, were not fair within the meaning of Article 6(1) ECHR. The Court of Appeal quashed the acquittal of the subordinate court on four occasions on the basis of alleged deficiencies in the assessment of the evidence, after which it took the case away from the subordinate court and referred it to another court, which may have been under the impression that it had no choice but to uphold the guilty verdict. Moreover, the proceedings, which lasted over ten years, did not meet the requirement of a hearing within a reasonable time. 76 It should be noted, however, that the ECtHR was not the quickest to rule on the case either (2012 – Application; 2020 – Decision). At the beginning of 2021, the Constitutional Court granted a retrial and reversed its two previous decisions rejecting the complaints. On the initiative of these complaints, the Constitutional Court issued a ruling of the full court of 27 July 2021, Pl. ÚS 110/20 of 21 July 2010 under point I. so that the Supreme Court’s resolution No. 8 Tdo 790/2010, the judgment of the High Court in Prague No. 8 To 97/2009-4175, the judgment of the Regional Court in Prague No. 2T 46/2007-4003, and the judgment of the High Court in Prague No. 8 To 45/2007-3551 violated the complainant’s fundamental rights to judicial protection and to a lawful judge pursuant to Article 36(1) and Article 38(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, and under point II. annulled all of those decisions. The case was then further decided by the High Court in Prague, which on 14 October 2021, by order No. 8 To 71/2021, dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal against the last acquittal of the Regional Court in Plzeň. The complainant was released on bail and stated that he would claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The ECtHR’s decision in this case is seen as an argument for the forthcoming extension of the appellate principle. 77 We are discussing the influence of ECtHR case-law on Czech criminal proceedings. 78 6. The relationship between the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal in criminal cases as seen by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (recent cases) In the context of the relationship between the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, two key recent decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic cannot be overlooked. Also, one decision of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic. The aim of this chapter is to draw the reader’s attention to the essential conclusions of the three decisions of the highest Czech courts.

75 ECtHR decision in Tempel v Czech Republic , § 71. 76 ECtHR decision in Tempel v Czech Republic , §§ 73–90. 77 See more part 4. of this study.

78 SCHEU, H. Ch. Vliv judikatury Evropského soudu pro lidská práva na harmonizaci trestního řízení v Evropě (The impact of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on harmonisation criminal procedure in Europe). Acta Universitatis Carolinae – Iuridica , 2008, No. 2. p. 53.

255