Relationship between the Prosecution Service and the Police
Chapter I
Relationship between the Prosecution Service and the Police
The Slovak legal order does not explicitly specify who is responsible for a criminal investigation. The court, the prosecutor, the investigator and the police in general are denominated as bodies acting in criminal proceedings. The court does not carry out any investigation. However, during investigations the court can be asked to approve encroachments upon fundamental human rights.
Usually, the prosecutor himself does not carry out the investigation personally. Although the law permits this, it is rare in practice. A report about the facts indicating that a criminal act has been committed can be submitted to the prosecutor, to the investigator or to the police. When the prosecutor receives such a report, he can then forward it to the investigator or to the police to deal with. In the course of the investigation, the prosecutor’s mission is to supervise the legality of the procedures carried out by the investigator or by police, and subsequently bringing a criminal action to the court (pre-liminary criminal proceedings). Within the scope of that supervision, the prosecutor is empowered to give instructions on certain acts or decisions concerning particular matters to the investigator or to the police. He can also undertake these acts himself; he can carry out the whole investigation personally, and he can also take the case from the investigator or from the police and assign it to another investigator or police officer. However, he is not entitled to organise the investigator or police work in general. The prosecutor is not empowered to determine to which matters the investigator or police officer should pay more attention, or handle with priority. According to the law, priority is to be given to cases for which the offender is in custody for.
Unless the law does not impose the obligation of prior request for a court’s or prosecutor’s decision, the investigators and the police officer proceed ex officio so that the facts of the case are properly established to the extent necessary for taking their decision. They are obliged to carefully clarify the circumstances, regardless whether they prejudice or benefit the accused, and to take evidence in both directions, without waiting for the motion of the parties.
Therefore, the prosecutor is responsible for the legality of the investigation, but the investigator or police officer is responsible for the tactics, management, organisation and celerity of the investigation.
The Minister of Justice is politically accountable for the tactics and management of the investigation. The prosecutor is responsible for the supervision over the legality of the investigation.
As stated above, the investigator and the police officer proceed ex officio, and they do not need either the prosecutor’s or any body else’s approval. For the performance of the following acts, however, the prosecutor’s approval or his decision is required: request for data containing a bank secret; detention of the suspect; issuing of an order to seize an object; seizure of an account; seizure of registered securities; search of non-residential premises and land; seizure of mail; opening of mail; swap of a content of mail; controlled delivery; simulated transfer; surveillance of persons and objects; seizure of the accused person’s property and determining what items and means that seizure does not apply to, or cancellation of such a seizure ; to execute the ensuring of the injured person’s claim for compensation, and limitation or cancellation of such an ensuring, or exemption of items from it; order to exhume a corpse; submission of a request an accused from abroad; execution of a pre-liminary investigation within an extradition proceeding; request for approval to charge with an accusation, refraining from or filing of a motion to put into custody a person for whom a Parliament’s or a Constitutional Court’s approval is required; filing to the court of a motion for taking into custody an accused, and prolongation of a term of custody within a preliminary proceeding; filing to the court of a motion, based on the relevant foreign body’s request, for a preliminary seizure of property belonging to the person against whom a criminal proceeding is being conducted abroad, or for seizure of a part of that property on the territory of the Slovak Republic; or court’s decision about a custody; order to execute a home search; to issue order for intercepting and recording telecommunication; order to use an agent; tracing of persons and objects; producing of sound records and of others kinds of records.
The principle of legality (observance of the rule of law) applies in criminal proceedings. The prosecutor is obliged to prosecute all criminal offences of which he gained knowledge irrespective of the seriousness of the offences and the offenders. The exceptions are only admissible according to the law or under an international treaty promulgated.
Relationship between the Prosecution Service and the Police
The Slovak legal order does not explicitly specify who is responsible for a criminal investigation. The court, the prosecutor, the investigator and the police in general are denominated as bodies acting in criminal proceedings. The court does not carry out any investigation. However, during investigations the court can be asked to approve encroachments upon fundamental human rights.
Usually, the prosecutor himself does not carry out the investigation personally. Although the law permits this, it is rare in practice. A report about the facts indicating that a criminal act has been committed can be submitted to the prosecutor, to the investigator or to the police. When the prosecutor receives such a report, he can then forward it to the investigator or to the police to deal with. In the course of the investigation, the prosecutor’s mission is to supervise the legality of the procedures carried out by the investigator or by police, and subsequently bringing a criminal action to the court (pre-liminary criminal proceedings). Within the scope of that supervision, the prosecutor is empowered to give instructions on certain acts or decisions concerning particular matters to the investigator or to the police. He can also undertake these acts himself; he can carry out the whole investigation personally, and he can also take the case from the investigator or from the police and assign it to another investigator or police officer. However, he is not entitled to organise the investigator or police work in general. The prosecutor is not empowered to determine to which matters the investigator or police officer should pay more attention, or handle with priority. According to the law, priority is to be given to cases for which the offender is in custody for.
Unless the law does not impose the obligation of prior request for a court’s or prosecutor’s decision, the investigators and the police officer proceed ex officio so that the facts of the case are properly established to the extent necessary for taking their decision. They are obliged to carefully clarify the circumstances, regardless whether they prejudice or benefit the accused, and to take evidence in both directions, without waiting for the motion of the parties.
Therefore, the prosecutor is responsible for the legality of the investigation, but the investigator or police officer is responsible for the tactics, management, organisation and celerity of the investigation.
The Minister of Justice is politically accountable for the tactics and management of the investigation. The prosecutor is responsible for the supervision over the legality of the investigation.
As stated above, the investigator and the police officer proceed ex officio, and they do not need either the prosecutor’s or any body else’s approval. For the performance of the following acts, however, the prosecutor’s approval or his decision is required: request for data containing a bank secret; detention of the suspect; issuing of an order to seize an object; seizure of an account; seizure of registered securities; search of non-residential premises and land; seizure of mail; opening of mail; swap of a content of mail; controlled delivery; simulated transfer; surveillance of persons and objects; seizure of the accused person’s property and determining what items and means that seizure does not apply to, or cancellation of such a seizure ; to execute the ensuring of the injured person’s claim for compensation, and limitation or cancellation of such an ensuring, or exemption of items from it; order to exhume a corpse; submission of a request an accused from abroad; execution of a pre-liminary investigation within an extradition proceeding; request for approval to charge with an accusation, refraining from or filing of a motion to put into custody a person for whom a Parliament’s or a Constitutional Court’s approval is required; filing to the court of a motion for taking into custody an accused, and prolongation of a term of custody within a preliminary proceeding; filing to the court of a motion, based on the relevant foreign body’s request, for a preliminary seizure of property belonging to the person against whom a criminal proceeding is being conducted abroad, or for seizure of a part of that property on the territory of the Slovak Republic; or court’s decision about a custody; order to execute a home search; to issue order for intercepting and recording telecommunication; order to use an agent; tracing of persons and objects; producing of sound records and of others kinds of records.
The principle of legality (observance of the rule of law) applies in criminal proceedings. The prosecutor is obliged to prosecute all criminal offences of which he gained knowledge irrespective of the seriousness of the offences and the offenders. The exceptions are only admissible according to the law or under an international treaty promulgated.
