Amnestie Václava Klause – část závěrečná
The Anticorruption Endowment (NFPK) has released the final part of a study containing basic facts and quotes from the rulings of selected courts and public prosecutors, concerning the application of Article II of the amnesty declared by Václav Klaus in 2013. This part highlights the rulings passed by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court—alongside the Supreme Administrative and Constitutional Courts—belongs to the highest Czech court instances. Its powers are sweeping: it issues unification statements and can even abrogate legally sanctioned verdicts. Its importance is also amply illustrated by President Klaus’s erstwhile efforts to see top posts filled by persons of his choosing (see here). In connection with applying the amnesty, Supreme Public Prosecutor often contacted the Supreme Court. In several cases, he filed appeals to the detriment of amnestied individuals.
The Anticorruption Endowment (NFPK) has approached the Supreme Court (similarly to regional and high courts and public prosecutor’s offices) with an analogous request: to provide it with the rulings issued on the application of Article II of the amnesty. The NFPK wanted to be sure that the collection is complete. All these institutions (numbering over 20) were cooperative on proviso that personal data are reasonably anonymized (even for additional costs). However, this fact alone is interesting. In the same circumstances, some institutions blackened only the names and personal data of persons suffering damages, while the full names of the amnestied persons were left unobscured. Other institutions left only the initials of the names of amnestied subjects, while the names of the companies where the amnestied persons worked were left intact. And some institutions blackened both the initials And full names of the firms concerned. One and the same requirement invites so many interpretations…
The Supreme Court as the “ultimate instance” literally “crowned the piece”: it refused to disclose its rulings to the NFPK, citing time and technical reasons that prevent it from retrieving rulings concerning Article II of the amnesty. The court naturally supported its decision by legal arguments. We publish the refusal in full. Paradoxically, the rulings can be retrieved on the Supreme Court website using various criteria, including keywords. Here we publish several rulings retrieved from the website when using keywords such as “abolition”, “amnesty”, etc. They include the supreme public prosecutor’s appeal concerning frequently publicized cases entailing damage rung into hundreds of millions, even billions of crowns (e.g. the H-System affair). However, the Supreme Court accepted some of the appeals and voided the amnesty resolutions.
It should be noted that as indicated by the rulings, obtained from the regional and high courts and public prosecutors nationwide, the defendants whose prosecution was halted were thought to have caused damages amounting to at least 18.6 billion crowns, with additional damages to the tune of at least 3.4 billion crowns being averted. Damages were said to have been incurred on over 90,000 natural persons and hundreds of legal entities.
The Anticorruption Endowment is a fully independent initiative by people radically unprepared to accept a high level of corruption in state administration. One of our goals is to help expose corruption in state administration and support projects exposing corruption.
Attachments – Ruling on criminal proceedings stay under Article II of President Václav Klaus’s decree on amnesty from 1 January 2013:
Contacts please: Martin Soukenka, NFPK Analyst, e-mail: martin.soukenka@nfpk.cz
