Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Slovakia / Constitutional Court / I. ÚS 183/2019-194

claimant: XX, an individual, Hungarian national, against the defendant: General Prosecutors Office of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter only as “General Prosecutors Office”)
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Constitutional Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
11/02/2020
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:SK:USSR:2020:1.US.183/2019

Povelja o temeljnim pravima Europske unije

Title V: Citizens' rights

Article 45 - Freedom of movement and of residence

Title VI: Justice

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

Title VI: Justice

Article 50 - Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Slovakia / Constitutional Court / I. ÚS 183/2019-194
    Key facts of the case:
    On 15 December 2015, the Zagreb County Court issued a European arrest warrant (“EAW”) to the claimant (under no. K-US-50/14), on the basis of which an alert was entered in the Schengen Information System (hereinafter referred to as "SIS II"). The claimant, a Hungarian national as CEO and Chairman of MOL Plc., the parent company and major shareholder of Slovak company Slovnaft, may not personally attend meetings of the Board of Directors and also general meetings of Slovnaft, as well as other business meetings in the Slovak Republic. In its submissions to the Slovak General Prosecutors Office he sought a preliminary review of the alert and repeatedly requested the General Prosecutors Office to issue instructions to the National SIRENE Bureau to indicate the record (a flag) which constitutes an obstacle to his detention. In the meantime a new decision of the Court of Justice of the Hungarian Capital was issued, on 23 August 2018, under no. 33.Beu.945/2018/3 (results of the proceedings unknown). Therefore, the claimant objected to the violation of the principle ne bis in idem since the act for which the European arrest warrant has been issued resulted in a judicial decision in Hungary. The claimant, a Hungarian national, turned to the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter “Constitutional Court”) with a request to review the legality of the abovementioned notification of the General Prosecutors Office, which according to him violated his rights. The rights at issue are: * Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, * Article 46(1) and Articles 1(1) and 2(2) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, Act No. 460/1992 Coll., as amended (Ústava Slovenskej republiky, zákon č. 460/1992 Zb., v znení neskorších predpisov), * Articles 45(1), 47 and 50 of the Charter, * Article 54 The Schengen acquis - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders.
     
    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    The extent to which it is necessary to examine a SIS II. record in accordance with the Article 12 of Act no. 154/2010 Coll. (Act no. 154/2010 Coll. on the European Arrest Warrant) and to assess whether the General Prosecutors Office has examined the record to the extent that follows from Article 12 of Act no. 154/2010, is a constitutionally relevant question. (note for a reader: According to Act no. 154/2010 Coll. “(General Prosecutors Office is obliged) to examine all grounds that may represent a reason for non-execution of the EAW, including reasonable suspicions of violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms and may not be limited to the reasons stated in Article 23(1) of the Act. In addition, the case law of the ECJ recognizes as

    mandatory grounds for refusing to execute an EAW a violation of the fundamental right to a fair trial and any other violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms.")

     
    Outcome of the case:
    The fundamental right to other legal protection under Art. 46(1) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, The right to judicial and other legal protection and the right to a fair trial and the fundamental right to a fair trial according to Art. 47 of the Charter were violated by the notification of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Slovak Republic no. V GPtm 54/18/1000-18 of November 27, 2018. The notification of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Slovak Republic no. V GPtm 54/18/1000-18 of 27 November 2018, has been cancelled and the case was returned for further proceedings to General Prosecutors Office.
     
     
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    85. According to Article 45(1) of the Charter, every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. 86. According to Article 47 of the Charter, Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously estab-lished by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. 87. According to Article 50 of the Charter, no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law. 109. According to point 34 of the SIS II, this decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognized by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 110. Pursuant to point 12 of the EAW Framework Decision, that framework decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognized by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and expressed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Chapter VI thereof. (Title) VII.1 To the alleged violation of the claimant’s fundamental right to other legal protection under Art. 46(1) of the Constitu-tion and the fundamental right to a fair trial according to Art. 47 of the Charter. According to Article 51(1) of the Charter, the provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agen-cies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. Pursuant to Art. 51 par. 1 of the Charter, the provisions of this Charter are addressed (in compliance with the principle of subsidiar-ity) to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union and also to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. In the present case, the General Prosecutors Office applied the provisions of Act no. 154/2010 Coll., by which the Slovak Republic implemented the Framework Decision on the EAW and also the Decision on SIS II, therefore the Union law has been implemented

    in accordance with Art. 51(1) of the Charter (see also the judgment in Case C 5/88 of 13.7.1989, Wachauf) and the Charter is there-fore applicable in this case. The Constitutional Court also took into account the case law of the Court of Justice, which, when inter-preting the term “issuing judicial authority” within the meaning of Art. 6(1) of the EAW Framework Decision stated that the term does not only refer to judges or courts of a Member State, but in a broader sense may also apply to bodies involved in the admin-istration of justice in criminal matters in that Member State, in particular as opposed to administrative authorities or police authori-ties that are part of the executive branch. On this basis, the Constitutional Court also concluded that, by notification of 27 November 2018, the General Prosecutors Office had also violated the fundamental right to a fair trial under Art. 47 of the Charter (point 1 of the operative part of the judgment). 131. In relation to the alleged violation of fundamental rights under Art. 45(1) and Art. 50 of the Charter and the rights under Art. 54 of the Implementing Convention, the Constitutional Court followed the principle of minimizing its interference with the jurisdiction of general courts (or other state bodies), the decisions of which are in the proceedings on complaints under Art. 127(1) of the Consti-tution under review (IV. ÚS 303/04, IV. ÚS 64/2010, IV. ÚS 100/2014), which results from its subsidiary position in the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. In doing so, he proceeded, in accordance with his previous case law (eg II. ÚS 182/06, IV. ÚS 311/08), that, following the statement of the violation of the claimant's fundamental right pursuant to Art. 46 (1) of the Constitution and fundamental rights according to Art. 47 of the Charter by the notification of the General Prosecutors Office of 27 November 2018 and by the repeal of this notification, it opens the space for the General Prosecutors Office to deal with the protection of the said rights in the further procedure.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    „Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky na verejnom zasadnutí 11. februára 2020 v senáte zloženom z predsedníčky senátu Jany Barico-vej, zo sudcov Miroslava Duriša (sudca spravodajca) a Mojmíra Mamojku prerokoval ústavnú sťažnosť xxxx Maďarská republika, zastúpeného advokátskou kanceláriou RUŽIČKA AND PARTNERS s. r. o., Vysoká 2/B, Bratislava, v mene ktorej koná advokátka a konateľka JUDr. Dana Nemčíková, vo veci namietaného porušenia jeho základného práva podľa čl. 46 ods. 1 Ústavy 85. Podľa čl. 45 ods. 1 charty každý občan Únie má právo na slobodný pohyb a pobyt na území členských štátov.

    Charter in original language 86. Podľa čl. 47 charty každý, koho práva a slobody zaručené právom Únie sú porušené, má za podmienok ustanovených v tomto článku právo na účinný prostriedok nápravy pred súdom. Každý má právo na to, aby jeho záležitosť bola spravodlivo, verejne a v primeranej lehote prejednaná nezávislým a nestranným sú-dom zriadeným zákonom. Každý musí mať možnosť poradiť sa, obhajovať sa a nechať sa zastupovať. 87. Podľa čl. 50 charty nikoho nemožno stíhať alebo potrestať v trestnom konaní za trestný čin, za ktorý už bol v rámci Únie oslobo-dený alebo odsúdený konečným rozsudkom v súlade so zákonom. 109. Podľa bodu 34 rozhodnutia o SIS II toto rozhodnutie rešpektuje základné práva a dodržiava zásady uznávané Chartou základ-ných práv Európskej únie. 110. V zmysle bodu 12 rámcového rozhodnutia o EZR toto rámcové rozhodnutie rešpektuje základné práva a dodržiava zásady uznané v čl. 6 Zmluvy o Európskej únii a vyjadrené v Charte základných práv Európskej únie, najmä jej kapitole VI. VII.1 K vysloveniu porušenia základného práva sťažovateľa na inú právnu ochranu podľa čl. 46 ods. 1 ústavy a základného práva na spravodlivý proces podľa čl. 47 charty. V zmysle čl. 51 ods. 1 charty ustanovenia tejto charty sú pri dodržaní zásady subsidiarity určené pre inštitúcie, orgány, úrady a agen-túry Únie, a tiež pre členské štáty výlučne vtedy, ak vykonávajú právo Únie. V prerokúvanom prípade generálna prokuratúra aplikovala ustanovenia zákona č. 154/2010 Z. z., ktorým Slovenská republika im-plementovala rámcové rozhodnutie o EZR a tiež rozhodnutie o SIS II, preto išlo o vykonávanie práva Únie v zmysle čl. 51 ods. 1 charty (porovnaj tiež rozsudok vo veci C 5/88 z 13. 7. 1989, Wachauf) a charta je v predmetnej veci aplikovateľná. Ústavný súd tiež prihliadol na judikatúru Súdneho dvora, ktorý pri výklade pojmu „vydávajúci súdny orgán“ v zmysle čl. 6 ods. 1 rámcového rozhod-nutia o EZR uviedol, že tento pojem neoznačuje len sudcov alebo súdy členského štátu, ale v širšom zmysle sa môže vzťahovať aj na orgány, ktoré sa podieľajú na výkone spravodlivosti v trestných veciach v tomto členskom štáte, najmä na rozdiel od správnych orgánov alebo policajných orgánov, ktoré sú súčasťou výkonnej moci. Na tomto základe ústavný súd dospel tiež k záveru, že oznámením z 27. novembra 2018 generálna prokuratúra porušila aj základné právo na spravodlivý proces podľa čl. 47 charty (bod 1 výroku nálezu). 131. Vo vzťahu k namietanému porušeniu základných práv podľa čl. 45 ods. 1 a čl. 50 charty a práva podľa čl. 54 vykonávacieho dohovoru sa ústavný súd riadil princípom minimalizácie svojich zásahov do právomoci všeobecných súdov (alebo iných štátnych orgánov), rozhodnutia ktorých sú v konaní o sťažnosti podľa čl. 127 ods. 1 ústavy preskúmavané (IV. ÚS 303/04, IV. ÚS 64/2010, IV. ÚS 100/2014), ktorý vyplýva z jeho subsidiárneho postavenia pri ochrane základných práv a slobôd. Vychádzal pritom v súlade so svojou doterajšou judikatúrou (napr. II. ÚS 182/06, IV. ÚS 311/08) z toho, že v nadväznosti na vyslovenie porušenia základného práva sťažovateľa podľa čl. 46 ods. 1 ústavy a základného práva podľa čl. 47 charty oznámením generálnej prokuratúry z 27. no-vembra 2018 a zrušením tohto oznámenia sa otvára priestor na to, aby sa generálna prokuratúra v ďalšom postupe sama vysporia-dala s ochranou uvedených práv.