XI) Discipline 2) Court review of disciplinary punishments Section 52 (4) of the Imprisonment Act governs the court review of selected disciplinary punishments: forfeiture of a thing; placement in a restricted block for up to 28 days, with the exception of the time designated for performance of the tasks assigned under the treatment programme; all-day placement in a restricted block for up to 20 days; placement in solitary confinement for up to 20 days and decision on confiscation of a thing. This legal regulation has been effective since 1 July 2011. Considering concerns expressed by the legislature that courts could become overburdened with actions contesting disciplinary proceedings, I was also interested to learn during the systematic visits how many actions were filed in this respect (how many convicts turned to courts to challenge a decision made in disciplinary proceedings). The actions filed began to be monitored centrally 143 as late as 2014. In 2014, 8 convicts’ actions against a decision on the imposition of a disciplinary punishment were dismissed. In four cases the court upheld the applicant’s claim and annulled the decision on imposition of disciplinary punishment. In 8 cases the courts did not reach a decision on the proceedings by the end of 2014. 144 In view of the above, the fear that courts could become overburdened with convicts’ actions against disciplinary proceedings has not materialised. Only very few convicts claim review of decisions taken in disciplinary proceedings. The case law of administrative courts to date shows that two basic principles are applicable to disciplinary proceedings. First of all, indisputably and in accordance with the Defender’s opinion expressed in the past 145, disciplinary proceedings are to be subject to the basic principles of work of administrative authorities laid down in Sections 2 to 8 of Act No. 500/2004 Coll., the Code of Administrative Procedure, as amended, despite the exclusion under Section 76 (1) of the Imprisonment Act. 146 Secondly, administrative courts take into account in their decision-making practice that for the prison system to work correctly, justified disciplinary punishments must have a reformatory and preventive effect on other convicts. Courts also accept that in view of the nature of such decisions and the untypical circumstances under which they are made, as well as the deadlines by which administrative bodies are obliged to decide, decisions taken in disciplinary matters may not be subject to the same rigour as those issued by other administrative bodies or courts. This argument, however, may in no case be interpreted as giving the Prison Service a right to give up on the duty to issue decisions which are comprehensible, logically justified and based on evidence duly taken in the course of the proceedings, including the duty to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the procedural rights of convicts as guaranteed in the generally applicable legal regulations. 147 These two basic principles justify my above recommendations that disciplinary proceedings should be subject to some degree of supervision by prison lawyers (see the preceding chapter, (b) Disciplinary punishments). 143 By the Department of Remand in Custody and Imprisonment of the General Directorate of the Prison Service. 144 Data for 2014. Source: letter by the Director of the Department of Remand in Custody and Imprisonment Ref. No. VS 9/039/002/2015-50/0VVT/310. 145 The Public Defender of Rights. Collected Standpoints of the Public Defender of Rights: Prisons. [on-line]. Brno: Office of the Public Defender of Rights, 2010 [retrieved on 21 January 2016]. P. 137. Available at: http://www.ochrance.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikace/ sborniky_stanoviska/Sbornik_ Vezenstvi.pdf. 146 Cf., for example, Judgement of the Regional Court in Hradec Králové Ref. No. 30 A 84/2013-65, dated 28 January 2015 2015. 147 Cf., for example, Judgement of the Regional Court in Hradec Králové Ref. No. 30 A 97/2014-51, dated 26 June 2015. /55/