Commutation of a financial penalty: courts may not enhance a commutation despite a final decision

The case involved a situation where a financial penalty had already been imposed in 2017 and was gradually being partially paid. The Regional Court first converted the unpaid part of the fine into a substitute prison sentence in 2023. Subsequent payments by the convicted person were followed by new decisions, with the superior court finally determining the specific length of the alternative sentence. Subsequently, however, the regional court made a new calculation in its next decision and imposed a longer sentence than that resulting from the previous final decision.

The Constitutional Court emphasised that a final decision ordering a substitute prison sentence is a binding and constitutive act which cannot be ignored in further decision-making. Even if it contains a calculation error, it cannot be “corrected” by the court imposing a more severe sentence on the convicted person without following a legal procedure. Such a procedure is contrary to the principle of legal certainty, the binding nature of judicial decisions and the principle of legality in criminal law.

At the same time, the Constitutional Court acknowledged that the legislation does not provide courts with a simple tool to proceed in similar situations, especially when a proper remedy is no longer available. However, in its view, this does not justify the deterioration of the position of the convicted person. If the earlier decision is found to be defective, the remedy must be sought by law; in the last resort, it must be accepted that the defect in the convict’s evidence remains without direct correction. It is not constitutionally permissible to ignore a final decision and retrospectively increase the severity of the sentence.