I. US 153/02
                               


The   Constitutional   Court   has   already   considered   the
constitutionality of § 31 para. 3 of Act no. 83/1998 Coll., and
in  its  judgment  of  30  April  2002,  file  no.  Pl.  18/01,
(published  under  no. 234/2002 Coll.) it  annulled  the  cited
provision  due  to inconsistency with Art. 36 para.  3  of  the
Charter, in connection with Art. 1 para. 1, Art. 3 para. 1  and
Art.  4  para.  4  of  the  Charter of Fundamental  Rights  and
Freedoms.
   In  that  case  the  Regional Court did  not  recognize  the
complainant's entitlement to compensation of proceedings  costs
(specifically, the costs of defense which, under § 31  para.  4
of  Act no. 82/1998 Coll. are part of the proceedings costs) as
material  detriment which the state caused him by its  measure,
for  the  reason that the complainant did not incur any further
(other)  damages under the then valid  § 31 para. 3 of Act  no.
82/1998  Coll.  In  view  of  the  subsequent  finding  of  the
Constitutional  Court  it is evident that  the  complainant  is
entitled to compensation of defense costs regardless of whether
he  incurred additional damages other than those which  consist
of  the proceedings costs. Although the Constitutional Court is
aware that on this point the Regional Court acted in accordance
with  the  then  valid § 31 para. 3 of Act no.  82/1998  Coll.,
nonetheless  the  contested verdict led  to  violation  of  the
complainant's  constitutionally guaranteed  right  under  §  36
para. 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.


A  Panel of the Constitutional Court decided on this day in the
matter of a constitutional complaint by the complainant J.  P.,
represented by Mgr. V. V., attorney, against a verdict  by  the
City  Court  in  Prague of 14 November 2001,  file  no.  13  Co
223/2001, as follows:
   The constitutional complaint is granted, and the verdict  of
the  City Court in Prague of 14 November 2001, file no.  13  Co
223/2001, is annulled.


                           REASONING

I.
In  his  timely filed constitutional complaint, the complainant
seeks annulment of a verdict of the City Court in Prague of  14
November 2001, file no. 13 Co 223/2001, which changed a verdict
of  the District Court for Prague 1, of 21 June 2001, file  no.
13 C 177/2000, so that the complaint was denied.
   The  complainant stated in the constitutional complaint that
he  participated, along with other persons, in a  demonstration
held  on  16 May 1998 in Prague 1. After the Police of  the  CR
intervened  against  the  demonstrators  the  complainant   was
informed that he was charged with crimes under § 9 para. 2 to §
202  of the Criminal Code and § 9 para. 2 to § 155 para. 1 let.
a)  of  the Criminal Code. The criminal prosecution was stopped
by  decision  of  26 June 1998, and therefore  the  complainant
sought  compensation of damages in the amount of CZK  10,169.60
with 15% interest from 11 March 1999 until payment. This amount
represents  the  costs of attorney's fees.  The  abovementioned
factual  situation  was determined by the court  of  the  first
level, and neither the parties to the proceedings nor later the
appeals court contested it.
  In its verdict of 21 June 2001, the District Court for Prague
1  recognized  the  complainant's claim to  be  justified,  and
awarded  him  compensation of damages in the requested  amount.
However,  the  CR – the Ministry of Justice – appealed  against
the  verdict,  and the appeals court subsequently  changed  the
verdict  of  the  court  of  the first  level  and  denied  the
complaint. It justified its decision on the grounds that, under
§  13 para. 1 of Act no. 82/1998 Coll., the state is liable for
damages  caused  by  incorrect  official  procedure,  and   the
notification  of  charges under § 160 para. 1 of  the  Criminal
Procedure  Code  must  be  considered  as  such,  if   criminal
prosecution was stopped by decision of the investigator or  the
matter  was transferred to another body (§ 31 para.  1  of  the
cited Act). Under § 9 para. 1 of the same Act, someone who  was
taken  into  custody  is  entitled to compensation  of  damages
caused  by  the decision to take him into custody  if  criminal
proceedings against him were stopped, if he was cleared of  the
charge,  or if the matter was transferred to a different  body.
The  provisions of § 31 para. 1 and 2 of Act no. 82/1998  Coll.
also  regulate  the  right to compensation  of  damages,  which
includes  compensation of legal costs which the  injured  party
incurred  in  proceedings  in which  an  unlawful  decision  or
decision  on  custody,  punishment or protective  measures  was
issued  or  in  proceedings in which a reversal or  not  guilty
decision  was  issued,  whereby the criminal  proceedings  were
stopped  or  the matter was transferred to another  body.  This
compensation  includes  compensation of the  proceedings  costs
which  the injured party incurred in the proceedings  in  which
the  incorrect official procedure occurred, if these costs  are
related to the incorrect official procedure. Under § 31 para. 3
of   the   cited  Act,  the  entitlement  to  compensation   of
proceedings  costs  as part of compensation of  damages  arises
only if the decision caused damage and if compensation of costs
has  not  yet  been  awarded under procedural regulations.  The
appeals  court  concluded  from  the  cited  provision  that  a
condition  for  the entitlement to compensation of  proceedings
costs  to arise is the existence of “other damages” as property
detriment   which  the  injured  party  suffered  through   the
incorrect  official procedure or incorrect decision. For  these
reasons the appeals court denied the complainant's complaint.
   In  the constitutional complaint, the complainant takes  the
position  that  the  appeals court's  interpretation  leads  to
unjustified  narrowing of the entitlement  to  compensation  of
damages,  and  to such a degree that it practically  rules  out
compensation of damages in a case where the injured  party  was
not  taken into custody, or was taken into custody but did  not
prove  lost profits. This leads to disadvantaging one group  of
injured  parties. An injured party who was taken  into  custody
for more than a month and who proved that, as a result of being
taken  into custody, he lost profits, is entitled not  only  to
compensation  of  damages  for  that  detriment,  but  also  to
compensation  of  attorney's  fees  in  the  amount   of   non-
contractual  fees. An injured party who fails to  meet  one  of
these   conditions  has  no  entitlement  to  compensation   of
attorney's fees, even though he paid them, just like the  first
injured  party. This legal interpretation is inconsistent  with
the  principle of equality, which is enshrined in Art. 1 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The complainant  is
convinced  that  everyone  has the  right  to  compensation  of
damages caused by the unlawful decision of a court, other state
body,  or  public administration body, or by incorrect official
procedure, in accordance with Art. 36 para. 3 of the Charter of
Fundamental  Rights  and  Freedoms.  The  complainant  is  also
convinced  that  he incurred, in a causal connection  with  the
notification  of  charges, he suffered damages  in  the  amount
which  he was forced to expend to cover the costs of attorney's
fees.  The appeals court decision then violated his fundamental
right  enshrined  in  Art.  36  para.  3  of  the  Charter   of
Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
   The  City  Court  in  Prague,  which  issued  the  contested
decision,  in  its  position statement on the  content  of  the
constitutional complaint, merely stated that it  expressed  its
legal  opinion in the reasoning of the  verdict. The CR  -  the
Ministry  of  the  Interior  – as a  subsidiary  party  to  the
proceedings, did not submit a position statement.

II.
The  Constitutional Court has often emphasized in the past that
it  is  not  part  of  the general court  system  [Art.  91  in
connection  with Art. 90 of the Constitution of  the  CR],  and
therefore  can not review the decision making activity  of  the
general  courts.  The  Constitutional Court  is  authorized  to
intervene  in  the  activity of the courts, in  particular,  if
their  legally effective decisions in proceedings in which  the
complainant  was  a party would violate his fundamental  rights
and   freedoms  protected  by  a  constitutional  law.  In  the
Constitutional  Court's opinion this situation  arose  in  this
case, and therefore the constitutional complaint is justified.
   As  an introduction, the Constitutional Court notes that  it
has already considered the constitutionality of § 31 para. 3 of
Act  no.  83/1998 Coll., and in its finding of 30  April  2002,
file  no.  Pl. 18/01, (published under no. 234/2002  Coll.)  it
annulled the cited provision due to inconsistency with Art.  36
para. 3 of the Charter, in connection with Art. 1 para. 1, Art.
3  para.  1  and  Art. 4 para. 4 of the Charter of  Fundamental
Rights  and  Freedoms, when it concluded that if  “everyone  is
entitled  to compensation of damages caused him by an  unlawful
decision   by   a  court,  other  state  body   or   a   public
administration  body,  or by an incorrect  official  procedure,
where the conditions and details of implementing this right are
provided by statute [Art. 36 para. 3 a 4 of the Charter],  then
that   statute,   issued   on  the  basis   of   constitutional
authorization,   may   not  completely   annul   (negate)   the
entitlement to compensation of damages, arising as a result  of
the   cited   actions,  and  thereby  deny  a  constitutionally
guaranteed  fundamental right, even if only in  certain  cases.
Thus,  in  the case of persons who incurred damages  consisting
“only”   of   proceedings  costs,  the  legislative   procedure
reflected  in  the  contested provision  led  to  the  complete
exclusion  of  this  category of  persons  from  the  right  to
compensation  of damages, caused by an unlawful decision  by  a
court,  other state body or public administration body. Such  a
procedure  is  strictly  inconsistent with  the  constitutional
order  of  the  Czech  Republic and it  does  not  respect  the
principle of minimizing interference with fundamental rights in
the form of restricting them and maximizing the preservation of
the essential content of a fundamental right."
   In  that  case  the  Regional Court did  not  recognize  the
complainant's entitlement to compensation of proceedings  costs
(specifically, the costs of defense which, under § 31  para.  4
of  Act no. 82/1998 Coll. are part of the proceedings costs) as
material  detriment which the state caused him by its  measure,
for  the  reason that the complainant did not incur any further
(other)  damages under the then valid  § 31 para. 3 of Act  no.
82/1998  Coll.  In  view  of  the  subsequent  finding  of  the
Constitutional  Court  it is evident that  the  complainant  is
entitled to compensation of defense costs regardless of whether
he  incurred additional damages other than those which  consist
of  the proceedings costs. Although the Constitutional Court is
aware that on this point the Regional Court acted in accordance
with  the  then  valid § 31 para. 3 of Act no.  82/1998  Coll.,
nonetheless  the  contested verdict led  to  violation  of  the
complainant's  constitutionally guaranteed  right  under  §  36
para. 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms,  and
the  Constitutional Court therefore had not choice but to agree
with  the complainant under § 82 para. 2 let. a) of the Act  on
the Constitutional Court, and to annul the verdict cited in the
heading under § 82 para. 3 let. a) of the cited Act.

Notice:  Decisions  of  the Constitutional  Court  can  not  be
appealed.

Brno 18 June 2003