Evidence in administrative proceedings - proof by audio-visual record, proof by the content of the website and other means of proof lacking an explicit regulation in the Code of Administrative Procedure
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54201/iajas.v2i1.31Keywords:
administrative proceedings, Administrative Procedure Code, evidence, proof by audiovisual record, proof by content of websiteAbstract
Evidence is one of the most important parts of any administrative procedure. The Czech Administrative Procedure Code contains the basic legal regulation of evidence in administrative proceedings and a demonstrative list of evidence. The administrative authorities are therefore not limited in the proceedings to the explicitly stated means of proof. However, the fundamental problem is that the Administrative Procedure Code regulates the implementation of only those means of proof which it expressly mentions. The Administrative Procedure Code is completely silent in relation to other means of proof and the course of their implementation. Nevertheless, in many cases, administrative authorities also need to take other means of proof (not regulated by the Administrative Procedure Code), in particular proof by means of an audiovisual recording or proving the content of websites. The author will therefore focus on answering the questions that cause the greatest problems in this context in practice: “What rules must be followed in obtaining this evidence in order to be legal evidence? Under what conditions and by what procedure should the administrative authorities take this evidence? To what extent can analogy be followed in the implementation of this evidence? The answers to these questions will be demonstrated mainly in relation to the audiovisual evidence and the evidence of the content of the website. This is because of the evidence that is gaining in frequency and importance with regard to the development of modern society and information technology. Based on the analysis of the current administrative practice and case law, de lege ferenda proposals will also be formulated in relation to the current (non)regulation of this evidence in the Administrative Procedure Code.
References
Fiala, Z., Frumarová, K., Škurek, M., Vetešník, P., Horzinková, E., Novotný, V., Sovová, O., & Scheu, L. (2020). Správní řád. Praktický komentář [Administrative Procedure Code. Practical commentary.] Wolters Kluwer.
Jemelka, L., Pondělíčková, K., & Bohadlo, D. (2016). Správní řád. Komentář [Administrative Procedure Code. Commentary]. C. H. Beck.
Kmec, J., Kosař, D., Kratochvíl, J., & Bobek, M. (2012). Evropská úmluva o lidských právech. Komentář [European Convention on Human Rights. Commentary]. C. H. Beck.
Průcha, P. (2019). Správní řád s poznámkami a judikaturou [Administrative Procedure Code with notes and case law]. Leges.
Skulová, S. et al. (2020). Správní právo procesní [Administrative Procedural law]. Aleš Čeněk.
Vedral, J. (2012). Správní řád. Komentář [Administrative Procedure Code. Commentary]. Bova Polygon.
Wagnerová, E., Šimíček, V., Langášek, T., & Pospíšil, I. (2012). Listina základních práv a svobod. Komentář [Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Commentary]. Wolters Kluwer.
Legal sources
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
Constitution of the Czech Republic.
Act. No. 141/1961 Coll., Code of Criminal Procedure.
Act No. 82/1998 Coll., on Liability for Misdemeanours and Proceedings Concerning Them.
Zákon č. 500/2004 Sb., správní řád. [Act No. 500/2004 Coll., Code of Administrative Procedure], Sbírka zákonů [Czech Official Gazette] Online: https://bit.ly/3y1dYcl
Nález pléna Ústavního soudu ČR [Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic], 20 May 2008, no. 355/2008 Sb. Online: https://bit.ly/3O3aAD5
Rozsudek Nejvyššího soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Court], 11. 5. 2005, 30 Cdo 64/2004, where the court stated that “the calls of natural persons, which take place in the exercise of a profession, business or public activity, are generally not in the nature of personal expressions. Evidence by audio recording of such a call is therefore admissible in civil proceedings.” Online: https://bit.ly/3xZx5DB
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 28 November 2007, 7 As 7/2007. Online: https://bit.ly/3MVapIF
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 26 March 2008, 9 As 64/2007. Online: https://bit.ly/3NZUkmA
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 4 March 2009, Pst 1/2008. Online: https://bit.ly/3zGI7Pl
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 15 January 2009, 7 Azs 22/2008. Online: https://bit.ly/3MZcvaD
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 26 November 2008, sp. zn. 2 As 59/2008. Online: https://bit.ly/3O3BdrN
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 13 November 2009, 5 As 29/2009. Online: https://bit.ly/3QpVpWd
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 15 March 2009, 1 As 30/2009. Online: https://bit.ly/3Oc1x2y
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 31 March 2010, 1 Afs 58/2009. Online: https://bit.ly/3QpM6pp
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 5 November 2009, 1 Afs 60/2009. Online: https://bit.ly/3O0hDwl
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 18 November 2011, 2 As 45/2010. Online: https://bit.ly/3tGpAyy
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 12 April 2011, 1 As 33/2011. Online: https://bit.ly/3QnAJhP
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 31 October 2013, 8 Afs 40/2012. Online: https://bit.ly/3QFoyNx
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 2 August 2013, 4 As 28/2013. Online: https://bit.ly/39xLiy5
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 6 February 2014, 6 A 147/2013. Online: https://bit.ly/3xZh6p6
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 20 May 2015, 4 As 58/2015. Online: https://bit.ly/3b7zW4r
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 24 August 2016, 1 As 80/2016. Online: https://bit.ly/3mTNItU
Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court], 14 March 2019, 1 As 367/2018. Online: https://bit.ly/3xFx3zs
Rozsudek Krajského soudu v Hradci Králové [Judgment of the Regional Court in Hradec Králové], 15 February 2007, 51 Ca 9/2006. Online: www.nssoud.cz
Judgment of ECHR, in Case of Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, no. 10862/84.
Judgment of ECHR in Case of Khan v. the United Kingdom, 12 May 2000, no. 35394/97
Judgment of ECHR, in Case of Heglas v. the Czech Republic, 1 March 2007, no. 5935/02.
Judgment of ECHR in Case of Bykov v. Russia, 10 March 2009, no. 4378/02
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Kateřina Frumarová

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.