I.ÚS 1534/23

The victims of crimes must be duly notified by law enforcement authorities on the possibility to claim compensation for damages caused by a decision or an unlawful administrative procedure during the exercise of public authority. Victims are to be instructed on the procedure for lodging claims as soon as facts come to light suggesting that a criminal offence may have been committed by an official. Without meeting this condition, an objection of limitation raised by a state is contrary to good manners.

I. The complainant filed a criminal complaint against two police officers, one of whom allegedly physically assaulted the complaint during a document check. Subsequently, the complainant was unlawfully detained by these police officers at the police station. Immediately, the complainant joined the criminal proceedings in the position of a victim and claimed compensation for his damages. Four years later, the court convicted one of the police officers for misconduct in public office and held that the complainant had been caused personal damage by the police officer. However, the court referred the complainant with his claims for compensation to civil proceedings. The complainant thus brought his claim before the Ministry of Interior within six months of the final criminal judgment. After receiving no response, he brought an action against the State. Nevertheless, the Ministry raised a limitation objection before the court. The court stated that the six-month limitation period began to run on the date of the police action, as the day the complainant became aware of the injury. The complainant argued that the limitation period did not begin to run until the final criminal judgment was handed down. General courts dismissed the applicant's action. 
II. The Constitutional Court recalled the right of every individual to compensation for damages caused by an incorrect official procedure (the Article 36(3) of the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms). The right to compensation for non-pecuniary damage is time-barred six months from the date the injured party became aware of the non-pecuniary damage (Article 32(3) of the Act No. 82/1998 Coll. on the Liability for Damage Caused When Exercising Public Authority by a Decision or a Wrong Procedure Act). Following the case law of the Constitutional Court, the six-month subjective limitation period is not unconstitutional in general, yet in specific cases it may establish unconstitutional effects. The principle of good morals provides discretion for general courts to interpret the statutory regulation in a constitutionally consistent manner. Following the above, the State's limitation objection may be contrary to good morals.

Following the Supreme Court's case-law, the commencement of the limitation period is determined by the date on which the injured party became aware of the adverse consequences of the official procedure. On the contrary, it is irrelevant when the victim became aware that the official procedure was defective, as this may be established solely by the court. Neither criminal proceedings brought against officials who have committed a criminal offence by their improper official conduct, nor the assertion of a claim for compensation for damage caused by them in an adhesion proceeding, triggers a resting of a limitation period under Article 32(3) of Act No. 82/1998. The injured party did bring claims for compensation for damages and waited for the outcome of the lengthy criminal proceedings to discover that the short limitation period for submitting his claims had in the meantime expired. Although the complainant had demonstrably claimed his damages, he was not warned that he should be raising them before other State authorities. Moreover, the assessment of whether it was the State or the defendant who was liable for the damages, and to whom the complainant should therefore refer to, was not straightforward as a matter of law. Thus, the protection of victims of crimes according to Act No. 82/1998 Coll may be significantly weakened compared to the protection of victims of other crimes. These consequences can be avoided by a constitutionally consistent interpretation of the law (Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 3(4) of the Victims of Crime Act). Victims must be duly informed by the law enforcement authorities of the possibility of submitting a claim in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act No. 82/1998. They should be informed as soon as facts come to light suggesting that the offence may have been committed by an official.

The complainant contacted the law enforcement authorities as an injured party and filed his claims for compensation already on the third day since the unlawful police intervention, i.e. within the limitation period. However, he was not informed of the possibility of exercising his rights in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act No. 82/1998 before the Ministry of Interior. It was stated only in the criminal court ruling that it was the State which was liable for the damage caused. The failure to notify the applicant thus created an exceptional circumstance in which the State's objection of limitation would be contrary to good morals. Thus, the Constitutional Court ruled that the contested decisions violated the complainant's right to compensation for damage caused by a State authority’s unlawful official procedure under Article 36(3) of the Charter and therefore quashed them.