Abstract
The research problem of the article is the notification of a gross breach of procedural obligations by a public prosecutor or a person conducting a preparatory proceeding (Article 20 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Its aim is to assess the usefulness of this measure in eliminating significant procedural irregularities committed by a public prosecutor and bodies conducting preparatory proceedings. The research thesis is the statement that this notification plays an important role in eliminating and preventing procedural irregularities in the activities of public prosecutors and in preparatory proceedings. The research hypothesis is the assumption that its regulation in the Code of Criminal Procedure – in order to increase its effectiveness – requires minor amendments. The basic research methods used are the formal-dogmatic and logical ones.
The subject-matter of the considerations includes: the development of the notification, its legal nature, the bodies authorised to notify (court, prosecutor), its subject-matter (gross violation of procedural obligations, public prosecutors, persons conducting preparatory proceedings), its addressees, and the notification proceeding. These considerations lead to the conclusion that this measure is, in principle, properly regulated. The court’s or prosecutor’s notification decision is not subject to appeal; however, due to the consequences for the person concerned, an appeal against the court’s decision should be lodged with a three-judge bench of the same court, and a complaint about a prosecutor’s decision should be submitted to the superior prosecutor. In order to increase the effectiveness of notification, it is necessary to authorise the court and the prosecutor to request that the superior of the person who has not sent information on the measures taken within the specified time limit initiate an official proceeding and provide information on its outcome.