Constitutional Court confirms legality of bail substitutes before expiry of time limit
Judges concluded that the application of milder measures for securing an accused shortly before the end of the maximum period of detention does not violate the law.
Constitutional Court confirms legality of bail substitutes before expiry of time limit
The use of milder forms of securing an accused shortly before the end of the longest possible period of detention is not a circumvention of legal norms. This conclusion was brought by a finding of the Constitutional Court ref. no. III. ÚS 1480/26, as reported by the portal Advokátní deník.
The Third Chamber, led by Judge Veronika Křesťanová, examined the case of a man who faced criminal prosecution for economic and corruption offences initiated in February 2025. The District Court for Prague 5 placed him in detention for three reasons – risk of flight, risk of collusion, and risk of evidence tampering. The risk of collusion subsequently lapsed, but the remaining two persisted.
In January 2026, the court decided to release the man on liberty with several conditions. He had to submit to the supervision of a probation officer, remain at his place of residence during times determined by the court, surrender his travel documents and refrain from travelling abroad. This decision was made approximately thirty days before the expiry of the maximum period for which the accused could be held in detention.
The man appealed against this, arguing that it was a deliberate manoeuvre – the courts and the state prosecutor wished to continue restricting his freedom, although they should have released him completely. He also contested a violation of the prohibition on worsening the accused's position in appellate proceedings. The Prague City Court dismissed his objections.
The subsequent constitutional complaint was unsuccessful. The judges acknowledged that the ordinary courts made errors in some respects, but these were not serious enough to affect the complainant's fundamental rights. The key finding was that the total period of detention had not been exceeded – the man was released before reaching the statutory limit, and therefore it was possible to apply alternative measures to him.
In assessing this issue, the court emphasised that what matters is not the time interval between the start of detention and the issuance of the substitution decision, but rather the actual length of time the accused spent in detention. In other words – if someone spent less time in detention than the law permits, nothing prevents milder restrictions from being imposed even at a time when they are no longer physically behind bars.
The Constitutional Court also rejected the argument about worsening of position. Although the appellate instance formally quashed the original decision including the part on release, in practice the complainant did not return to detention, so his rights were not factually affected.
According to the judges, there is nothing unlawful in the efforts of authorities conducting criminal proceedings to use gentler instruments instead of detention. On the contrary, keeping the accused behind bars until the expiry of the time limit would represent a greater interference with his personal freedom.
Source: Google News CZ — Crime (cs)