Once the state touches your property, there may be no going back at all

The rule of law is not known by how it treats criminals. He is known for the way he treats people who claim to have been affected by the decision of public authorities without being given the opportunity to be heard. And this is where a story begins that should concern every property owner.

In the criminal proceedings conducted at the Municipal Court in Prague, tens of millions of crowns were legally seized as alleged proceeds from criminal activity. The fact that the damage was not properly proven does not belong here. This in itself is nothing extraordinary. The state must be able to prosecute the proceeds of crime. But a third person - the ex-wife - appeared next to the convicted person, who proved that part of the funds were her property. And this is where the whole story starts to fall apart.

Let's ask ourselves some uncomfortable questions.

When was this woman served with the order to secure her alleged property?

From the available evidence, no.

When did the court decide on her ownership?

Never.

When did she get a chance to suggest evidence?

Never.

When could she file an appeal?

Never.

Nevertheless, she was told by the court that everything is already legally over and the property belongs to the state.

How should an ordinary citizen understand this?

If the state decides on a person's property without providing him with procedural space to defend himself, can we still talk about full-fledged judicial protection? Or is the right to judicial protection turning into a mere theory?

The municipal court in Prague answered briefly. The money went to the Czech Republic. The criminal proceedings are over. Claim your claims in civil proceedings.

But here comes another unpleasant question.

Against whom?

Against the Ministry of Finance?

Against the Office for State Representation in Property Matters?

Against the court?

Against the Czech Republic?

Or against someone completely different?

The court does not answer this elementary question.

And here we come to the heart of the matter.

Law is not just about the result. Law is all about process. It is not enough to say "we have already decidedIt is also necessary to explain how a person could defend his rights.

The next question is even more annoying.

Who really has the money today?

Are they still registered?

Have they been transferred to another authority?

Were they transferred to the state budget?

Is there a handover protocol?

Who is responsible for them today?

The addressee of the answer did not learn anything specific about these questions either.

How is he supposed to file a lawsuit if he doesn't even know who is handling the property?

How is he supposed to protect his property right when the state refuses to reveal who his procedural adversary is?

And now the most annoying question of all.

How can anyone claim to have had an effective legal remedy when they have never received any decision to defend against?

The rule of law does not depend on courts passing judgments.

It is based on the fact that every person has the opportunity to defend himself.

If this option is missing, a dangerous precedent is set.

Today it is millions of crowns. Tomorrow it could be the house. Business tomorrow. And the principle will still be the same.

It is not a question of whether the state can take away the property. Of course, it can, if the law stipulates it and the legal conditions are met. But the question is whether it simultaneously creates an equally effective mechanism for the protection of persons who claim or even prove that the stolen property was not the property of the perpetrator.

If such a mechanism does not actually exist, the problem is not only in one particular case. There is a problem in the system.

And this is where we come to a question that not only judges should ask, but also legislators.

Is there a really effective procedural means of protecting third parties against confiscation of property in criminal proceedings in the Czech Republic?

If so, why was this woman never able to use it?

If not, isn't it time to admit that there is a legal gap here?

Because it's not just one case. It is about citizens' trust in the state.

Trust is not created by the state being able to confiscate property.

Trust is created when the state can equally convincingly explain why it seized it, who it really belonged to, what rights each affected person had and how they could defend themselves.

If it cannot answer these questions, a dangerous belief begins to spread among people that the path by which property passes to the state is clearly described, while the path back is shrouded in a fog of procedural references and vague messages.And that is a belief that should never take root in a democratic state governed by the rule of law.

Source:

1. Resolution of the Presidium of the Czech National Council No. 2/1993 Coll., on the promulgation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms as part of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.Available from:https://www.psp.cz/docs/laws/listina.html

2. Constitution of the Czech Republic (Constitutional Act No. 1/1993 Coll.).Available from:https://www.psp.cz/docs/laws/constitution.html

3. Act No. 40/2009 Coll., Criminal Code, § 70 – Forfeiture of property.

4. The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic. 2017.Resolution sp. stamp 5 Tdo 358/2017.Brno: Supreme Court of the Czech Republic.

5. European Court of Human Rights. 1986.AGOSI v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 24 October 1986, Complaint No. 9118/80. Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights.