CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 30016/24 Pavel NÁROŽNÝ against the Czech Republic lodged on 12 October 2024 communicated on 26 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s right to have the criminal charge against him examined by a   “tribunal established by law”, and the alleged absence de facto of a prospect of conditional release from life imprisonment imposed on him. In 2009 the applicant was charged with murder. When the appellate court quashed, for the third time, the acquittal judgment issued by the first-instance court, it assigned the case to another chamber of the same court, relying on Article 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Finding the first-instance court’s approach to evidence almost “destructive”, it noted, in particular, that that court had neither considered some pieces of evidence which were procedurally admissible nor had not been able to determine factual findings which would provide a sufficient basis for a decision on guilt. This, in its view, raised justified doubts that should the original chamber take further decisions, those would be influenced by its previous views. The applicant’s constitutional appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 30 November 2016 (decision no. IV. ÚS 2293/16). In the fourth round of the proceedings, a criminal chamber of a different branch of the same first-instance court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. The appellate court upheld the verdict of guilt and sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The applicant’s constitutional appeal, in which he complained inter alia about a breach of his right to a lawful judge and about having been imposed an inhuman punishment, was dismissed by the Constitutional Court for being unfounded (judgment no. III. ÚS 720/23 of 5 June 2024, pronounced on 19   June 2024). The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that he was deprived of a lawful judge essentially because when assigning the case to another chamber the appellate court wanted to impose its own assessment upon the first-instance court which had previously acquitted him three times. Relying on Article 3 the applicant submits that he was imposed an inhuman punishment since there is de facto no prospect of conditional release for life prisoners in the Czech Republic. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, can the chamber 29 T of the Ostrava Regional Court having found him guilty be regarded as “a tribunal established by law” and was the assignment of the case to that chamber in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Could the procedural approach adopted by the Olomouc High Court in the present case have had as a consequence that the first-instance court came to the conclusion that the only decision susceptible of being accepted by the High Court and bring the proceedings to an end was a guilty verdict (see Tempel v. the Czech Republic , no. 44151/12, 25 June 2020)?   2.     Does the imposition of a life sentence on the applicant amount to a   violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, ECHR 2013 (extracts))? Is there a practical prospect of conditional release for life prisoners in the Czech Republic?   The Government are requested to provide information on the number of life prisoners in the Czech Republic who have been so far granted conditional release as provided by Article 88 § 5 of the Criminal Code.