Important decision
In its ruling, Case No. II. ÚS 645/26, the Constitutional Court emphasized that prolonged pretrial detention requires increasingly specific and persuasive justification. As time passes, courts are obligated to present increasingly specific and convincing arguments for its continuation, a process known as the “doctrine of enhanced grounds.” If, in cases of long-term pretrial detention, the general courts fail to properly assess the possibility of replacing it with alternative measures, they violate the accused’s right to personal liberty and due process.
According to the Senate, with Judge Pavel Šámal serving as the reporting judge, general courts must weigh the seriousness of the criminal offense against the accused’s current personal circumstances when deciding on a request for release from pretrial detention. The Constitutional Court criticized the lower courts for failing to adequately address the complainant’s arguments and for uncritically insisting on the most severe restriction of liberty.
Reasons for Prolonged Detention: What Conditions Must Be Met for Its Extension: The court must assess the conditions for extending detention based on the current status of the proceedings. As time passes, the court must present stronger grounds for detention: specifically , it must explain why further restriction of personal liberty remains necessary. Merely repeating the statutory grounds is insufficient.
The case law notes that the requirements for justifying detention decisions become stricter over time, and merely citing statutory grounds without reference to the current status of the proceedings is no longer sufficient.
A key point of the decision concerns alternatives to pretrial detention in criminal proceedings, such as supervision by a probation officer or a monetary bond. The Constitutional Court emphasized that if the accused proposes a comprehensive set of alternative measures that, taken together, constitute an intensive supervision regime, the courts must specifically justify why they consider such measures insufficient. According to the ruling, ignoring these alternatives in cases of prolonged pretrial detention constitutes an impermissible interference with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
The question of how long pretrial detention may last is also linked to the ongoing assessment of its necessity. The ruling described above emphasizes that the court must convincingly explain not only the continued necessity of pretrial detention but also why less severe measures are insufficient.
Our team of experienced attorneys will help you solve any legal issue. Within 24 hours we’ll evaluate your situation and suggest a step-by-step solution, including all costs. The price for this proposal is only CZK 690, and this is refunded to you when you order service from us.
In person and online. Just choose the appropriate service or opt for an independent consultation when you are unsure.
