FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 12045/05
by Martin VLČEK
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Ganna Yudkivska, judges,
and Stephen Philips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Martin Vlček, is a Czech national who was born in 1971 and lives in Hradec Králové. He was represented before the Court by Ms G. Hamáková, a lawyer practising in Hradec Králové. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vít Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 30 January 2004 the police brought criminal proceedings against the applicant for suspected fraud.
On 12 February 2004 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention and served with a resolution instituting criminal prosecution of 30 January 2004. The applicant challenged the police decision commencing his prosecution on the grounds of erroneous assessment of facts and law and procedural shortcomings which had made the prosecution unconstitutional. On 12 February 2004 the investigator denied him access to the file.
On 18 March 2004 the Prague Municipal Prosecutor (městský státní zástupce) dismissed the defence counsel’s request for access to the case file.
On 28 April 2004 and on 20 May 2004 the applicant lodged constitutional appeals (ústavní stížnost), which were dismissed on 14 October and 21 December 2004 respectively, and a further constitutional appeal was dismissed on 1 September 2005.
On 11 October 2005 the Municipal Court received an indictment of the applicant and another four persons for an attempt of fraud, and, in respect of the applicant, of fraud and counterfeiting and altering money.
The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant appeared to complain that he had been denied access to the case file without any reasoning being given. He had been thus unable to defend himself properly in the course of the prosecution, the gravity of this impairment having been amplified by the fact that the applicant had been in pre-trial detention.
2. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention of the lack of access to an independent and impartial court as the police decision to prosecute had been scrutinised only by a prosecutor, the Constitutional Court having failed to examine it on the merits. As a prosecutor could not be regarded as an impartial and independent State authority, the applicant could not be said to have had any effective remedy at his disposal. Moreover, he alleged that he had been discriminated against in the civil proceedings on the basis of the impugned decisions.
3. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention that he had not had the benefit of the presumption of innocence as the decisions of the prosecuting authorities had implied his guilt and as they had been made available to third parties.
4. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention that he had not been informed of the accusation against him as the charge had not been precise enough.
THE LAW
1. The applicant appeared to complain that he had been denied access to the case file without any reasoning being given which made him unable to defend himself properly in the course of the prosecution, the gravity of this impairment having been amplified by the fact that he had been in pre-trial detention. He did not invoke any particular provision of the Convention
When the respondent Government were given notice of the present application, a question on this matter was put under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
The Government observed that the question of the connection between the alleged denial of access to the case file and the proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention was not the subject of the present application. In this connection, they referred to statements by the applicant that he intended to make a separate application concerning “matters relating to the decision to remand the applicant in custody”.
The applicant confirmed that the present application did not aim to protest against the decisions of the national authorities to take him into custody. An application concerning the unlawful restriction of his personal freedom and the decision to take him into custody was filed under no. 21813/05 where he alleged, inter alia, a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention due to the denial of access to the file after his arrest and before the decision-making on the custody.
The Court finds that, in the light of the parties’ submissions, the present application does not raise any issue under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and that, having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the case out of the list.
2. Insofar as the denial of access to the case file could have an impact on the conduct of the applicant’s defence in the criminal proceedings, and to the extent that the applicant complains Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (a), and Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention the Court notes that the proceedings are still pending. It follows that this part of the application is premature, and therefore inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it concerns the complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention,
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Stephen PhillipsMark Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy