CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

PETR KONŮPKA the GISF erred in not interviewing the intervening police officers immediately after the event, but only several weeks later. It had thus failed to prevent the risk of collusion by allowing the officers to reconcile their statements with each other. Moreover, the questions the GISF asked them during the interview were only superficial and did not concern the use of coercive measures. Secondly, the GISF investigation did not focus at all on the important circumstance of what information was shared between the police officers and the hospital staff during the intervention, and the experts were not asked about the possible interaction between the medication administered to the patient and the use of the taser. These lines of enquiry were, in the Court’s view, obvious and the failure to explore them substantially affected the ability of the investigation to actually clarify the facts and identify the persons responsible. Judgment V is only the second time in its 30-year history that the Czech Republic has been convicted of violating the right to life. 21 It highlights serious shortcomings in Czech law and practice. As part of its execution, it will therefore be necessary to adopt general measures that will bring clearer rules for the procedure and cooperation of police officers and health professionals in similar crisis situations, for the use of tasers against persons with psychosocial disabilities, and to ensure sufficient practical training of police officers for interventions against such persons, which require specific procedures. The practice of the General Inspectorate of Security Forces regarding the interrogation of police officers immediately after an incident will also need to be revisited. The Court has already found similar misconduct against the Czech Republic in the past. 22 1.3 Salaries of judges A very topical issue was addressed by the Court in Kubát and Others v. Czech Republic . 23 In that case, a total of six Czech judges challenged the reduction of their salaries in the years 2011–2014. At that time, the government and the legislature, invoking the need to adopt austerity measures in reaction to the economic crisis, reduced the salary base for calculating judges’ salaries from three times the average nominal monthly salary in the non-commercial sector to 2.5 times and later to 2.75 times. The Constitutional Court found these restrictions of judges’ salaries unconstitutional. However, it ruled that its ruling has only effects pro future and does not give rise to a claim for retroactive payment of the difference in salaries. The six judges in question subsequently did not accept an out-of-court settlement with the state for partial compensation of their salaries for the past period and sought full reimbursement of their salaries through the courts. Having failed, they turned to the Strasbourg Court. The Court stated that the essence of the applicants’ complaint was not the reduction of their salaries as such, but the decision of the Constitutional Court not to grant them compensation for the difference in salaries retroactively, but only for the future. The Court found that this solution was in accordance with the established general rules of Czech constitutional law, according to which the decisions of the Constitutional Court have effect only in the future. There would have to be urgent and compelling reasons for doing otherwise. The Strasbourg 21 The first judgment on a violation of Article 2 of the Convention was the Eremiášová and Pechová judgment (no. 23944/04, 16 February 2012), which concerned the death of a man after he fell out the window at a police station where he had been arrested on suspicion of stealing a bicycle. 22 See Kummer v. Czech Republic (no. 32133/11, 25 July 2013). 23 See footnote 16.

342