Constitutional Court

The Applicant, who was convicted of income tax evasion, filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, asserting that his rights under Articles 7.1, 54 and 102 of the Constitution were infringed by a judgment of the Supreme Court, which affirmed decisions of the lower courts rejecting the Applicant’s claims that statements that he made during police questioning were improperly admitted as evidence, the offense of conviction was unrecognized by law and there was insufficient evidence of his intent to commit a crime, The Court held that the Referral was manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible pursuant to Rules 36.1(c) and 36.2 of the Rules of Procedure because he failed to produce prima facie evidence substantiating a Constitutional violation, citing Vanek v. Slovak Republic. It also noted the lack of evidence that the Supreme Court proceedings were in any way unfair or tainted by arbitrariness, citing Shub v. Lithuania. Furthermore, the Court denied the Applicant’s request for suspension of his prison sentence as an interim measure pursuant to Article 27 of the Law on the Constitutional Court for failure to demonstrate the potential for irreparable damage if the measure is not granted or that it would be in the public interest