Constitutional Court: Conditions for Serving Sentences and Rules for Crediting Time Spent in Pre-Trial Detention Are Determined by Law

The application followed the applicant’s conviction for misappropriation or embezzlement of entrusted property belonging to another person and fraud. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment to be served in a medium-security institution.

In the applicant’s view, the legislation provides for differences in the conditions for serving sentences and the rules for crediting time spent in pre-trial detention for persons who have committed crimes of comparable severity. He believes that this violates the constitutional principle of equality before the law and the courts.

The Constitutional Court noted that the Criminal Code establishes the types of criminal penalties, the conditions for serving them, as well as the rules for calculating sentence terms and crediting time spent in pre-trial detention. These rules are applied with due regard to the categories of offences and types of penal institutions established by law.

Pursuant to Article 62 of the Criminal Code, time spent in pre-trial detention before a judgment enters into legal force is credited towards a term of imprisonment, taking into account the type of institution: one day for one day in maximum-, extreme- and full-security institutions; one day for one and a half days in medium-security institutions; and one day for two days in minimum-security institutions.

The Constitutional Court emphasised that determining the types of penal institutions and establishing the rules for calculating sentence terms and crediting time spent in pre-trial detention fall within the competence of the legislature. The relevant rules are enshrined in criminal legislation.

As regards the challenge to Article 48 of the Criminal Code, which governs the confiscation of property, the applicant did not provide legal arguments substantiating its alleged inconsistency with the Constitution or explain how this provision had been applied in his case. Therefore, the said article was not assessed by the Constitutional Court.