Andrej Babiš, former prime minister and leader of the ANO movement, responded to the acquittal in the Čapí hnízdo case, saying that the verdict was pleasing. According to ANO Vice President Karel Havlicek, the court's decision was not a surprise. Prime Minister Petr Fiala (ODS) is said to respect the verdict, Pirates leader and Deputy Prime Minister Ivan Bartoš, Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies and TOP 09 Markéta Pekarová Adamová and SPD Deputies Leader and Deputy Leader of the Movement Radim Fiala.
“It doesn't surprise me, I'm glad it's been confirmed. And I'm even more happy that it's over on a personal level, because what we've said objectively is a confirmed thing. The second thing, of course, is that these trials, which drag on for a relatively long time, have a very bad effect on the environment, the family and so on. cause,” Havlicek said. Babiš himself wrote briefly on social networks: “I am happy.”
The Prime Minister said he respects the court's verdict. “I'll say it again and again, and it applies now. And I'll say it again – we have to defeat Andrej Babis in the election, and we're doing it well,” he declared. “It is even more important because he and his people are playing dangerously with the security and credibility of the Czech Republic. There is no doubt about that,” he added.
“Mr. Papiš's words about the political process have once again been revealed to be lies, for which he must publicly apologize. Of course, I fully respect the decision of the Municipal Court in Prague,” Bartos wrote on the X social network. However, according to him, this does not change the fact that Babis was in a conflict of interest during his time in government. . “Thus, he selfishly jeopardized 180 billion from the EU for Czech citizens,” the deputy prime minister noted.
“I respect the decision of the independent court, but I will not add the word but as we witness time and again with the yes movement when the courts are not in their favor,” Begarova Adamoa said.
John Lacina, vice president of the STAN movement, also repeated his words about respecting the verdict. “I advise my colleagues from the ANO movement to treat the judgments of other courts in the same way and not to question them, because when they question the decisions of the judiciary in cases they don't like, they are definitely violating the basic principles of parliamentary democracy in the Czech Republic, which is definitely wrong,” he said.
KDU-ČSL Vice President Jan Bartosek criticized Babis for the words he used to comment on his court proceedings. “I find it very dangerous that Karel Havlíček, the vice-president of the ANO movement, spoke today at the moment when (Babiš) said out loud to the world that this is a political process,” he said. Bartosek said that in the Czech Republic, the law is respected and the laws apply, and if Papis questions this, he has to prove it or apologize.
“I respect the verdict of the court. This case has been going on for a long time and I want it to end as soon as possible,” said Fiala from the SPD.
Testimonials from experts
Lukas Trojan, vice president of the Czech Republic's Union of Defenders, was not surprised by the ruling. “Unless there is a significant turn in the evidence, i.e. witnesses, experts are called, unless they bring new facts that have a significant impact on the law, the result can be expected to be the same,” he told the program. 90' CT24. Trojan was not surprised by how quickly the court ruled. “As this was all handled relatively quickly, I am not surprised that the case was decided on the same day it was opened.” This is said to be relatively common for this type of criminal case.
90′ ČT24: Decision on the Magpie Nest case (source: ČT24)
Lawyer Jiri Kucera sees the matter similarly. “I assumed that Judge (John) Schott would stick to his original position because he didn't call the witness Paresh as his key witness,” he said. Šott was acquitted last year largely on the testimony of Jan Bareš. The high court reprimanded the judge for giving more weight to Pares' testimony than other evidence and recommended that any inconsistencies in his testimony be removed. According to Kucera, by not doing this, Schott showed that he did not see the contradictions.
Both lawyers hope that the matter will be heard again by the High Court. “At the moment, the public prosecutor (Jaroslav Sharoch) is in a position where it will be very difficult for him to defend the fact that he has not appealed,” Trojan said. “Any outcome of this case at this stage will no longer be sufficient and will always remain open based on the spirit of this process,” he added. Kusera also said that only the Supreme Court can take a decision on the matter. “It might be different from Dr. Schott,” he noted.
Court decision
On Wednesday, the Municipal Court in Prague acquitted Babis and his former adviser Jana Nagyova of illegally subsidizing the construction of a congress complex in central Bohemia with fifty million. According to the court, this act is not a crime. Both Babiš and Nagyová denied the crime from the beginning.
In 2007 and early 2008, Babis arranged for the withdrawal of Pharma Coffee Hanistow from Agrofert and the sale of shares to his children and his partner, the prosecutor says. According to investigators, he did this so that the company met the conditions for receiving the subsidy for small and medium-sized businesses. According to the indictment, Nakiova submitted a successful application for the grant. According to the indictment, the payment of the subsidy resulted in damage of 49.9 million kroner to the regional council of the Central Bohemia region.
The municipal court heard the case a second time, and the original acquittal was overturned by the High Court. According to Judge John Schott, the municipal court was bound by the appeals court's instructions and therefore added some evidence Wednesday. According to him, even after the submission of evidence, there was insufficient evidence of the guilt of the two defendants.
Ales Cimbala, a spokesman for the municipal prosecutor's office, announced that if acquitted, the plaintiffs would appeal, but would wait for a written decision. In that case, the case will be heard again by the Court of Appeal in Prague.
