Constitutional Court Intervenes: Criminal Courts Ignored Crucial Video Evidence

When criminal courts convict someone of extortion, you expect them to have reached that conclusion based on a careful examination of all evidence. But what happens when a crucial piece of evidence – a video recording of the entire incident – is played by the court but then simply ignored? This is precisely the situation the Constitutional Court had to address, and its conclusions serve as a warning to the entire judiciary.

The case began with a seemingly trivial dispute over a car. While one man (the future complainant) was serving a prison sentence, his wife sold the family car without his knowledge. After his release, the complainant wanted to get the car back. Repeated demands were made to the buyer, until finally, in January 2023, the complainant drove directly to the buyer's house. According to the findings of the criminal courts, a verbal altercation ensued, during which the complainant pulled out a knife. Fearing for his family, the frightened buyer handed over the keys. The complainant drove off with the car (including the buyer's personal belongings) and asked him to send his account number for a refund of the purchase price.

The District Court sentenced the complainant to two years in prison for the crime of extortion. The complainant appealed to both the Regional Court and the Supreme Court – without success. However, the way the courts handled the evidence had fatal flaws.

The video recording as the apple of discord

The entire incident was captured by a camera at the injured party's house. The District Court played the recording during the main hearing, but that was the extent of its work with this evidence. It made no factual findings from it, did not record it anywhere in the minutes, and did not evaluate it in the judgment's reasoning. It was simply as if it didn't exist.

In his appeal, the complainant specifically raised concerns about the ambiguities surrounding this recording. The Regional Court responded interestingly – without playing the recording itself or conducting any of its own evidentiary proceedings, it declared that upon "a truly thorough review of the recording," the movement of individuals on it is clearly discernible. The recording allegedly confirmed the testimonies of the injured party and his wife, specifically that the wife was present at the scene. The complainant disputed this.

And then the Supreme Court introduced another surprising turn. It also commented extensively on the video recording – and this time, it disagreed with the Regional Court. According to the Supreme Court, the recording is of such low quality that it's impossible to see whether the injured party's wife was present. Allegedly, only the injured party and his dog are visible. The recording has no probative value, but that doesn't matter, because other evidence proves the complainant's guilt.

The Constitutional Court uncovered a fundamental procedural problem: How can an appellate court make factual findings from evidence it did not itself admit? How can the Supreme Court re-evaluate evidence contrary to the lower court's assessment without examining it itself? The answer is: it cannot. By doing so, the courts violated the principles of immediacy, oral proceedings, and adversarial process – the pillars of a fair trial.

Dual failures of the Supreme Court

Furthermore, the Constitutional Court identified another serious error. The question of how to properly admit and record video evidence is not uniformly resolved in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. Different approaches and opinions exist. In such a situation, the deciding panel of the Supreme Court should have referred the matter to the Grand Chamber of the Criminal Division, which is responsible for unifying case law.

It failed to do so. And this was despite the fact that the Supreme Court, as the unifier of case law, must be aware of its own decisional practice – even if the parties do not explicitly invoke it. By this procedure, it violated the complainant's right to a lawful judge.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court annulled the decisions of both the Regional Court and the Supreme Court. The case returns to the appellate court, which must properly admit the video recording as evidence, allow the complainant to comment on it, and clarify in a procedurally correct manner whether it is significant or insignificant evidence.

For legal practice, this finding provides a clear lesson: Evidence that a court formally admits but then ignores, as if it were never played, is a ticking time bomb for the entire proceedings. Appellate courts cannot "remotely" evaluate evidence they have not themselves seen. And the Supreme Court must respect its own case law, or refer the matter to the Grand Chamber. Otherwise, they risk intervention by the Constitutional Court – as in this case.

Source: Constitutional Court Ruling Ref. No. IV. ÚS 2338/25