Headnotes:
If the state interferes with an individual's life through unjustified prosecution and damages or even destroys his or her position in the family or in society, the amount of compensation must be commensurate with such interference. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage is also indicative of the State's respect for the private and public life of individuals.
Summary:
I. In 2011, a criminal prosecution was initiated against the complainant for a conduct legally qualified as the offence of obtaining an advantage in the award of a public contract in parallel with the offence of abuse of official authority. The complainant was alleged to have committed this act by having extra work carried out on two public contracts without a properly advertised tender procedure, even though he was aware that the extra work exceeded the limit set by the legislation in force at the time. The criminal proceedings eventually ended five years later with a final acquittal. The complainant claimed non-pecuniary damages against the State on account of the unlawful prosecution. In that regard, he pointed out, in particular, that he had been a public official, mayor and a senator. He did not stand as a candidate in the 2014 municipal or Senate elections due to his criminal prosecution. The complainant claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 20 million CZK. The Ministry of Justice awarded him only 81,250 CZK and he subsequently sought the remaining amount in an action against the State. While the court of first instance awarded the complainant compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 800,750 CZK, the Court of Appeal halved that amount. The Supreme Court rejected the complainant’s appeal.
II. The Constitutional Court first emphasised that the constitutional basis for an individual's right to compensation for damages in the event of a criminal prosecution that ends in acquittal must be sought not only in the provisions of Article 36 (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, but also, in general terms, primarily in Article 1 (1) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, i.e., in the principles of the rule of law. It emphasised that if the State is to be regarded as a state governed by the rule of law, it must be held objectively responsible for the actions of its organs by which the State authorities or public authorities directly interfere with the fundamental rights of individuals. A person who has been obliged to submit to the actions of the law enforcement authorities must have a guarantee that, if he or she has not committed a crime, he or she will receive compensation. In the absence of such a prospect, the Constitutional Court considers that it would not be possible to insist on the obligation of an individual to endure such restrictions in the context of criminal proceedings. This guarantee must be given even if the amount of the injury or the causation is difficult for the injured party to prove.
In the assessment of the case at hand, according to the Constitutional Court, it was crucial that the complainant had been a public figure for many years, a prominent politician, a senator and even the mayor of a statutory town. The Constitutional Court stated that it was often said that a politician or public figure had to tolerate a greater degree of interference with his or her privacy and that any suspicion of criminal activity had to be properly investigated; on the other hand, it emphasised that this had to be matched by an obligation to compensate adequately for the unjustified interference by the State and thus to balance the situation at least partially. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the amount of compensation for non- pecuniary damage in a certain way also indicates the State's respect for the private and public life of individuals.
After reviewing the contested decisions, the Constitutional Court concluded that the general courts in the present case viewed the issue of causation and the factual impossibility for the complainant to prove the exact amount of financial damage because of the unlawful prosecution too narrowly. The Constitutional Court emphasised that it was not prescribing the application of any legal doctrine nor the theory of 'loss of chance', as suggested by the complainant, to the general courts in the present case, nor was it for the Constitutional Court itself to determine the exact amount of money which the complainant was rightfully entitled to within the meaning of Article 36 (3) of the Charter or to give detailed guidance on its calculation; that was not and could not be its task. According to the Constitutional Court, such an amount does not even correspond to the complainant's (original) demand of 20,000,000 CZK. However, in the Court's view, the amount awarded so far (7,000 CZK per month of prosecution, i.e., a total of 359,750 CZK) cannot be considered as adequate from a constitutional point of view, given all circumstances of the case that have come to light. The Constitutional Court concludes that the general courts erred in failing to take sufficient account of the specific nature of the complainant's public activity in conjunction with the purpose of guaranteeing the right to compensation for damage caused in the exercise of public authority, thereby infringing the complainant's right to judicial protection and a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 36(1) of the Charter. For those reasons, the Constitutional Court revoked the contested decisions.
III. David Uhlíř served as the Justice Rapporteur in the instant case. None of the Justices submitted a dissenting opinion.