Review of resolutions of the Supreme Court Criminal Chamber concerning criminal procedure law for 2018

Abstract

The article presents an analysis of the judgments of the Supreme Court Criminal Chamber passed in 2018 as a result of resolving legal issues that require fundamental interpretation of statute (Article 441 § 1 CPC), raising serious doubts concerning the interpretation of the provisions of law (Article 82 § 1 of the Act on the Supreme Court) or causing discrepancies in case law concerning the interpretation of the provisions of law that are grounds for adjudication (Article 83 § 1 of the Act on the Supreme Court) within criminal procedure law. Resolving the legal issues referred to it, the Supreme Court held that: the correction of an obvious editorial error consisting in the different transcription of a penalty amount in words and digits is admissible (Article 105 § 1 CPC); a prosecutor may take a decision to use evidence in criminal proceedings that was obtained as a result of surveillance ordered on an authorised body’s request in relation to another offence prosecuted ex officio or a fiscal offence other than the offence covered by the surveillance order, but only when ordering surveillance is admissible in relation to this offence (Article 168b CPC); a repeated decision on the refusal to instigate preparatory proceedings or on their termination was not subject to an appeal pursuant to the legal circumstances at that time (Article 330 § 2 CPC); the acquittal or discontinuation of criminal proceedings and referring a case for rehearing is possible based on the ne peius rule (Article 454 § 1 CPC); an adjudicating court that hears a complaint about quashing a judgment of the first-instance court and referring a case for rehearing is limited to examining whether the default recognised by an appellate court constitutes grounds for cassation (Article 539a § 1 and § 3 CPC); an appellate court may issue a cumulative sentence for the first time or rule it in an amount different from the one imposed by a court of first instance (Article 568a § 2 CPC); a fee is charged for a motion in penalty enforcement proceedings to append an enforcement clause filed by a person other than the one indicated in an enforcement title to whom the entitlement was transferred after the title occurred (Article 25 § 1 PEC); a complaint about a ruling on refusal to admit a motion to develop in writing and deliver an appellate court’s sentence justification issued in cases concerning petty offences is inadmissible (Article 109 § 1 POPC); proceedings before a given instance court’s same bench are continued in case the provisions on a court bench are amended (Article 30 of the Act of 27 September 2013); every partner of a general partnership is obliged to provide an authorised body with information who was entitled to drive or use their vehicle in a particular period (Article 78 para. 5 LRT). In addition, the Court explained the requirements that must be met in order to ask the Supreme Court legal questions on issues that need fundamental interpretation (Article 441 § 1 CPC) and cause discrepancies in case law concerning the interpretation of the provisions that are grounds for adjudication (Article 83 § 1 of the Act on the Supreme Court).