recent translations summaries

In its proceedings initiated on judicial initiative, the Constitutional Court found ex officio that the Parliament had caused an infringement of the Fundamental Law by failing to regulate in section 810 of the Act XC of 2017 on Criminal Procedure (ACC) the legal consequence of the supplementary private prosecutor’s failure to provide for his or her legal representation in the second instance proceedings within the deadline set, in accordance with the consequences stemming from legal certainty. In the underlying case, the court of first instance acquitted the accused person, and only the supplementary private prosecutor appealed against the first instance judgement. During the second instance proceedings pending before the initiating court, the petitioner’s legal representative announced that he was not carrying out the legal representation of the supplementary private prosecutor, and the court therefore called upon the petitioner to ensure that he was legally represented and warned him of the consequences of a failure to do so. The petitioner failed to provide for his legal representation within the time limit and thereafter. In the opinion of the initiating court, in such a case there is no legal possibility either to terminate the criminal proceedings, and thus to annul the first instance judgement, or to declare the first instance judgement final. Thus, the outcome of the proceedings will be unpredictable for the participants in the supplementary private prosecution procedure if the legal representation of the supplementary private prosecutor ceases in the second instance proceedings and the supplementary private prosecutor fails to provide for legal representation despite of being called upon by the court to do so. In its decision, the Constitutional Court found that in the present case, there is no provision of the Act on Criminal Procedure that the court could invoke in order to continue the proceedings in connection with the omission of the supplementary private prosecutor in the specific case. This makes the legal consequences of the supplementary private prosecutor’s failure to act truly uncertain, and the procedure itself unpredictable for those involved. Thus, according to the Constitutional Court, the regulation does not contain a clearly recognisable normative content for the judiciary and does not effectively enable the subjects of the law to adapt their conduct to the requirements of the law. The Constitutional Court therefore concluded that the Parliament had caused a violation of the Fundamental Law by omission, and called on the Parliament to fulfil its legislative duty by 31 December 2022.