assesses whether the offence described in the record of the commencement of the
criminal proceeding or in the resolution to initiate the criminal prosecution corresponds with respective legal classification. The prosecutor also assesses whether it
may be reasonably assumed that facts relevant to the criminal proceedings will be
obtained during the interception if there is no other way to achieve such purpose or if
its achievement would be otherwise significantly reduced. A reasoned application is
then presented to a judge, who can authorise the interception by issuing an order,
according to Section 88 subsection 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that reads as
follows (informal translation from ASPI system):
The presiding judge and, in preliminary proceedings upon the petition of the public
prosecutor, the judge, is entitled to warrant the interception and recording of telecommunications. [. . .] The order for the interception and recording of telecommunications shall
immediately be forwarded to the police authority. In the preliminary hearing, the judge
shall send a copy of the order for the interception and recording of telecommunications to the
public prosecutor without undue delay.
This procedure is described in more detail in Section 32 subsection 2 of the
instruction of the Ministry of Justice ref. No. 505/2001-Org as follows:
The judge shall decide on the application of the public prosecutor for interception and
recording of telecommunications traffic in accordance with section 88 para. 2 of the Code of
Criminal procedure (hereinafter “interception”) without delay or within the period agreed
with the public prosecutor; on the proposal of the public prosecutor to extend duration of the
interception (section 88 para. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) will the judge decide no
later than the last working day before the expiry of the previously issued interception order,
if the public prosecutor filed the proposal at least 3 working days before expiry of the
interception order.
An order is then forwarded to the investigator and the Unit for Special Activities,
which carries out the interception.
43
The maximum length of an interception order is 4 months. Based on the assessment of the current course of the interception, the judge of a superior court and, in a
preliminary hearing upon a petition of the public prosecutor, deputy county court
judge may extend the duration of the interception even repeatedly, however, always
only for a maximum period of 4 months.
Basic formal requirements for interception orders are defined in section 88 para.
2 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings that reads as follows:
The order for the interception and recording of the telecommunications service shall include
a determined user address or a user device and the user if their identity is known, and the
justification of the order must include the specific facts that justify the issuance of such order
as well as its period. [. . .]
An order for interception or recording of telecommunications may be issued if it
may be reasonably assumed that facts relevant to the criminal proceedings will be
43 Unit for Special Activities of Criminal Police and Investigation is a Police division divisions with
a countrywide authority which assists other police divisions as well as other authorities like e.g.
Customs service. It conducts all interception and surveillance operations.
National Report: Czech Republic
143
criminal proceeding or in the resolution to initiate the criminal prosecution corresponds with respective legal classification. The prosecutor also assesses whether it
may be reasonably assumed that facts relevant to the criminal proceedings will be
obtained during the interception if there is no other way to achieve such purpose or if
its achievement would be otherwise significantly reduced. A reasoned application is
then presented to a judge, who can authorise the interception by issuing an order,
according to Section 88 subsection 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that reads as
follows (informal translation from ASPI system):
The presiding judge and, in preliminary proceedings upon the petition of the public
prosecutor, the judge, is entitled to warrant the interception and recording of telecommunications. [. . .] The order for the interception and recording of telecommunications shall
immediately be forwarded to the police authority. In the preliminary hearing, the judge
shall send a copy of the order for the interception and recording of telecommunications to the
public prosecutor without undue delay.
This procedure is described in more detail in Section 32 subsection 2 of the
instruction of the Ministry of Justice ref. No. 505/2001-Org as follows:
The judge shall decide on the application of the public prosecutor for interception and
recording of telecommunications traffic in accordance with section 88 para. 2 of the Code of
Criminal procedure (hereinafter “interception”) without delay or within the period agreed
with the public prosecutor; on the proposal of the public prosecutor to extend duration of the
interception (section 88 para. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) will the judge decide no
later than the last working day before the expiry of the previously issued interception order,
if the public prosecutor filed the proposal at least 3 working days before expiry of the
interception order.
An order is then forwarded to the investigator and the Unit for Special Activities,
which carries out the interception.
43
The maximum length of an interception order is 4 months. Based on the assessment of the current course of the interception, the judge of a superior court and, in a
preliminary hearing upon a petition of the public prosecutor, deputy county court
judge may extend the duration of the interception even repeatedly, however, always
only for a maximum period of 4 months.
Basic formal requirements for interception orders are defined in section 88 para.
2 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings that reads as follows:
The order for the interception and recording of the telecommunications service shall include
a determined user address or a user device and the user if their identity is known, and the
justification of the order must include the specific facts that justify the issuance of such order
as well as its period. [. . .]
An order for interception or recording of telecommunications may be issued if it
may be reasonably assumed that facts relevant to the criminal proceedings will be
43 Unit for Special Activities of Criminal Police and Investigation is a Police division divisions with
a countrywide authority which assists other police divisions as well as other authorities like e.g.
Customs service. It conducts all interception and surveillance operations.
National Report: Czech Republic
143