II. ÚS 470/25

The Constitutional Court has addressed the issue of additional investigative duty in its judgment. The parents of victims of the shooting at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University had unsuccessfully sought access to information from the General Inspectorate of Security Forces (GIBS) regarding possible failings by responding police officers. One of the parents lodged a constitutional complaint. The Constitutional Court clarified that the right to an effective investigation is not limited to the state's duty to apprehend an offender. It also encompasses a right to a subsequent effective investigation into whether, even indirectly, errors were made by the officers involved in the intervention. In this case, the Court concluded that the complainant's rights had been violated and ordered the Inspectorate to grant the father of a murdered student access to the file concerning the conduct of the police.

The complainant is the father of one of the victims of the gunman who attacked the Faculty of Arts of Charles University on 21 December 2023. He applied to GIBS for access to the file relating to the inquiry into the actions of the Police of the Czech Republic during the intervention in the faculty building. His request was refused on the grounds that no criminal proceedings had been opened, and that the matter was being dealt with by GIBS under its statutory remit. The police referred the complainant to the criminal proceedings conducted into the shooting, which were discontinued because the perpetrator had committed suicide.

The complainant appealed to the Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office, arguing that the procedure of GIBS was unlawful and that, in the proceeding led by GIBS, he had the standing of an injured party. This, he argued, entitled him to demand access to files, including those where no criminal proceedings had been initiated. The Municipal Prosecutor's Office informed him that it had examined the GIBS file and found no grounds to suggest a reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence by persons subject to the Inspectorate's remit. The High Public Prosecutor’s Office reached the same conclusion, confirming that GIBS had not identified any suspicion of a crime. It stated that the state's positive obligation to conduct an effective investigation had been fulfilled by the criminal proceedings led by the police, in which the complainant had exercised his rights as an injured party. It upheld GIBS's refusal to grant him access to the file, noting that inquiries conducted by GIBS under the GIBS Act are not public, and that the prosecutor is not an authority that can review the refusal of access in cases where GIBS is not investigating suspected criminal conduct.

The complainant therefore brought his case before the Constitutional Court. His constitutional complaint concerned the decisions and conduct of GIBS and the prosecution authorities in relation to the investigation of possible failings by police officers during the intervention against the gunman.

The Second Panel of the Constitutional Court (Justice Rapporteur Jiří Přibáň) upheld the constitutional complaint in part.
By refusing to grant access to the file relating to the investigation of the police intervention at the Faculty of Arts on 21 December 2023, GIBS had violated the complainant's fundamental right to an effective investigation. The Court further prohibited GIBS from continuing to violate the complainant's fundamental rights, ordering it to provide him with access to the file concerning the investigation of police conduct.

Traditionally, the right to an effective investigation is understood as the right of victims (and their families) to have the state make efforts to identify and prosecute the perpetrator. Procedurally, this entails a range of rights, including the possibility of gaining access to information from the investigation under conditions prescribed by law. This case, however, is different. The police had discontinued their investigation of the shooting because the perpetrator had died and criminal proceedings could not therefore be brought against him. The police inspectorate took the view that the right to an effective investigation did not extend to a review of the conduct of the police. The Constitutional Court – in line with the European Court of Human Rights – held that such an approach is impermissible.

According to the Constitutional Court, the complainant, as the father of a victim, has the right to an additional effective investigation. The purpose of such an investigation is to determine whether negligence or omissions by the police in planning and conducting the operation may have contributed, even indirectly, to his daughter's death. The Constitutional Court interprets the concept of “investigation” consistently with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. This additional investigative duty does not necessarily need to take the form of criminal proceedings; in cases of negligence, civil or disciplinary proceedings may suffice. It is therefore irrelevant that in this case no investigation of individual officers took place and that no criminal proceedings were initiated against them.

Any additional effective investigation must meet certain qualitative requirements. It must be effective, independent, prompt, thorough, proper, and transparent, and it must ensure the adequate involvement of the victims' relatives. The latter condition is reflected particularly in granting access to the inspectorate's investigation file – that is, the file relating to possible failings by the officers directly involved.

Throughout, the father of the murdered student sought only transparency in the investigation – regardless of its outcome – to be achieved precisely through access to the GIBS file. This request was not fulfilled. Neither the deliberations of the Security Committee of the Chamber of Deputies nor the generally accommodating stance of GIBS resulted in the desired outcome of file access.  

By refusing him access to the file concerning the investigation of the police intervention during which his daughter was killed, the Inspectorate, in the Court's view, violated the complainant's fundamental right to an effective investigation arising from the right to life. The Constitutional Court added that the complainant's right of access to the file is not unlimited: for example, classified information protected under special legislation need not be disclosed. It is for GIBS to determine whether certain parts of the requested file fall under such exceptions and, if necessary, to take measures to protect them. Beyond that, however, the Inspectorate must provide the complainant with access to the file.