2017/1/31 - 8 Tdo 1787/2016 (summary)

Judgement of the Supreme Court dated 31 January 2017, file number 8 Tdo 1787/2016

(territorial jurisdiction, cooperation)



Applicants participated in the offense of credit fraud in the form of organizing and assistance. They appealed to the Supreme Court with the argument that the lower courts' rulings in their case were made by inappropriate courts as they lacked territorial jurisdiction.

The court rejected their appeal and stated that under Section 18 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court in whose district the crime was committed is the competent court to decide the case. To establish local jurisdiction, it is sufficient that part of the act for which the charges are prosecuted occurred in the district of that court, even though some other parts of the accused's conduct took part elsewhere. This conclusion is based on Section 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which in case of a jurisdiction of several courts, the court in which the prosecutor has filed an indictment will decide the case. These rules apply even if the criminal proceedings lead against the participant in the offense of the principal offender, but in criminal proceedings separated from the criminal offense of the principal offender. Where joint criminal proceedings (Article 20 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) are conducted against the offender and the participant, these joint proceedings shall be conducted by a court which is competent to bring proceedings against the offender or decide the most serious criminal offense. Where these courts are different, the joint proceedings against the participant and against the offender shall be taken before the court that is locally competent to proceed against the principal offender.