The Constitutional Court by its judgment of 9 July 2018, file no. stmp II. ÚS 955/18, decided on a constitutional complaint in which the complainant objected to the violation of the right to refuse denunciation under Article 37 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
In the case in question, the complainant refused to testify before the Czech Police as a witness in the matter of her girlfriend, who reported rape by her husband, with whom she divorced. In this case, the complainant twice refused to testify, because she could make her testimony likely to cause a criminal prosecution of a close relative. For a close person, the complainant considers her husband and her husband to be a long-time friends. A fine of CZK 10,000 was imposed on her for denied her testimony.
The District Court in Plzeň rejected the complainant's complaint against the resolution of the Czech Police, stating that the relationship of the person to the complainant and the reason for the perceived harm is necessary to be based on objective facts and that this must exist at the time of the interrogation, which the complainant did not prove.
The Constitutional Court stated in the above finding that according to Article 37 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms each "has the right to refuse to terminate the sentence if it causes the danger of criminal prosecution to himself or to a close person." According to § 100, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code entitled to deny the testimony "if it would give rise to the danger of criminal prosecution to himself, to his relative in the direct tribe ... or to other persons in a family or similar relationship, whose detriment would rightly be perceived as a personal injury".
The Constitutional Court, in its decision, concluded that it is "a well-known fact that friendship can in some cases be equally strong or even stronger than that of family relationships. In this context, we can also recall the famous saying that no one chooses his own family, but just his friends. "
The Court also stated that 'the fact that the persons concerned are not to be seen for a long time can not in itself be interpreted as a measure from which it can be concluded that the relationship is no longer a close relationship' and, in this context, gave an example so-called "friendship for life".