Nearly two months later, the Supreme Court has published its decision unifying judicial practice on security measures, an issue that directly affects how courts and prosecutors seek and impose restrictions on liberty. According to the official version of the decision, “arrest in prison” cannot be used as an automatic solution, but only as a last resort, after less severe alternatives have genuinely been considered.
What changes in practice
According to the published decision, courts are required, before ordering “arrest in prison,” to provide concrete reasoning as to why other measures would not work in the specific case. This means that a general formula stating that the harshest measure is “appropriate” is no longer sufficient.
Along the same lines, prosecutors must justify their request for this security measure, while the court must verify whether the maximum restriction of liberty is genuinely justified by the circumstances of the case. The decision aims, at least on paper, to curb the routine use of pretrial detention.
“Arrest in prison” as a last resort
In its reasoning, the Supreme Court stresses that “arrest in prison” is the harshest security measure and may be imposed only when every other measure proves inappropriate. According to the decision, this measure is considered ultima ratio, meaning the last alternative available to the court.
Referring to Article 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the needs of securing the criminal proceeding must be such that they cannot be guaranteed by any other less restrictive measure. Only at that point, according to the Supreme Court, can sending a person to prison as a security measure be justified.
The court must reject alternatives with reasons
One of the key points of the decision is the obligation for the court to genuinely analyze alternative measures, such as house arrest, the obligation to appear, or a financial guarantee. According to the published decision, the court must expressly explain why these measures are not sufficient in the конкрет case.
This reasoning, according to the Supreme Court, must be individualized and supported by concrete facts and circumstances of the case. It must also clearly reflect the specific risk, as well as the necessity, appropriateness, and proportionality of restricting personal liberty.
Focus on dangerousness and the person’s profile
Regarding the assessment of dangerousness, the Supreme Court’s panels stress that courts should not rely on standard arguments. According to the decision, a full analysis of the person’s character, circumstances, and conduct is required.
This means that the security measure must be based on a concrete assessment and not on general formulations. It remains to be seen how much this declared standard will be reflected in courtrooms, where pretrial detention has often been criticized for broad use and formal reasoning.
The publication of this decision comes with a delay of about two months from its announcement, but its real effect will be measured not by legal formulations, but by how courts and prosecutors’ offices behave in specific cases.
If the new standard is applied as written, “arrest in prison” is expected to be treated less as a procedural reflex and more as an exceptional measure, as the Supreme Court itself defines it.