In the case of alleged subsidy fraud on the Parmet Partius Nest (FČH), which is accused by Czech ex -Prime Minister Andrej Babiš and Czech MEP Jana Nagyová, the final speech is heard on Monday in Prague. The civil servant requires the Court of Appeal to return the case to the first instance with the binding opinion of the guilt of both defendants. The defense described this as an unacceptable procedure that would be contrary to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Informs TASR newsletter in Prague.
Mojmír Frček was the first to present the final speech. The procedure when the Court of Appeal repeats the taking of evidence – as it happened in this case and the defense criticized it – he described it completely okay. He proposed that the court of the exempting judgment of the municipal court in Prague canceled and returned the case with a binding opinion to recognize the defendants guilty. He pointed out the decision of the Constitutional Court (ÚS) from the past, according to which it is possible.
This was criticized by lawyer of ex -Prime Minister Eduard Bruno. According to him, Frček is a good lawyer, but his argument in this case is unconvincing, incorrect and unusable and unusable. If the Court of Appeal committed a first -instance to a decision, it would be “absolutely unacceptable”. He pointed out that the finding of the US, to which the prosecutor referred to damages the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and is contrary to the ECtHR, which, according to Bruno, does not allow such a possibility. He added that the Court of Appeal could not replace the first instance in the taking of evidence.
Jana Nagy’s advocate Josef Bartončík described the appeal procedure as non -standard duration and scope of evidence. He noted that Nagy was not in any crime. “I refute the Lajtmotif of the indictment that everything was done to get 50 million euros. It was to build a area that still works unlike many other projects,” noted. According to him, the evidence at the Court of Appeal confirmed the factual conclusions of the Court of First Instance, and therefore the High Court should dismiss the authority of the civil servant.
