The Municipal court declined the accusation of illegal actions for the first time in 2014. But afterwards, the complainers succeeded at the Supreme administrative tribunal, which had found certain errors in the Municipal court’s decision. Therefore, the Supreme court sent back the case. It also noticed, that there were several arguments which had been insufficiently dealt with. Especially when the complainers claimed that the actions of the police broke their right to assembly and they were inadequate. The Municipal court was accused of leaving out the matter of the reversal of the burden of proof, concerning the fact, that the police had a cameraman in their disposal, but the record of key scenes was missing.

After the case was sent back to Prague, the Municipal court filled the argumentation, ended with the same result and declined the suit again. The complainers then came to the Supreme tribunal again, but they were not successful.

Although they documented medical records of their injuries (bruises, abrasions or head laceration), the court didn’t take account into them.

The Supreme tribunal doesn’t see the missing camera records as a problem. The police wasn’t able to provide a satisfying explanation. But from the case law of the European court is clear, that if during a police action (or detention and arrest) against someone, this someone is harmed, the state and his organs are supposed to chase not even a positive commitment to lead an efficient investigation of the wrong treatment in a sense of an article 3 of the Stipulation, but it leads to a partial shift of the burden of proof towards the state organs. Therefore, the complainers are certain about misjudgment of the courts, when the missing camera records were not evaluated as a disadvantage of the police. 

For more information about our case, please contact out coordinator of care about donors Lenka Kyčerková - lenka.kycerkova@llp.cz.