FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF SPIŠÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
(Application no. 13968/22)
 
 
JUDGMENT
Art. 14 (+ Art 5) • Discrimination • Review of lawfulness of detention • Pre-trial detention of a juvenile prosecuted for serious offence subject to an automatic judicial review every six months and not every three months as adult persons prosecuted for the same category of offences • Age-based difference in treatment contrary to aim pursued by juvenile detention regime and underlying intention of domestic rules to provide more favourable treatment for juveniles • Lack of objective and reasonable justification for less favourable periodicity of automatic judicial control of detention
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
20 June 2024
 
FINAL
 
20/09/2024
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Spišák v. the Czech Republic,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Mattias Guyomar, President,
 Lado Chanturia,
 Carlo Ranzoni,
 María Elósegui,
 Kateřina Šimáčková,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy,
 Stephane Pisani, judges,
and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 13968/22) against the Czech Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Czech national, Mr Pavel Spišák (“the applicant”), on 10 March 2022;
the decisions to give notice to the Czech Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 and Article 14 of the Convention;
the parties’ observations and their additional observations;
Having deliberated in private on 28 May 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns, above all, the applicant’s complaint that, as a juvenile, he was discriminated against on the basis of his age since, unlike adult persons prosecuted for the same category of offences, his pre-trial detention was not subject to an automatic judicial review every three months (Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5). THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 2003 and lives in Všehrdy. He was represented by Mr V. Tokarský, a lawyer practising in Prague. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Konůpka, of the Ministry of Justice. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
the applicant’s detention
5. On 20 November 2020, the applicant, who was then 17 years old, was arrested on suspicion of, inter alia, robbery and grievous bodily harm. 6. On 21 November 2020, a prosecution was brought against the applicant as a juvenile on several serious charges, which was extended on 17 December 2020 to include, in particular, attempted murder. The applicant had already been given a suspended sentence for another offence and was on probation. 7. On 23 November 2020, the Prague 4 District Court decided, after hearing the applicant, to remand him in detention, with effect from 20 November 2020, to prevent him from interfering with the course of justice and from re-offending under Article 67(b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP”) and section 46(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act (hereinafter “the JJA”). He was advised of his right under Article 71a of the CCP to apply for release at any moment after the decision remanding him in detention became final. The applicant filed a complaint against that decision, which was rejected on 23 December 2020 by the Prague Municipal Court. 8. On 16 February 2021, the prosecutor notified the remand prison that from 20 February 2021 the maximum length of the detention justifiable by Article 67(b) of the CCP would be reached and that from then on the applicant would remain in detention only on the ground of Article 67(c) of the CCP (risk of re-offending). 9. On 24 March 2021 the applicant filed an application for release, claiming, inter alia, that he should have been released because no decision to keep him in detention had been taken by 23 March 2021, when the three-month time-limit set by Article 72 § 1 of the CCP for the automatic periodic review of his detention had expired. The prosecutor declined to release the applicant and transmitted the application to the court on 31 March 2021. 10. On 15 April 2021 the Prague-East District Court dismissed that application following a detention hearing, without specifying any alternative measure instead of detention. It stated that it was not possible to apply Article 72 § 1 of the CCP on the periodic review of detention to juveniles because the JJA, as lex specialis, contained a special provision (namely section 47(1)) on the maximum duration of the detention of a juvenile, setting a limit which in the applicant’s case was six months and which had not yet expired. The District Court also held that the grounds for the detention of the applicant under Article 67(c) of the CCP still applied as there was a well-founded risk that the applicant would re-offend if released. 11. On 19 April 2021 the applicant filed a complaint against this decision. The complaint did not substantiate any grounds on which the decision was challenged. 12. On 11 May 2021 the Prague Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that the District Court had taken account of all the relevant circumstances and that there was indeed a well-founded concern that the applicant would resume his criminal activities if released. 13. On 22 April 2021 the applicant was indicted by the Regional Court. 14. On 26 April 2021 the Regional Court asked for an extension of the applicant’s detention for another six months, pursuant to section 47(1) of the JJA. On 28 April 2021 the Prague High Court extended the applicant’s detention to 20 November 2021. It held that as the applicant was being prosecuted for several violent offences classified as “particularly serious” within the meaning of section 47(1) of the JJA, there was a well-founded risk of him reoffending, and that the investigation was extensive and there had been no apparent delays. 15. The applicant challenged that decision by a complaint, arguing that the courts’ interpretation of the effect of the interplay between section 47(1) of the JJA and Article 72 § 1 of the CCP was contrary to the Constitution since it contravened the purpose of the special legislation designed for juveniles and offered them less protection than adult detainees. 16. On 2 June 2021 the Supreme Court dismissed that complaint, finding that the conditions for extending the applicant’s detention had been met. It considered redundant to examine the applicant’s arguments relating to the automatic judicial review of the detention provided by Article 72 § 1 of the CCP. 17. Meanwhile, on 19 May 2021, the Regional Court had approved a plea bargain, following which the applicant started serving an 18-month prison sentence on 21 May 2021. The period of his pre-trial detention, that is to say from 20 November 2020 to 20 May 2021, was set off against his sentence. 18. Following a constitutional appeal by the applicant, the decisions of the Prague District Court of 23 November 2020 and the Prague Municipal Court of 23 December 2020 (see paragraph 7 above) were quashed by the Constitutional Court on 20 July 2021 (no. IV. ÚS 677/21), by which time the applicant was no longer in pre-trial detention. The Constitutional Court held that the court that took the decision ordering the applicant’s detention had not had the necessary territorial jurisdiction (as it was not the court local to the applicant’s place of residence). 19. On 2 November 2021 the Constitutional Court (no. IV. ÚS 1853/21) dismissed a constitutional appeal in which the applicant had challenged the decisions of 15 April and 11 May 2021 dismissing his application for release, as well as the decisions of 28 April and 2 June 2021 concerning the extension of his detention. Concerning the decision of 15 April 2021, the Constitutional Court observed that, contrary to the principle of subsidiarity in its material dimension, the applicant had challenged the decision only by an incomplete complaint which he had not supplemented. The Regional Court could therefore not be blamed for having failed to adequately consider complaints which had not been submitted to it in an appropriate manner, and this part of the constitutional appeal had to be declared manifestly ill-founded. Moreover, although the initial decision to remand the applicant in detention had been quashed because the judge had not had jurisdiction to make the order (see paragraph 18 above), the subsequent decision of the Prague-East District Court of 15 April 2021 did not have that shortcoming. Lastly, regarding the decisions on the extension of the applicant’s detention, the Constitutional Court was of the view that they had not had any effect since the applicant’s detention had ended on 20 May 2021 (six months after he had been placed in detention).
compensation proceedings
20. In January 2022 the applicant filed a claim under the State Liability Act for compensation for his detention between 20 November 2020 and 20 May 2021, which, in his view, had been unlawful following the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 20 July 2021 (see paragraph 18 above). 21. On 26 September 2023 the Prague 2 District Court granted the applicant’s claim for compensation for pecuniary damage. However, it dismissed his claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage, holding that the applicant had been compensated for that in another manner since the whole period of his detention had been set off against his criminal sentence (see paragraph 17 above). The applicant’s appeal of 10 November 2023 has not yet been decided. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
code of criminal procedure
22. The relevant domestic law on the grounds for remanding in detention and claiming compensation where the detention is unlawful are set out in Smatana v. the Czech Republic, (no. 18642/04, §§ 49-76, 27 September 2007). 23. Under Article 71, the criminal authorities must examine at every stage of the proceedings whether the grounds for the detention continue to exist or whether it can be replaced by an alternative measure. 24. Under Article 71(a), a person who has been charged with an offence and remanded in detention has the right to apply for release from detention at any time after the detention decision becomes final. A decision must be given on any such application without undue delay. If the application is dismissed, the person concerned may, unless he or she is relying on different grounds, resubmit the application only after 30 days have elapsed from when the last decision concerning his detention or application for release has become final. 25. Under Article 72 § 1, during the pre-trial stage, no later than every three months after a detention decision has become final, the judge must decide, on application by the public prosecutor, whether the person is to remain in detention or be released. Failing that, the person must be released immediately. Under Article 72 §§ 3 and 4, at the trial stage the court takes the decision on its own motion. 26. Under Article 72a § 1 (c) and (d), when a person is prosecuted for a particularly serious offence, the total period of his or her detention may not exceed three years, or four years if the offence is punishable by a prison sentence of over twenty years or by a life sentence. 27. Under Article 72b, when a person convicted of a particularly serious offence is sentenced to an immediate prison term, the period between the pronouncement of the judgment and the order to execute the sentence (or a decision quashing that judgment) is not included in the calculation of the total duration of the detention.
28.

Outcome for Article 14: violation