{"id":40098,"date":"2026-03-30T11:35:07","date_gmt":"2026-03-30T11:35:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/cz\/40098\/"},"modified":"2026-03-30T11:35:07","modified_gmt":"2026-03-30T11:35:07","slug":"cachry-se-spisem-v-kauze-ukrajinky-soudce-vytrhl-obalku-ministr-tejc-zasahl","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/cz\/40098\/","title":{"rendered":"\u010cachry se spisem v kauze Ukrajinky. Soudce vytrhl ob\u00e1lku, ministr Tejc zas\u00e1hl"},"content":{"rendered":"

Nep\u0159\u00edpustnou manipulaci se spisem, kdy z n\u011bj rozhoduj\u00edc\u00ed soudce na pra\u017esk\u00e9m m\u011bstsk\u00e9m soud\u011b vytrhl ob\u00e1lku obsahuj\u00edc\u00ed protokol o hlasov\u00e1n\u00ed, musel \u0159e\u0161it Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed soud. Podn\u011bt k tomu mu dal ministr spravedlnosti Jeron\u00fdm Tejc.<\/p>\n

Na za\u010d\u00e1tku byl ban\u00e1ln\u00ed p\u0159\u00edpad Ukrajinky obvin\u011bn\u00e9 z pad\u011bl\u00e1n\u00ed dokladu o zaji\u0161t\u011bn\u00ed ubytov\u00e1n\u00ed. Obvodn\u00ed soud pro Prahu 9 ho poslal do p\u0159estupkov\u00e9ho \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed. Po st\u00ed\u017enosti st\u00e1tn\u00edho z\u00e1stupce se spis dostal na st\u016fl sen\u00e1tu 7 To M\u011bstsk\u00e9ho soudu v Praze. Tomu p\u0159edsed\u00e1 Richard Petr\u00e1sek a dal\u0161\u00edm \u010dlenem je Alexander Sotol\u00e1\u0159. <\/p>\n

Odvolac\u00ed soud podle protokolu z neve\u0159ejn\u00e9ho zased\u00e1n\u00ed rozhodl tak, \u017ee st\u00ed\u017enost zam\u00edtl. N\u00e1sledn\u011b ale vydal opravn\u00e9 usnesen\u00ed, do kter\u00e9ho napsal prav\u00fd opak. P\u016fvodn\u00ed verdikt nahradil t\u00edm, \u017ee st\u00ed\u017enosti vyhov\u011bl, napaden\u00e9 rozhodnut\u00ed zru\u0161il a v\u011bc vr\u00e1til obvodn\u00edmu soudu zp\u00e1tky. Na p\u0159\u00edpad u\u017e d\u0159\u00edve upozornil server Info.cz.<\/a><\/p>\n

V\u00edce verdikt\u016f ve stejn\u00fd den<\/p>\n

Chybu soudci vysv\u011btlovali tak, \u017ee stejn\u00e9ho dne vyhotovovali a podepisovali v\u00edce protokol\u016f o neve\u0159ejn\u00fdch zased\u00e1n\u00edch. Do\u0161lo proto ke zjevn\u00e9 nespr\u00e1vnosti. Obh\u00e1jce obvin\u011bn\u00e9 zdokumentoval, \u017ee ve spise chyb\u00ed p\u016fvodn\u00ed ob\u00e1lka obsahuj\u00edc\u00ed protokol o hlasov\u00e1n\u00ed. M\u00edsto n\u00ed je tam jin\u00e1. Dovozoval z toho bezprecedentn\u00ed poru\u0161en\u00ed z\u00e1kona. Jeho st\u00ed\u017enost vrchn\u00ed soud posoudil jako d\u016fvodnou a opravn\u00e9 usnesen\u00ed bez n\u00e1hrady zru\u0161il.<\/p>\n

N\u00e1sledn\u011b se do p\u0159\u00edpadu vlo\u017eil ministr spravedlnosti, kter\u00fd ve prosp\u011bch obvin\u011bn\u00e9 podal st\u00ed\u017enost pro poru\u0161en\u00ed z\u00e1kona. Zd\u016fraznil v n\u00ed, \u017ee p\u00edsemn\u00e9 vyhotoven\u00ed usnesen\u00ed vyhl\u00e1\u0161en\u00e9ho v neve\u0159ejn\u00e9m zased\u00e1n\u00ed se nesm\u00ed li\u0161it od toho, co zachycuje protokol o hlasov\u00e1n\u00ed. Jinak se jedn\u00e1 o poru\u0161en\u00ed z\u00e1kona. <\/p>\n

P\u016fvodn\u00ed ob\u00e1lka zmizela, nelze p\u0159ezkoumat<\/p>\n

Advok\u00e1t Ukrajinky pouk\u00e1zal na to, \u017ee kv\u016fli v\u00fdm\u011bn\u011b ob\u00e1lky s protokolem o hlasov\u00e1n\u00ed u\u017e nelze p\u0159esn\u011b p\u0159ezkoumat, jak bylo v dan\u00e9 v\u011bci rozhodnuto. Postup soudce, kter\u00fd ob\u00e1lku ze spisu vytrhl a nahradil jinou \u201epotvrzuje, \u017ee p\u00edsemn\u00e9 vyhotoven\u00ed bylo v rozporu s vyhl\u00e1\u0161en\u00fdm rozhodnut\u00edm, nebo\u0165 v opa\u010dn\u00e9m p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b by soud zjevn\u011b nem\u011bl pot\u0159ebu nep\u0159\u00edpustnou manipulac\u00ed se spisem zahlazovat stopy,\u201c napsal obh\u00e1jce Jan B\u0159ezina do vyj\u00e1d\u0159en\u00ed. Z\u00e1rove\u0148 navrhl, aby na m\u011bstsk\u00e9m soudu v\u011bc projednal jin\u00fd sen\u00e1t, nebo alespo\u0148 sen\u00e1t v jin\u00e9m slo\u017een\u00ed. <\/p>\n

Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed soud v rozhodnut\u00ed sp. zn. 4 Tz 2\/2026<\/a> pouk\u00e1zal na to, \u017ee v neve\u0159ejn\u00e9m zased\u00e1n\u00ed se rozhodnut\u00ed ve\u0159ejn\u011b nevyhla\u0161uje. Protokol o n\u011bm proto p\u0159edstavuje p\u00edsemn\u00fd z\u00e1znam, jak ve v\u011bci soudci rozhodli. \u201eJedinou oporou pro posouzen\u00ed spr\u00e1vnosti protokolu o neve\u0159ejn\u00e9m zased\u00e1n\u00ed, pokud jde o zp\u016fsob a obsah v\u00fdroku rozhodnut\u00ed v jeho r\u00e1mci, je protokol o hlasov\u00e1n\u00ed, kter\u00fd je v uzav\u0159en\u00e9 ob\u00e1lce p\u0159ipojen k protokolu o neve\u0159ejn\u00e9m zased\u00e1n\u00ed,\u201c konstatoval Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed soud.<\/p>\n

Rozhodne znovu stejn\u00fd sen\u00e1t<\/p>\n

Ten tak\u00e9 uznal, \u017ee fotodokumentace advok\u00e1ta ukazuje na mo\u017enost, \u017ee s ob\u00e1lkou zachycuj\u00edc\u00ed hlasov\u00e1n\u00ed soud manipuloval. Zru\u0161il proto v\u0161echna rozhodnut\u00ed m\u011bstsk\u00e9ho soudu v dan\u00e9m p\u0159\u00edpadu a spis vr\u00e1til k nov\u00e9mu projedn\u00e1n\u00ed. Ve v\u011bci bude rozhodovat stejn\u00fd sen\u00e1t, proto\u017ee vadn\u00fd procesn\u00ed postup nen\u00ed d\u016fvod k vylou\u010den\u00ed soudce. Zd\u016fraznil v\u0161ak v\u00e1zanost z\u00e1sadou z\u00e1kazu reformatio in peius. Kv\u016fli n\u00ed u\u017e soud re\u00e1ln\u011b nem\u016f\u017ee rozhodnout v neprosp\u011bch obvin\u011bn\u00e9, by\u0165 prvn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enost podal st\u00e1tn\u00ed z\u00e1stupce.<\/p>\n

Nen\u00ed to p\u0159itom poprv\u00e9, co m\u00e1 soudce Sotol\u00e1\u0159 probl\u00e9my s protokolov\u00e1n\u00edm<\/a>. V kauze Opencard kv\u016fli tomu dokonce \u010delil k\u00e1rn\u00e9 \u017ealob\u011b. A vy\u0161et\u0159ovala ho i policie<\/a>. V roce 2020 ho ministryn\u011b spravedlnosti Marie Bene\u0161ov\u00e1 do\u010dasn\u011b zbavila funkce<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Mohlo by v\u00e1s zaj\u00edmat<\/p>\n


\n \"\u00fastavn\u00ed
\n <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Nep\u0159\u00edpustnou manipulaci se spisem, kdy z n\u011bj rozhoduj\u00edc\u00ed soudce na pra\u017esk\u00e9m m\u011bstsk\u00e9m soud\u011b vytrhl ob\u00e1lku obsahuj\u00edc\u00ed protokol o…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":40099,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[43,42,41,40,16017,1488,3091,16018,16019,16020],"class_list":{"0":"post-40098","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-cesko","8":"tag-ceska-republika","9":"tag-cesko","10":"tag-czech-republic","11":"tag-czechia","12":"tag-manipulace-se-spisem","13":"tag-mestsky-soud-v-praze","14":"tag-nejvyssi-soud","15":"tag-neverejne-zasedani","16":"tag-obalka","17":"tag-protokol-o-hlasovani"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@cz\/116317921144636403","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/cz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40098","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/cz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/cz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/cz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/cz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40098"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/cz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40098\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/cz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40099"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/cz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40098"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/cz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40098"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/cz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40098"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}