Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why the Czech Republic Does Not (Yet) Recognize Corporate Criminal Liability: A Description of Unsuccessful Law Reforms

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Corporate Criminal Liability

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 9))

Abstract

This chapter aims to describe recent efforts to introduce corporate criminal liability rules in the Czech Republic. The structure of the chapter was supposed to follow a questionnaire sent to all national reporters to the 2010 International Congress of Comparative Law on that topic. If we had strictly adhered to the questionnaire, however, our report and this chapter would have contained just one paragraph with the following response: No, Czech law does not recognize corporate criminal or quasi-criminal liability; it is hard to predict whether corporate criminal or quasi-criminal liability legislation will be adopted in the foreseeable future; and, thus, questions about the concept of liability and the structure of liability principles are inapplicable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Čečot/Segeš 2001; Čentéš/Palkovič/Štoffová 2001; Čentéš/Palkovič/Štoffová 2002; Čentéš/Štoffová 2001; Doelder de 1994; Huber 2000; Hurdík 1996; Jalč 2005; Janda 2006; Jelínek 2007; Král 2002; Kratochvíl 1999; Kratochvíl 2002; Kratochvíl/Löff 2003; Madliak/Porada/Bruna 2006; Musil 1995; Musil 1998; Musil 2000; Musil/Prášková/Faldyna 2001; Novotný 1997; Pipek 2004; Pipek/Bartošíková 1999; Príbelský 2007; Šámal 2002; Šámal/Púry/Sotolář/Štenglová 2001; Solnař/Fenyk/Císařová 2003; Teryngel 1996a; Teryngel 1996b; Vaníček 2006; Vantuch 2003.

  2. 2.

    Corporate Criminal Liability Bill 2004 (House Print No. 745), House of Deputies, Parliament of the Czech Republic.

  3. 3.

    E.g., Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, January 27, 1999, in force July 1, 2002, 173 ETS (COE Criminal Law Convention on Corruption), Art. 18; OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, November 21, 1997, in force February 15, 1999 (OECD Convention on Foreign Bribery), Art. 2; Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 11, 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (text with EEA relevance), OJ No. L 335, December 12, 2007, 31 (EU Remedies Directive); Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the Protection of the European Communities’ Financial Interests – Joint Declaration on Article 13(2) – Commission Declaration on Article 7, July 26, 1995, in force October 17, 2002, OJ No. C 316, November 27, 1995, 49; Second Protocol drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, to the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities’ Financial Interests, June 6, 1997, in force May 16, 2009, OJ No. C 221, July 19, 1997, 12 (Second Protocol to the EU Convention on the Protection of the ECs’ Financial Interest), Art. 3.

  4. 4.

    E.g., OECD Convention on Foreign Bribery (in force for the Czech Republic March 21, 2000); COE Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (in force for the Czech Republic July 1, 2002); International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, January 10, 2000, in force April 10, 2002, 2178 UNTS 197 (Terrorist Financing Convention); EU Remedies Directive; EU Convention on the Protection of the ECs’ Financial Interest.

  5. 5.

    Only forty-three MPs in fact supported the bill, whereas the total number of MPs in the House of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is 200.

  6. 6.

    Kratochvíl 2002, 366.

  7. 7.

    Pieth 2007, 7 et seq.

  8. 8.

    Due to its priority in application, an international treaty could also exclude the application of the Czech law on certain legal persons.

  9. 9.

    Beran 2006a, 255.

  10. 10.

    See Beran 2006b.

  11. 11.

    Typically, so-called one-member limited companies.

  12. 12.

    E.g., members of statutory body members or representatives with powers of attorney, or similar forms of authority.

  13. 13.

    See Legal Entity Criminal Liability Act 2002 (Act. No. 197 of 2002), arts. 3 and 4.

  14. 14.

    See Parliament of the Czech Republic, House of Deputies (4th Electoral Term of the House, 37th Session, November 2, 2004), <http://www.psp.cz/eknih/2002ps/stenprot/037schuz/s037044.htm>.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    Ibid.

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    Ibid.

  19. 19.

    Ibid.

  20. 20.

    Ibid.

  21. 21.

    As mentioned above, the House of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic consists of 200 MPs.

  22. 22.

    See Legal Entity Liability Act 2005 (Act No. 151 of 2005), arts. 1 and 2.

  23. 23.

    For caused damage, faults etc.

  24. 24.

    See Commercial Code 1991 (Act No. 513 of 1991), art. 68(3)(d) and (6) or art. 254(2)(c) and art. 257(1).

  25. 25.

    See OECD 2009.

  26. 26.

    New Criminal Code 2009 (Act No. 40 of 2009), in force January 1, 2010.

  27. 27.

    Government Resolution on the Conception of the Fight against Organized Crime (Government Resolution No. 64 of January 23, 2008).

  28. 28.

    Ministry of the Interior 2008, The Outline of the Law on the Liability of Legal Entities for Administrative Misdemeanors caused by Conduct Punished as a Crime if Perpetrated by Natural Person and the Punishment of which is Required by International Treaties or the Legislation of the European Communities (Outline of December 16, 2008), 2 et seq.

  29. 29.

    Ministry of the Interior 2008, 5.

  30. 30.

    Ministry of the Interior 2008, 7.

  31. 31.

    E.g., Misdemeanor Act 1990 (Act No. 200 of 1990); National Payment System Act 2009 (Act No. 284 of 2009); Building Act 2006 (Act No. 183 of 2006); Anti-Money Laundering and Cash Payment Act 2004 (Act No. 254 of 2004).

  32. 32.

    E.g., offenses relating to fire prevention.

  33. 33.

    E.g., COE Criminal Law Convention on Corruption; OECD Convention on Foreign Bribery; a number of framework decisions of the EC/EU, such as the Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 19, 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law (text with EEA relevance), OJ No. L 328, December 6, 2008, 28.

  34. 34.

    This solution would be similar to the adhesion procedure in which courts decide about compensation for damage caused by a criminal offense.

  35. 35.

    According to correspondence and comments of the Ministry of the Interior, this view is shared by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Administrative Court; the Chairman of the Criminal Division of the Czech Republic’s Supreme Court; the Minister presiding the Legislative Council of the Government; the former Minister for Human Rights and Ethnic Minorities; the Minister of Foreign Affairs; and the Governor of the Czech National Bank.

  36. 36.

    Fisse/Braithwaite 1993, 193.

References

  • Beran, K. (2006), Právnické osoby veřejného práva (Public Law Legal Persons), Prague. [cited as Beran 2006a]

    Google Scholar 

  • Beran, K. (2006), ‘Proč není stát právnickou osobou’ (Why the State is Not a Legal Person), Právní rozhledy 7, 255. [cited as Beran 2006b]

    Google Scholar 

  • Čečot, V. and I. Segeš (2001), ‘Trestná zodpovednosť právnických osób?’ (Corporate Criminal Liability?), Justičná revue 1, 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Čentéš, J., J. Palkovič, and Z. Štoffová (2001), ‘Trestná zodpovednosť právnických osób’ (Corporate Criminal Liability), Justičná revue 4, 416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Čentéš, J., J. Palkovič, and Z. Štoffová (2002), ‘Trestná zodpovednosť právnických osób v slovinskom právnom poriadku’ (Corporate Criminal Liability in Slovenian Law), Trestní právo 5, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Čentéš, J. and Z. Štoffová (2001), ‘Trestná zodpovednosť právnických osób v Belgicku’ (Corporate Criminal Liability in Belgium), Justičná revue 10, 990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doelder de, H. (1994), ‘Kriminalizace korporativního chování, možnosti trestního postihu korporace’ (The Criminalisation of Corporate Behavior and Possibilities of Criminal Sanctions for Corporations), in: V. Kratochvíl (ed.), Trestněprávní reforma v České republice v interdisciplinární perspektivě, Brno, 60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisse, B. and J. Braithwaite (1993), Corporations, Crime and Accountability, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, B. (2000), ‘Trestní odpovědnost korporací’ (Corporate Criminal Liability), Trestní právo 9, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurdík, J. (1996), ‘Trestní odpovědnost právnických osob?’ (Corporate Criminal Liability?), Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi 1, 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalč, A. (2005), ‘Korupcia – trestnoprávny vývoj, rekodifikácia a trestná zodpovednosť právnických osob’ (Corruption – Developments and Re-Codification of Criminal Law and Corporate Criminal Liability), Justičná revue 1, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janda, P. (2006), ‘Trestní odpovědnost právnických osob’ (Corporate Criminal Liability), Právní fórum 5, 168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelínek, J. (2007), Trestní odpovědnost právnických osob (Corporate Criminal Liability), Prague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Král, V. (2002), ‘K trestní odpovědnosti právnických osob – východiska, obsah a systematika zákonné právní úpravy’ (On Corporate Criminal Liability – The Basis, Content and System of the Current Legislation), Trestněprávní revue 8, 221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochvíl, V. (1999), ‘Jednání za jiného – možná cesta k trestní odpovědnosti právnických osob?’ (Acting on Behalf of Another Person – a Possible Way towards Corporate Criminal Liability?), in: V. Kratochvíl (ed.), Sborník z mezinárodního semináře o hospodářské kriminalitě, Brno, 88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochvíl, V. (2002), ‘Trestní odpovědnost právnických osob a jednání za jiného (Stav de lege lata, de lege ferenda v České republice a Slovenské republice)’ (Corporate Criminal Liability and Acting on Another Person’s Behalf – The Current and Desirable Situation in the Czech and Slovak Republics), Právny obzor 4, 365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochvíl, V. and M. Löff (2003), Hospodářské trestní právo a trestní odpovědnost právnických osob (Economic Criminal Law and Corporate Criminal Liability), Acta Universitatis Brunensis – Iuridica No. 272, Brno.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madliak, J., V. Porada, and E. Bruna (2006), ‘Niekoĺko úvah o trestnej zodpovednosti právnických osób v podmienkach SR’ (Several Thoughts on Corporate Criminal Liability in the Slovak Republic), Karlovarská právní revue 3, 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musil, J. (1995), ‘Trestní odpovědnost právnických osob v novém francouzském trestním zákoníku’ (Corporate Criminal Liability in the New French Criminal Code), Kriminalistika 4, 305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musil, J. (1998), ‘Trestní odpovědnost právnických osob: Historický vývoj a mezinárodní srovnání’ (Corporate Criminal Liability: Historical Development and International Comparison), in: J. Musil and M. Vanduchová (eds.), Pocta Otovi Novotnému, Praha, 76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musil, J. (2000), ‘Trestní odpovědnost právnických osob – ano či ne?’ (Corporate Criminal Liability: Yes or No?), Trestní právo 7, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musil, J., H. Prášková, and F. Faldyna (2001), ‘Úvahy o trestní odpovědnosti právnických osob de lege ferenda’ (Thoughts on Corporate Criminal Liability de Lege Ferenda), Trestní právo 3, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novotný, O. (1997), ‘O otázkách hospodářského trestního práva’ (Economic Criminal Law Matters), Právní praxe 6, 375.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD 2009, Czech Republic: Phase 2: Follow-up Report on the Implementation of the Phase 2 Recommendations: Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1997 Revised Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, February 13, 2009. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieth, M. (2007), ‘Article 2 – The Responsibility of Legal Persons’, in: M. Pieth, L. Low, and P. Cullen (eds.), The OECD Convention on Bribery: A Commentary, Cambridge, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pipek, J. (2004), ‘Princip ne bis in idem v konkurenci jurisdikcí’ (The Ne Bis in Idem Principle in a Clash of Jurisdictions), Trestněprávní revue 4, 97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pipek, J. and M. Bartošíková (1999), ‘Vztah obchodněprávní a trestněprávní odpovědnosti statutárních orgánů a členů statutárních orgánů’ (The Relation between Commercial and Criminal Liability of Statutory Bodies and Members Thereof), Právní praxe v podnikání 1, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Príbelský, P. (2007), ‘Trestná zodpovednosť právnických osob v Rakúsku’ (Corporate Criminal Liability in Austria), Trestněprávní revue 1, 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Šámal, P. (2002), ‘K úvodním ustanovením připravované rekodifikace trestního zákona’ (On the Initial Provisions of the Prepared Criminal Code Re-Codification), Trestněprávní revue 12, 349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Šámal, P., F. Púry, A. Sotolář, and I. Štenglová (2001), Podnikání a ekonomická kriminalita v České republice (Business and Economic Crime in the Czech Republic), Prague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solnař, V., J. Fenyk, and D. Císařová (2003), Základy trestní odpovědnosti (The Basis of Corporate Criminal Liability), 2nd edn, Prague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teryngel, J. (1996), ‘Ještě k rozlišení odpovědnosti právnických a fyzických osob’ (Thoughts on Distinguishing the Liability of Legal and Natural Persons), Trestní právo 12, 9. [cited as Teryngel 1996a]

    Google Scholar 

  • Teryngel, J. (1996), ‘K trestní odpovědnosti právnických osob a osob za ně jednajících’ (On Corporate Criminal Liability and the Liability of Persons Acting on Their Behalf), Trestní právo 1, 15. [cited as Teryngel 1996b]

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaníček, D. (2006), ‘Trestní sankce ukládané právnickým osobám’ (Criminal Penalties for Legal Persons), Trestní právo 7, 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vantuch, P. (2003), ‘K návrhu zákona o trestní odpovědnosti právnických osob’ (On the Corporate Criminal Liability Bill), Trestní právo 3, 2.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Head of the Department of Criminal Law, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

    Jiří Jelínek

  2. Department of Legal Theory, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

    Karel Beran (Senior Lecturer)

Authors
  1. Jiří Jelínek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karel Beran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiří Jelínek .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Faculty of Law, University of Basel, Peter Merian-Weg 8, Basel, 4002, Switzerland

    Mark Pieth

  2. , Faculty of Law, University of Basel, Peter Merian-Weg 8, Basel, 4002, Switzerland

    Radha Ivory

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jelínek, J., Beran, K. (2011). Why the Czech Republic Does Not (Yet) Recognize Corporate Criminal Liability: A Description of Unsuccessful Law Reforms. In: Pieth, M., Ivory, R. (eds) Corporate Criminal Liability. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0674-3_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation