A foreigner is serving in the building court as a punishment for spraying on Charles Bridge
The average length of the decision-making of the Constitutional Court is five months, but the length of this process is individual, bad in the procedural circumstances. This is not a public hearing, said Miroslav Halkov Sedlkov, a state court spokeswoman, saying that the documents on Benjamin Wittig’s case arrived on January 9.
The content of the complaint is not public, it will be known and decided by the court.
At the January meeting, the Supreme Court rejected Wittig’s leave. The court decided before the time without a public hearing, now it has made the resolution available in its database.
Wittig freely criticized, for example, the fact that the public hearing of the appellate court was held by videoconference, without its physical part in the city.
However, the Supreme Court announced a video conference for a reasonable time at a time when the covid-19 pandemic complicated travel between states. The appellate court proceeded correctly when using the videoconferencing equipment and fully complied with the final provisions, it stated.
He gave Wittig’s dams a chance to give and evaluate evidence. He objected to the credibility of the testimonies and their mutual contradictions, thus pointing to the lack of physical evidence, your fingerprints from the city.
The courts of these courts dealt in detail with the evaluation of all evidence and those facts, from which they inferred the conduct of the assessed act, as well as the NS on their faults, the judges of the Supreme Court answered.
The kind of sprayer punished
The inscription appeared on the bridge in mid-July 2019. Restaurtoi began removing it on July 27 and fulfilled that the work would last until the beginning of August. According to the contract, they were to receive 40 thousand crowns for it.
But on the night of July 28, the graffiti unexpectedly disappeared. He was subsequently told to remove, stating that he had used a high-pressure jet. Laboratory results showed that the masonry of the bridge was not damaged by unexpected actions.
The other of the sprayers confessed to the other and met the punishment. Among other things, he stated in court in the past that he did not realize how memorable he placed graffiti.
Wittig, on the other hand, denied the accusation. The courts stated that both men spray-painted the report, based, among other things, on the testimony of witnesses.