39/2013 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic of
The Constitutional Court decided under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 6/12 of 9 June. January 2013 in plenary
consisting of the President of the Court, Pavel Rychetský and judges Stanislav ass-bag,
Vlasta Formánkové, Pavla Holländera, Ivana Janů, Vladimir Crust,
Jiří Mucha, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodýma, Miloslava Excellent and
Michaela Židlické on the proposal of the regional court in Hradec Králové – branch
Pardubice on finding of unconstitutionality of section 1 (b). (g)) and section
10A of Act No. 565/1990 Coll., on local fees, as amended by Act No.
183/2010 Coll., before the amendment made by Act No. 458/2011 Coll. in
Eventum to Constitutional Court declaratory statement said
the unconstitutionality of the third Act No. 183/2010 Coll., amending Act
No. 115/2001 Coll., on the promotion of the sport, as amended, the law
No 290/2002 Coll., on the transition to some other things, rights and obligations
The Czech Republic, regions and municipalities, civil associations working in the field of
sports and the sports and the related changes and amending Act No.
157/2000 Coll., on the passing of some of the things, rights and liabilities from the assets of the Czech
Republic, as amended by Act No. 10/2001 Coll., and Act No. 20/1966 Coll., on
care about the health of the people, in the wording of later regulations, as amended
regulations, and Act No. 564/1990 Coll., on local fees, as
amended, with the participation of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament
The Czech Republic as the parties,
as follows:
The proposal on a finding of unconstitutionality of the provisions of section 1 (b). (g)) and Article 10a
Act No. 564/1990 Coll., on local fees, as amended by Act No.
183/2010 Coll., before the amendment made by Act No. 458/2011 Coll. in
Eventum to Constitutional Court declaratory statement said
the unconstitutionality of the third Act No. 183/2010 Coll., amending Act
No. 115/2001 Coll., on the promotion of the sport, as amended, the law
No 290/2002 Coll., on the transition to some other things, rights and obligations
The Czech Republic, regions and municipalities, civil associations working in the field of
sports and the sports and the related changes and amending Act No.
157/2000 Coll., on the passing of some of the things, rights and liabilities from the assets of the Czech
Republic, as amended by Act No. 10/2001 Coll., and Act No. 20/1966 Coll., on
care about the health of the people, in the wording of later regulations, as amended
regulations, and Act No. 564/1990 Coll., on local fees, as
amended, is rejected.
Justification
(I).
The definition of things and a recap of the proposal
1. the proposal that the Constitutional Court was delivered 2 December. February 2012,
The regional court in Hradec Králové – branch Pardubice (hereinafter referred to as
"the complainant") with reference to the provisions of the article. paragraph 95. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech
Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") seeking a finding of unconstitutionality
the provisions of section 1 (b). (g)) and Article 10a of Act No. 565/1990 Coll., on local
fees, as amended by law no 183/2010 Coll., before the amendments made by
Law No. 458/2011 Coll., in the third act of unconstitutionality of eventum
No 183/2010 Coll., amending Act No. 115/2001 Coll., on the promotion of
Sport, as amended, law no 290/2002 Coll., on the transition
some of the other things, the rights and obligations of the Czech Republic for the region and communities,
civil associations working in the field of physical education and sport and the
related changes and amending Law No. 157/2000 Coll., on the transition
some of the things, rights and obligations of the property of the Czech Republic, as amended by
Act No. 10/2001 Coll., and Act No. 20/1966 Coll., on the health care of the people,
in the wording of later regulations, as amended, and Act No.
565/1990 Coll., on local charges, as amended.
2. In accordance with the claim of the petitioner contested provisions is to be used when
solution led by the claimant under the SP. zn. 52 Af 9/2011, in which the
the applicant, the gate seven, a. s., ("the applicant") is seeking a court
a review of the decision of the regional authority of the Pardubice region (hereinafter as
"regional authority") of 10 June 1999. May 2011 no KrÚ/37795 2011.
3. content of the proposal submitted by the applicant From 30 March. September 2010 paid
local fee for a winning slot machine or other technical equipment
the Ministry of Finance allowed under another legal provision in the amount of 1
630 Kč. The applicant then on 15. February 2011 to the City Office
Moravská Třebová (hereinafter referred to as "fee") application for refund
vratitelného overpayment according to the provisions of section 155 of the Act No 280/2009 Sb.
the tax code, since, in its opinion, cannot be a local charge for "other
the technical gaming device "to establish and collect. Manager fee
issued on 14 July. March 2011 under no j. MUMT 6942/2011/OMM3 decision
which stated that the application cannot be accepted, since the fee was drafted in
accordance with generally binding Decree of Moravská Třebová, no. 2/2010
local fee-run winning slot machine or other
technical and gaming devices currently registered on the personal income tax
account of arrears in the amount of Czk 84 560. On the basis of the appeal
by the applicant, the regional authority of the Pardubice region, by decision of 10 June 1999. may
2011 n. j. KrÚ/37795 2011 lodged the appeal dismissed and the contested decision
confirmed. The regional authority deduced that the subject of the local fee becomes
Each Ministry of Finance released the end terminal (IVT), which is
other minor components of the system connected to the central unit,
and is therefore in conjunction with this unit is able to implement a game from
the very beginning to its end. Local fee in the case of this
the technical equipment at each end point of this system
(IVT), on the spot where the player betting games. In General, therefore,
to summarize, the object of the local fee are all technical game
the device in the above sense, which cumulatively meet the other
the condition referred to in section 10a of Act No. 565/1990 Coll., on local
fees, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the "law on local
the fees "), i.e.. are authorised by the Ministry of finance.
4. As is clear from the decisions of both the administrative authorities in the administrative
the proceedings in which the decision was issued, both progressed both administrative
authorities pursuant to Act No. 183/2010 Coll., amending Act No. 115/2011
Coll., on the promotion of the sport, as amended, law no 290/2002
On the transition of certain other things, rights and obligations of the Czech Republic
the regions and municipalities, civil associations working in the field of sports and
Sport and related amendments and the amendment of the Act No 157/2000 Coll., on the
the transition of certain things, rights and obligations of the property of the Czech Republic, in the
amended by Act No. 10/2001 Coll., and Act No. 20/1966 Coll., on health care
the people, in the wording of later regulations, as amended, and
Act No. 564/1990 Coll., on local charges, as amended
regulations. This law no 183/2010 Coll., and in the third, was
a change in the provisions of section 1 (b). (g)) and Article 10a of Act No. 565/1990 Coll.
in the version effective at the time of the issue of administrative decisions and has been newly introduced
the fee for other technical gaming devices authorized by the Ministry of
Finance under other legislation.
5. the applicant claims that the subject of the administrative procedure, in which both the
decision of the administrative authorities issued decision about this is just
the fee for other technical game device, and therefore had to deal with and
the applicant's objection relating to the neústavnosti of the contested legislation.
6. the applicant is of the opinion that the provisions of the law, which has to be
specifically, the solution applied to the provisions of § [1 (b) (g)) and section 10a of Act
No 565/1990 Coll., on local charges, contained in the text of the legislation
in part three of the law no 183/2010 Coll., effective from 16. June 2010 to 31.
December 2011], are in conflict with the constitutional order, for the amendment of the law
No 565/1990 Coll. made by law no 183/2010 Coll., which was the fee for
other technical gaming devices authorized by the Ministry of finance
other legislation introduced, has not been taken constitutionally Conformal
in a way.
7. the applicant stated that the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in 2010
as the Senate debated the print no. 259, the Bill, which should change
Act No. 115/2001 Coll., on the promotion of the sport, as amended,
(hereinafter as the "law on the promotion of sports") and law no 290/2002 Coll., on
the transition of certain other things, rights and obligations of the Czech Republic
counties and municipalities, civil associations working in the field of physical education and sport
and related amendments and the amendment of the Act No 157/2000 Coll., on the transition
some of the things, rights and obligations of the property of the Czech Republic, as amended by
Act No. 10/2001 Coll., and Act No. 20/1966 Coll., on the health care of the people,
in the wording of later regulations. The original proposal for a law amending the
Act No. 115/2001 Coll., on the promotion of the sport, as amended,
as the Council was to print no 756 submitted to the Chamber of Deputies 27 June.
February 2009 a group of members of the Chamber of Deputies (specifically, MEPs
Jiří Paroubek, Karl Šplíchalem, David Rathem and František
Bublanem). As is clear from the explanatory memorandum to the amendment should be submitted to the
repealed provisions of Section 7a to 7f of the Act on the promotion of the sport, it
was inserted in connection with the adoption of law No 273/2008 Coll., on the police
Of the Czech Republic. In the first reading (on September 29, 2009) Bill
discuss the safety Committee, which recommended to approve the draft law
in the text of the adopted amendments. There has been a change in the individual
the provisions concerned, and it was therefore dropped from the original intent of this
the provisions of the repealed entirely. In the framework of the second reading (11 March. 3.2010) suggested
MEP Vladimír Soltys, change the name of the law, and that the "law
amended Act No. 115/2001 Coll., on the promotion of the sport, as amended
regulations, and Act No. 290/2002 Coll., on the transition to some other things,
the rights and obligations of the Czech Republic in the regions and municipalities, the Civil Association
operating in the field of sports and sport and related amendments and
Amendment of the Act No 157/2000 Coll., on the passing of some of the things, rights and obligations
from the assets of the Czech Republic, as amended by Act No. 10/2001 Coll. and Act No.
20/1966 Coll., on the health care of the people, as amended ", and
at the same time repealed law no 290/2002 Coll., the provisions of § 15 of paragraph 1. 4 sentences
the second and third. The amendment then had members of the George Čepelka and
Karel Splichal. The Bill was approved in the Chamber of Deputies
the texts of the above amendments 19 September. March 25, 2010. Final
the content of this relatively brief proposal after crossing the Chamber
the House was the de facto:
and the determination of duties) the owner or operator of the sports
equipment to ensure the safety of persons and property in this sport
equipment, and to this end, cooperation with the police of the Czech Republic;
(b)) the deletion of the requirement to offer the unneeded real estate civil
associations operating in the field of physical education and Sport (within the 10-year
the period from their acquisition) free of charge and preferably to State ownership.
8. The Senate proposal was delivered June 29. March 25, 2010. The Senate proposal of 23 December 2003.
April 2010 on its 18. the meeting discussed and 27 June. back in April 2010
changed back to the Chamber of Deputies. The returned draft voted
on 18 July 2005. May 2010 on its 79. the meeting and adopted the law. President Of The Czech
then he signed the Act of the Republic of 2 July. June 2010. The law was published in the collection
laws in the amount of 64 under no 183/2010 Coll. and efficiency became the date of 16.
June 2010.
9. The Senate Bill under consideration on 23 June. April 2010 (on the initiative of
Senator Kubera) to him in his resolution No. 487 without the explanatory memorandum and
even without the previous debate joined the amendment. The contents of the
This amendment was to edit the title of the Bill and insert
the new part of the third part of the second draft law. This new part of the third
related amendments to the law on local charges, specifically editing in
the provisions of § 1 (b). (g)) and section 10a, paragraph. 1, 2 and 3 of the law on local
fees, and consisted in the fact that the provisions of section 1 of the Act on local
fees, provides an exhaustive list of local fees that can commune
to choose from. A total of nine species is local taxes (e.g..
the charge of the dogs, the charge for the spa or vacation, a fee of
accommodation capacity, the fee for a permit to the entrance with a motor vehicle
in selected places and parts of the city, etc.).
10. The original text of the provisions of section 1 (b). (g)) of the law on local fees
prior to the amendment made by Act No. 183/2010 Coll.: "(g))
-run a winning slot machine ". The new wording of the provisions of section 1 (b).
(g)) of the law on local fees as follows: "(g)) the fee for the run
a winning slot machine or other technical game device enabled
The Ministry of finance under other legislation), "^ 15.
11. The original text of the provisions of section 10 a of the Act on local charges before
the amendment made by Act No. 183/2010 Coll.: "(1) the fee for the
-run a winning slot machine is subject to each authorised playing
device ^ 15) the municipality is not obliged to grant exemptions from this
of the fee. (2) the fee for a winning slot machine pays his
the operator. (3) the rate of the fee for each winning slot machine on three
the month is from CZK 1,000 to CZK 5 000. ". The new wording of the provisions of section 10a
the law on local fees be added: "(1) the fee for a winning run
slot machine or other technical game device enabled
The Ministry of finance is subject to each authorised playing device or other
the technical gaming devices authorized by the Ministry of finance. The municipality is not
required to provide an exemption from this charge. (2) the fee for the
a winning slot machine or other technical game device enabled
The Ministry of finance pays his operator. (3) the rate of the fee for the
each winning slot machine or other technical game device
authorised by the Ministry of finance in the three months from 1 up to 5 000 000 CZK
CZK. ".
12. In accordance with the original and the new legislation has remained content to index, 15) and
footnotes and reference means to Act No. 202/1990 Coll., on
Lotteries and other similar games, as amended, (hereinafter the
"the law on lotteries").
13. From the stenozáznamu acquired on 23 June. April 2010 from the meeting of the Senate
shows how Senator Jaroslav Kubera met the Senate with his
the amendment to the amendment to the Act on the promotion of the sport: "I will not.
talk about this law, I have no problem with that, but I would like to
notify their amendment. Surely you know that next week is here
the amendment to the law on lotteries, betting and other games. We're in difficult
the situation with the fact that it is a concern that if we don't act now, it will not be returned
possible for reasons of time to discuss it. Therefore, I decided to submit to the
the amendment to this Act. Forward I opponents, přílepků
It is not a true přílepek, which we have approved the last act
staff, but is called. false přílepek. The right would be
in the case, if we tried to connect him to the law on zahrádkářích
under the impression that betting is as the setting, but it is not. This law is
on the promotion of the sport and very related to the various lotteries and bets, because part of the
proceeds are used to support sport. ".
14. My concern about the fact that in the present case actually is přílepek
genuine, subsequently said the MEP Jiri Čepelka (see stenoprotokol of the
79. the meetings of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic of 18 November.
May 2010): "... I'm very sorry that in the Senate managed to
the law, which is otherwise clean, basically to supplement přílepek, which
really I can lead to, if the President decides and
in some way it disputes, returns this law that will have him
who already Act... ". In defense of the amendment to the amendment to the
the law on the promotion of the sport appear before the Chamber of Deputies, again
Senator Kubera, who reiterated that his original intention was to
assign the přílepek to the draft law on the gardening activities and modify
some of the conditions of its operation (gardening law) see citation
from the same stenoprotokolu: "we wanted to give to the přílepek
the law, which you have just approved. We got out of it,
the settings as settings. (Humor in the Hall.) Whether it be betting on slots
or planting crops. Why we decided to give it to the law of
Sport? First, he already přílepek contained and přílepek was from you,
the so-called přílepek right, you přivtělili. We're there
the so-called přivtělili přílepek false, because the law is closely related to
Sport. You know, it's not just the State, who supports the sport, but the municipality
in particular, the sport of youth support in the very significant and, of course, to the extent they
they are now in a situation where they do not have enough resources. This law does not make
anything other than that unifies the fee for a normal slot machines with the
fee for videoterminálů regardless, that gives videoterminály
licence of the Ministry of finance. Nothing in this Act is not. The money goes
directly to the village and go directly to municipalities, where there are also problems with the machines and
videoterminály. ... So I beg you to support this Bill, which
nothing ventured. If anyone has any legal analyses, we are there
they treated all the more, tritones, kvartlexy and other machines, which in
the future will come, which even now we don't know what the technicians devises ".
15. As is clear from the above, according to the opinion of the mover of amendment
the proposal by Senator Kubera nepozměňoval discussed the draft amendments to the law on the
the promotion of the sport, but rather concerned the fundamentally different design item.
The complainant in this context pointed to the plenum of the Constitutional Court finding
SP. zn. PL. ÚS 77/06 of 15 July. February 2007 (N 30/44 SbNU 349; 37/2007
SB.), in which the Constitutional Court discussed the constitutionality of legislative
přílepků (also called sliders).
16. the applicant considers that the amendment by Senator Kubera
nepozměňoval the present legislation of the Act on the promotion of the sport and even
the legislation is the Act on the promotion of the sport in any way related. The contents of the
and the purpose of the amendment to the Act on the promotion of the sport and the amendment to the Act on local
the charges together by claims of the petitioner directly unrelated, in addition
definitely not how closely this relationship in its case-law defined
The Constitutional Court. Not even the scope of sports issues. From
It follows that the scope of the amendment by Senator Kubera
the same item of the proposal, which was currently in the legislative process
being discussed. As is apparent from the stenozáznamu of 23 June. April, 2010, Senator
He himself declares that with the proposed text of the amendment to the Act on the promotion of
Sport "has no problem". In this case, however, it did not
propose any amendments. Also from his other comments
(contained in both the stenozáznamu dated April 23, 2010, in
stenoprotokolu of 18 May. May 2010) shows that basically only
looking for a suitable present for assigned legislative adjustment (law on the
zahrádkářích, law on the promotion of the sport), that would be my intention to change
the law on local charges to connect, as he himself was not entitled to
the submission of the draft law. By the way, so walked around the classic
legislative initiative within the meaning of article. paragraph 41. 1 and 2 of the Constitution, namely that the
the draft law shall submit to the Chamber of Deputies is fundamentally (but not the Senate) and
that proposal may submit only the whole Senate, but not one Senator.
17. the applicant does not agree with the more hardened, even according to his opinion
unfounded argument put forward by Senator Kuberou before the Chamber of
the Chamber of Deputies. According to the rules laid down in the article. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution and article. 2
paragraph. 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms ("the Charter") is
the State is limited by rules set by himself, and it follows that the legislature
is obliged to follow in adopting certain legislative acts rules.
The appellant argues that the legislature should not promote "the vicious practice
přílepků "if Senator Kubera in his expression that evaluates the
This is a "false přílepek, for the law is closely related to sport", again
recalls of what his amendment consisted. Therefore, according to the
the conclusion of the petitioner cannot be than close the sport completely and
in no way is irrelevant. It concerns only the lottery operators and other
similar games and the introduction of the possibility of a further financial drain from this
operation, this time to the budget of the communities. Connection with the sport or sports
activities cannot be found here. From what Senator Kubera said before the Senate
and before the Chamber of Deputies, moreover, it is clear that the by sight
the link with the support of the sport sees every time something else. On 23 December 2005.
April 2010 before the Senate said that the law on the promotion of the sport very connected
with the various lotteries and bets, because part of the proceeds are used to support
Sport. The present amendment of the Act on the promotion of the sport, however, not with the
the financial support of sports activities, nothing to do as well as or
It attached the amendment. While it is true that, under the law on
Lotteries are the operators of lotteries and other similar games are obliged to
pay part of the proceeds from the operation of these games on a publicly beneficial activities
and between these activities and the activity falls within the sport (in particular, sport
practiced by children and youth), however even if this argument
the appellant received (which certainly does not do, because it does not agree), it must
evaluate the amendment modifying the law on lotteries and levy
part of the proceeds, when only modifies the law on local fees
and the ability of municipalities to apply the selection of a new kind of local fee. On 18 July 2005.
May 2010 then Senator Kubera in a speech before the Chamber of Deputies
found the link by the proposed adjustments with the support of sport in something else-
This time, in that not only the State supports the sport, but also in a very
a significant extent of the village. However, the question of how the municipality in this case with
funds raised from the levy local taxes, is irrelevant;
in any case, is to promote the sport at all, since they may not be used in the
the legislation does not set such a condition.
18. In the present case, the appellant was under way for an ad-hoc bypass
the Institute of legislative initiative pursuant to article. 41 of the Constitution and for infringement of rights
Government to comment on the draft of the act within the meaning of article. 44 of the Constitution. It is the
The Chamber of Deputies, which deals with bills, always the first in the
the order of the two chambers. The amendment by Senator Kubera was in such a
a separate proposal and, as such, should be submitted to the Chamber of Deputies
the House and not the Senate (but not the only Senator) and also had
include explanatory memorandum addressing the anticipated economic and financial
the reach of the proposed adjustments, in particular. the demands on the State budget, budgets of the
regions and municipalities and the evaluation of the compliance of the draft with international treaties according to the
article. 10 of the Constitution and the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. The absence of explanatory
the message in this case, the appellant's claim is especially palpable.
19. From the above it is obvious according to the appellant's assertion that the contents of the
and the purpose of the present Act on the promotion of the sport differs from the proposed
modifications to the law on local charges, and even from the content and purpose of the law
on local fees, overall, so much so that together are not related in any way.
Such a procedure is, however, the legal standards for the addressees of the completely unexpected.
While materially nazíraný law requires that the law was to
form and content in a predictable consistent source of law.
20. the applicant concludes, therefore, that the legislation contained in the
the contested provisions of the adopted amendment to the Act described above support
Sport No 183/2010 Coll. was contrary to the constitutional order. The provisions of §
1 (a). (g)) and section 10a of the Act on local fees was in effect
from the 1. January 2012 repealed by law No. 458/2011 Coll., amending the laws
related to the establishment of a single recovery point and other changes
tax and insurance laws, however, this legislation was applicable at the time of
the issue of the defendant's decision issued by a public authority, and the Court in the
This judicial proceedings, it must be taken into account, since under section 75, paragraph. 1
Act No. 150/2002 Coll., the administrative rules of court, when reviewing the decision of the
administrative authority based on the Court of the factual and legal status, which
He was at the time the decision of the administrative authority. According to the resolution of the Constitutional Court
of 9 June. February 2011 SP. zn. PL. TC 1/10 (available on the
http://nalus.usoud.cz) if the General Court, which turned on
The Constitutional Court referred to in article. paragraph 95. 2 of the Constitution, in the management of applied legal
Regulation, in the version prior to its amendment, conceded the possibility that the constitutional
the Court in the case decided by the academic, declaratory statement konstatujícím
the unconstitutionality of the statutory provisions have already cancelled, with this procedure
turns out the cases in which this is the addressee of public power.
21. therefore, the applicant did not dispute the content of the contested legal mismatch
the provisions of the constitutional order, but handed the proposal to have the Constitutional Court
a declaratory statement stated the unconstitutionality of the contested provisions
as amended by law no 183/2010 Sb. prior to the amendments made by law No.
458/2011 Coll. for the reason that has not been accepted in a way, constitutionally Conformal
which infringed the provisions of article. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution and article. 2 (2). 2
Of the Charter.
II.
Recap the essential parts of the representation of the parties
22. The Constitutional Court, in accordance with the provisions of § 42 paragraph. 4 and § 69 paragraph. 1
Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended,
(hereinafter referred to as the "law on the Constitutional Court") to deliver the present proposal of the
the House and Senate.
23. The Chamber of Deputies, in its observations of 24 April. February 2012 said,
that, in its opinion law no 183/2010 Coll. was the Chamber of Deputies
received constitutionally Conformal manner.
24. The Senate in its observations of 24 April. February 2012 stated that law No.
183/2010 Coll., has been referred to as the deputies of the Senate proposal
the Act of 29 April. March 2010 and the Organising Committee of the Senate be as the Senate
print no. 259 (7th term) has designated the Committee for education,
Science, culture, human rights and petitions, who recommended full Senate
the Senate approved the text of the transferred printing in the Chamber of Deputies.
The plenary of the Senate discussed the Bill contained in the Senate printing No. 259
at its 18. meeting on 23 June. April 2010. Recommendations of the Committee for education,
Science, culture, human rights and petitions to approve the Bill as amended by the
transferred the Chamber of Deputies was rejected, when for him when
quorum 27 voted only five lawmakers of the upper Chamber. As already in the
the framework of the general debate were predicted amendments, President
the meeting opened a detailed discussion, in the framework of which was filed on
extension of the draft law on the part of the amendment to the law on the third-the local
the charges, which were reflected in the very title of the Act. Projector
These amendments justify their adoption as the
factual, from the standpoint of their constitutional uniformity to how their
the adoption. After a short debate, which, inter alia, and touched the procedural
the page things, amendments in no. 72 voting approved (from
present 53 senators voted for, 47 against nobody, 6 Senators,
delayed). In the subsequent vote in the presence of the same number of Senators shall
51 of them spoke for a return of the draft law, the Chamber of Deputies with the
amendments (against none, 2 Senators stayed).
The Chamber of Deputies approved the Bill as amended by the Senate and returned
the law in question containing, inter alia, amendments to the law on local
the charges was published in the collection of laws under no. 183/2010 Coll. As
It follows from the above outlined the plenary session of the Senate, the amendment
proposals concerning amendments to the law on local fees discussed outside
another, respectively. mainly from the perspective of their consistency with the constitutionally prescribed
in the manner of their adoption. Not only the claimant of these amendments
proposals, but even the rapporteur himself, the Committee for education, science, culture,
human rights and petitions "proposals as" real přílepek ". Newsletter
in this context, even drew attention to the already problematic link
"of course, the fabric of the physical assets" with "security matter on the
stadiums "-on the form the draft law was sent to the Senate
The Chamber of Deputies. The Senate significantly majority identified with the conclusions
the petitioner's amendments, that the fabric of the law passed with
submitted proposals. His belief that the draft law, including
adopted amendments, is constitutionally authorized in Conformal
the legislative process, was expressed in a final vote on the proposal
return to the Bill the House of representatives with amendments, when
against such a proposal was not even one Senator.
25. in its comments, the Senate further draws attention to the fact that the amendment
Act No. 564/1990 Coll. is not the only amendment in that the Act adopted.
The content of law no 183/2010 Sb. amendment to the other three laws. In
in this context, therefore, offers no relevant question
whether it is possible in the context of declaratory statement noted violations of the constitutionally
the prescribed manner receipt of only some of the provisions of law No.
183/2010 Coll., or one of the amendments contained in it-the amendment to the
local fees-not the "whole" of the law. Indeed, law No. 183/2010
Coll. was adopted within the framework of a single legislative procedures and the vote was about
it both in the Senate and in the Chamber of deputies after the Senate
one final vote. For completeness, the Senate added that the
the provisions of the law on local fees, it is necessary to quote in the text of the
Act No. 305/1997 Coll., amending and supplementing Act of the Czech national
the Council no 368/1992 Coll., on administrative fees, as amended
legislation, and amending the law of the Czech National Council No. 551/1991 Coll., on the
General health insurance company in the Czech Republic, as amended
legislation, and the law of the Czech National Council No. 565/1990 Coll., on local
fees, in the wording of later regulations, which were
in the Act on local fees included, and section 10a in the text of the Act
No 149/1998 Coll., amending and supplementing Act of the Czech National Council No.
202/1990 Coll. on lotteries and other similar games, as amended by Act No.
70/1994 Coll., amending and supplementing other laws, and that these provisions
was legitimately, albeit ineffectively, amended by law No. 300/2011 Coll., which
the amended Act No. 202/1990 Coll. on lotteries and other similar games, in
as amended, and other related laws, and not just
Law No. 458/2011 Sb. It should also be considered by the Senate, noted that
the provisions of part three of the law no 183/2010 Sb. touching all
the others yet (read the date June 15, 2010) in parts of the
the provisions of section 1 (b). (g)) and section 10a of the Act on local charges, more precisely
speaking partly touched only section 10a, paragraph. 1 [repealed words
"appliance. 15)" and its replacement with the words "instrument or other technical
the device ", in other cases, the word" appliance "words
"or"], and that the appellant did not hmotněprávně nor in the proposal process
against these provisions because the previous parts of the neargumentuje (IE.
parts of the sentences relating to gaming devices), and can have serious
doubts as to whether this unspoilt parts of the provisions should be
any mention of unconstitutionality. If the applicant argues
procedural mistakes of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and refers to the
the decision of the Constitutional Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 77/06 (see above), it seems
motion of unconstitutionality of section 1 (b). (g)) and Article 10a of Act No.
565/1990 Coll., as amended by laws No. 305/1997 Coll., no 149/1998 Coll. and the No.
183/2010 Coll., as amended, therefore, effective on the date of 31. December 2011,
nepřípadný. In the above context, it can be considered by the Senate
also point out the decision of the Constitutional Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/07 dated
31.1. 2008 (N 26/48 SbNU 303; 88/2008 Coll.) in the tax section of the sub X
where the Constitutional Court also dealt with the issue of neústavnosti
the legislative process for adoption of amendments and of the draft on
repeal rejected because they didn't consider the amendments adopted for the
unrelated to the issue. It is possible to conclude, that cannot be
rote reference to earlier decisions of the Constitutional Court,
How to make projector in its line of argument. Just the decision of the constitutional
the Court in the case of Act No. 260/2006 Coll., on stabilisation of public
budgets (Note red.: probably correctly Act No. 261/2007 Coll.
the stabilization of public budgets) is proof that any such
the case has its specifics and unique character and it must be assessed
of all the aspects, and that is not always possible in seemingly identical cases reach
to the same conclusion. At the conclusion of his observations the Senate pointed out that this
comments posted by knowing that it is completely on the Constitutional Court to assess
the constitutionality of the way of the adoption of the contested act.
26. the applicant sent to the replica to the observations of the parties
He has not.
III.
Expression of amicorum curiae
27. The Constitutional Court was the day 9. March 2012 received the submission of SPELOS,
the interest Association of legal entities, and 17 December. July 2012 submission
Union game industry of the CZECH REPUBLIC, with the marked expression amicorum
curiae. The Constitutional Court to the filing notes that both entities
they are not participants or ancillary proceedings within the meaning of section 28 and 69
the law on the Constitutional Court and their representation of the Constitutional Court's demand.
Therefore, the Constitutional Court could not take account of this expression.
IV.
The abandonment of an oral hearing
28. After the above rekapitulovaném the course of proceedings, the Constitutional Court decided to
the conclusion that there is no need in the case held an oral hearing, as it brought
more or better and clearer clarification of things than how she
from the written acts of the claimant and of the parties to the proceedings, and even
the participants in the proceedings at the hearing netrvali. With regard to the wording of § 44
Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, in the wording of his amendment
made by law no 404/2012 Coll., effective since 1. 1.2013 is already
didn't even have to ask participants whether departing from the oral proceedings
agrees. That, in the proceedings initiated before the entry into force of this
the amendment to the Constitutional Court, as regards the procedural practices, proceed as
the new rules, the Constitutional Court said all parties to the proceedings and
the general public in a communication of 18 August plenum 12.2012, which was
published under no. 469/2012 Sb.
In the.
The diction of the provisions of the contested legislation and its history
29. The provisions of section 1 (b). (g)) and section 10a was to act on the local
the charges included Act No. 305/1997 Coll., with effect from 1. January
1998 was as follows:
§ 1
The municipality may collect such local taxes (the "fees"):
(g)) the fee for a winning run by playing the instrument.
section 10a
(1) the fee for a winning run by playing the instrument is subject to each
allowed the playing device. 15) the municipality is not required to provide an exemption from
This fee.
(2) the fee for a winning slot machine pays his operator.
(3) the rate of the fee for each winning slot machine on three months makes
from CZK 5,000 to CZK 20,000.
30. Act No. 148/1998 Coll., with effect from 1. September 1998 has been changed
the provisions of section 10a of the paragraph. 3 so that the sound:
(3) the rate of the fee for each winning slot machine on three months makes
from CZK 1,000 to CZK 5,000.
31. Act No. 183/2010 Sb. with effect from 16. June 2010
made this change:
1. In article 1 (a). (g)) of the word "apparatus" was replaced by the words "the unit or
other technical gaming devices authorized by the Ministry of finance
other legislation), "^ 15.
2. In section 10a of the paragraph. 1, 2 and 3 for the word "device" has been inserted the words "or
other technical game device allowed the Ministry of finance ".
Challenged provisions of the Act on local fees as amended by law No.
183/2010 Sb. Thus was:
§ 1
The municipality may collect such local taxes (the "fees"):
(g)) the fee for a winning run by playing the instrument or other technical
gaming devices authorized by the Ministry of finance pursuant to other legal
Regulation 15) ^ ^
section 10a
(1) the fee for the run by winning slot machine or other technical
gaming devices authorized by the Ministry of finance is subject to each authorised
slot machine or other technical game device enabled
The Ministry of finance. The municipality is not required to provide an exemption from
This fee.
(2) the fee for a winning slot machine or other technical game
the device allowed the Ministry of finance pays his operator.
(3) the rate of the fee for each winning slot machine or other technical
gaming devices authorized by the Ministry of finance in the three months from 1
000 CZK to CZK 5,000.
32. Act No. 300/2011 Coll. was contested provisions with effect from 14.
October 2011, the newly amended so was:
§ 1
The municipality may collect such local taxes (the "fees"):
(g)) the fee for the unit, run by winning the playing end interactive
videoloterní Terminal and the game instead of the local gaming system,
section 10a
(1) the fee for a winning run by playing the instrument is subject to each
allowed the playing device as defined in section 2 (a). e) of Act No. 202/1990
Coll. on lotteries and other similar games, as amended
(hereinafter referred to as the "law on lotteries"), (hereinafter referred to as "a winning slot machine"),
each interactive terminal end videoloterní as defined in section 2 (a).
l) of the law on lotteries (hereinafter referred to as "the end of the interactive videoloterní
Terminal ") and each game instead of a local game system as defined in
section 2 (a). n) of the law on lotteries (hereinafter referred to as "the game instead of the local
game system "). The municipality is not obliged to grant exemptions from this
of the fee.
(2) the fee for a winning slot machine, end, interactive
videoloterní Terminal and the game instead of the local gaming system
its operator.
(3) the rate of the fee for each winning slot machine, each end
Interactive videoloterní Terminal and each game instead of the local
game system for three months from 1 000 CZK to CZK 5,000.
33. Law No. 458/2011 Sb. with effect from 1 January. January 2012 then both
the contested provisions be repealed.
VI.
The conditions of the appellant's evidence is active
34. From the file of the petitioner maintained under SP. zn. 52 Af 9/2011 Constitutional
the Court has verified that the action brought by 18 December. July 2011 with the applicant, the gate
seven, and s., seeks the annulment of a decision issued in the administrative procedure in the
the context of its request for repayment of overpayment local tempered
the fee paid on 30. September 2010-run slot game
device or other technical equipment allowed the Ministry of finance in the
the amount of 1 630 CZK according to the law on lotteries, and pursuant to section 155 of the tax code.
35. The applicant, the basic defect in the decision of the Manager in charge sees
that the administrative authority, although he was paid a fee for other local "
the technical gaming devices authorized by the Ministry of Finance according to another
the law ", though according to the Act on local charges in
connection with the law on lotteries cannot ever determine and collect the amount of the
the fee paid to the local or at the request of the applicant, the back and the
In addition, the request in contravention of the procedural provisions decided it
rejected. Due to the infringement of rules laid down by the applicant
the law in the legislative procedure, caused by the applicant's view,
the amendment to the Act on local charges made by law no 183/2010
Coll. was adopted contrary to the prescribed procedure, therefore unconstitutional
in a way, the applicant proposed that the applicant, pursuant to section 64
paragraph. 3 the law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court handed a proposal to the
annulment of the contested provisions. The appellant then took over to your design
addressed to the Constitutional Court, the applicant's argument in the form of a literal
a copy of the claim.
36. According to the article. paragraph 88. 1 of the Constitution Act stipulates who and under what conditions
is entitled to submit a proposal for the opening of proceedings, and other rules of procedure
before the Constitutional Court. At the same time article. paragraph 88. 2 of the Constitution provides that judges
The Constitutional Court is bound by the constitutional order and the law referred to in article 12(2). 88
paragraph. 1 of the Constitution, i.e.. the law on the Constitutional Court. Process condition
locus standi of the General Court according to § 64 paragraph. 3 the law on the Constitutional
the Court is such a law, or position. its individual provisions,
the repeal is proposed, to the subject of tribal control, which is based
for the assessment of the matter by the General Court of the reasons for the decision. Can be
to conclude that the applicant is to submit a proposal for legitimován, since actively
the proposal is related to its decision-making activities.
VII.
The assessment of the merits tests are applied to stop the proceedings according to section 66 of the Act on the Constitutional Court
37. In accordance with the provisions of section 66 paragraph. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court is
inadmissible, if the law, other legal regulations or their individual
provisions that repeal is proposed, which expired before delivery
the Constitutional Court of the validity of the proposal. The law on the Constitutional Court, as follows from the
the nature of things, allows management of inspection standards only for the applicable laws
regulations. In the case under consideration was challenged the provisions of the law No.
300/2011 Coll. with effect from 14. October 2011 amended, and Act No.
458/2011 Sb. with effect from 1 January. January 2012 canceled.
38. In the present case, the applicant has to use when making its decision on the applications submitted
the lawsuit challenged the provision, which, however, are already illegal, but with the
hardened interference effect. The Constitutional Court is no longer the issue of options
review of the law which expired validity (section 66 and 67 of the law on
The Constitutional Court), in its case law has repeatedly said. In General, this
option in finding admitted SP. zn. PL. ÚS 33/2000 of 10 November 2000. 1.2001 (N
5/21 SbNU 29; 78/2001 Coll.), where he stated that the "judge of the General Court
It is bound by the law when determining and assessing the compliance of other legal
the regulation of the law. If, however, concluded that the law, which has to be
solution used (i.e. not only valid at that time, but also in the
time no longer valid, but still applicable law), is in conflict with the
constitutional law, is obliged to submit the matter to the Constitutional Court (article 95
paragraph. 2 of the Constitution). From this provision, the Constitutional Court ruled his
the obligation to decide on the proposal. " This rule later zpřesnila
decision issued under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 42/03 of 28 February. 3.2006 (N 72/40
SbNU 703; 280/2006 Coll.), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/06 of 6. 2.2007 (N
23/44 SbNU 279; 84/2007 Coll.), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 14/09 of 25 March. 10.2011
(22/2012 Coll.), SP. zn. PL. TC 1/10 or SP. zn. PL. ÚS 23/11 of 24 July.
4.2012 (234/2012 Coll.), also available at http://nalus.usoud.cz, so that the
the constitutionality of a cancelled or amended law, the Constitutional Court shall review for
provided that the addressee of alleged reason of unconstitutionality is the public power,
and not the body of private law. In the case of vertical relations (between the
the individual and the State or municipalities) must give priority to the protection of
of fundamental rights before the legal certainty and confidence in law; in the case of
These relationships give the Constitutional Court therefore indicated that the mention of neústavnosti
It will have an impact on the rights based on the basis of the neústavního of the legal
the prescription.
39. The contested provisions govern the legal relationship in which the addressee
the alleged unconstitutionality is the public power, and not the body of the private
rights. For these are the things the conditions for umpired management
about the specific control standards according to the article. paragraph 95. 2 of the Constitution within the meaning of rule
the opinion of the Constitutional Court expressed in the cited Awards, and is therefore not
given the reason for the cessation of proceedings according to section 66 paragraph. 1 of the law on
The Constitutional Court.
VIII.
The constitutional conformity of the legislative process
40. The Constitutional Court has examined the proposal and the reasons given below, deduced that the
voicing the unconstitutionality of the contested provisions of the Act on local
the fees is not the reason.
41. The Constitutional Court with regard to the argument raised by the applicant
dealt with the question of whether the law no 183/2010 Coll. was adopted and published in the limits of the
The Constitution laid down the competence and the constitutionally prescribed manner (section 68, paragraph.
2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48/2002
SB.).
42. The draft law, amending Act No. 115/2001 Coll., on the promotion of
Sport, as amended, law no 290/2002 Coll., on the transition
some of the other things, the rights and obligations of the Czech Republic for the region and communities,
civil associations working in the field of physical education and sport and the
related changes and amending Law No. 157/2000 Coll., on the transition
some of the things, rights and obligations of the property of the Czech Republic, as amended by
Act No. 10/2001 Coll., and Act No. 20/1966 Coll., on the health care of the people,
as amended, has been submitted to the Chamber of Deputies 27 June.
February 2009 a group of members as print 756/0 and the complainant were
Member of Jiří Paroubek, Deputy Karel Splichal, mp David Rath and
Member of František Bublan. Amendment of the Act on local charges not
part of the original draft submitted by the Chamber of Deputies.
43. The Bill has been circulated to members, such as the printing of 756/0 and was designed
the House hearing of the draft law to the Chamber of Deputies with him
consent already in the first reading (article 90, paragraph 2, of Act No. 90/1995 Coll.,
on the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, as amended by law No 47/2000 Coll.).
Furthermore, the draft law was sent to the Government for its opinion. The Government of the
sent the Chamber of Deputies on 1 May 2004. April 2009 the opinion, which was
sent out to members such as printing 756/1.
44. In the Chamber of Deputies passed the first reading on 29. September 2009 to 62.
the meeting; The Chamber of Deputies agreed with the hearing, so that it could
with Bill approval at first reading. The hearing
the Act continued to 29 April. September 2009 to 62. the meeting and the draft law was
commanded by to discuss the committees (resolution No 1402). The Committee for science,
education, culture, youth and sport to discuss the Bill and issued
on 23 December 2005. November 2009 resolution delivered to members such as printing 756/2
(pauses). The Committee discussed the draft law for the safety and
released 25 July. November 2009 resolution delivered to members as a print
756/3 (interrupts). The Committee for science, education, culture,
Youth and sport discuss the Bill and released 21 October. January 1, 2010
resolution delivered to members such as printing 756/4 (interrupts).
The Committee discussed the Bill for security and issued 26 June. January 1, 2010
resolution delivered to members such as printing 756/5 (amendments). The second
the reading took place on 11 July. in March 2010, when on 75. the meeting passed
the draft law on the General and detailed debate, submitted amendments
they were treated as print 756/6, which was sent on 12 December 2003. March 25, 2010
at 10:00 hours. The third reading took place on 19 December. March 2010 at 75.
meeting. The Bill was approved by the Chamber of Deputies (voting no.
313, resolution No. 1645).
45. The Chamber of Deputies referred the law of 29 June. March 2010 Senate
as printing 259/0. The Organizational Committee on 31 March. March 2010 set
the guarantee Committee, Committee on education, science, culture, human rights and
the petition, which the proposal has been examined the day 13. April 2010 and adopted resolution No.
107, which was handed out as a print 259/1 (approved). The Bill was
The Senate discussed on 23 June. April 2010 to 18. a meeting of the Senate. The Senate proposal
the Chamber of Deputies came back with amendments (resolution No. 487).
Part of amendments was a proposal to amend the law on the local
the fees.
46. The draft law in the version in which it was sent to the Senate, was sent to
members of 28 June. April 2010 as print 756/7. The Senate document was
The Chamber of Deputies and later was sent to 28 June. April members
as printing 756/8. The Bill the Senate was returned by the
the House voted on 18 December. May 2010 on 79. meeting. Chamber
the Chamber of Deputies adopted the law in the version approved by the Senate (vote no. 18,
resolution No. 1685).
47. the President of the Republic signed the Bill June 2. in June 2010, and
the law was promulgated in the collection of laws of the day 16. June 2010 in the amount of 64 under the
number 183/2010 Sb.
48. the applicant submitted in the proposal seeks a finding of unconstitutionality
the contested provisions on the ground that the amendment of the Act on local fees
made by law no 183/2010 Coll. was adopted constitutionally Conformal
in a way. Violation of the Constitution of the procedure sees in the fact that
the third part of the Act No. 183/2010 Coll., containing amendments to the law on local
fees, been incorporated into the draft law during the legislative
the process for the consideration in the full Senate. The applicant considers that this part of the
Act No. 183/2010 Coll., for an unrelated with the rest of the Chamber
the House passed the Bill with reference to previous decisions
The Constitutional Court, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 77/06 of 15 July. 2.2007 (N 30/44 SbNU
349; 37/2007 Sb.). Furthermore, the applicant challenges the observance of legislative
rules, and argues that the design of "přílepku" filed only one
Senator, and not the entire Senate.
49. The Constitutional Court in a number of its findings concerning the checks
decisions of public authorities repeatedly explained the principles for which-
among other things, also from aspects of the characters, the rule of law-is respect for the procedural
(procedural) rules required; briefly noted: stable
the decision-making practice of the Constitutional Court inferred that only in a process
healthy process (constitutionally souladném management) can come to court and
constitutionally souladnému result (the decision), and therefore a procedural clean
the decision-making process (control), it is necessary to pay close attention and
give her a strong protection.
50. The constitutional konformitou of the legislative process, the Constitutional Court then
dealt with, in particular, in its findings, released under SP. zn. PL. TC 56/05 of
27 June. 3.2008 (N 60/48 SbNU 873; 257/2008 Coll.), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 77/06
of 15 July. 2.2007 (N 30/44 SbNU 349; 37/2007 Coll.), SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
24/07 of 31 May. 1.2008 (N 26/48 SbNU 303; 88/2008 Coll.), SP. zn. PL.
TC 39/08 dated May 6. 10.2010 (N 207/59 SbNU 3; 294/2010 Sb.), SP. zn.
PL. ÚS 5/02 of 2 July. 10.2002 (N 117/28 SbNU 25; 476/2002 Coll.), sp.
Zn. PL. ÚS 23/04 of 14 June. 7.2005 (N 137/38 SbNU 9; 331/2005) and in the
resolution SP. zn. PL. ÚS 10/09 of 24 September. 1.2012, available at
http://nalus.usoud.cz.
51. In finding SP. zn. PL. TC 56/05 the Constitutional Court stated that the
an assessment of the way in which the provisions of the Act has been challenged,
discussed and approved, is part of the assessment of whether such
the law adopted by the constitutionally prescribed manner (section 68 (2) of law No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48/2002 Coll.). According to the
the opinion of the Constitutional Court (to find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 77/06) can
deviation from the limited space dedicated amendments take
the nature of the proposal or exceeding entities including bleed extension course
as defined by the draft law. This requirement of a close relation or
the immediate context of the content and purpose of the proposal and amendment
to him is part of the foundations of parliamentary techniques and reglementového rights.
Brings into consideration the laws and parliamentary procedures required at all
of procedure. Each State and within each House of the legislature often
However, looking for their own means, how to ensure that this requirement has been
complied with. lays down special rules for the deviation from the limits of the
(e.g. enhanced qualified majority, support a number of other
Members, representation or consent of the petitioner, the new consultation
the proposal). As well as in individual Member States varies the intensity of the
review of compliance with these rules. On this issue, therefore there is no
the universal opinion. The right to submit amendments is part of
constitutionally the way prescience did making the will of the Parliament of the democratic State.
The amendment, however, is by its very nature the proposal akcesorickým to design,
that has been filed in the form of constitutional initiative under the article. 41 of the Constitution.
Therefore, § 63 paragraph. 1 point 5 (a). and the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies)
required to discharge their, expand or alter some parts of the
"original design". The Foundation of the parliamentary discussion of the original
the proposal, which is expressed in the Government according to the article. paragraph 44. 1 of the Constitution,
the committees to which the Bill was referred, or individual members of the
under section 91, paragraph. 4 of the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies. If so
It is not, this may occur according to the Constitutional Court for violating the separation of powers. It has a
implications for understanding the formation of souladného, a transparent and predictable
the law, which the Constitutional Court has previously teamed up with democratic attributes
the rule of law. Furthermore, it may occur to circumvent legislative Institute
the initiatives referred to in article. 41 of the Constitution, and violations of the rights of the Government to comment on the
the draft law, according to the article. 44 of the Constitution.
52. In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 77/06, which the appellant alleges,
The Constitutional Court in relation to the legislative "přílepkům" (riders) and their
the constitutionality of sections 51 and 52, in judikoval, that the deviation from the limited space
dedicated amendments can take nature exceeding the intensity
of the design or nature of the subject of extensive crossing defined
the draft of the law. The first case is the doctrine known as ".
legislative riders ("legislative riders"), the use of which is in the u.s.
often and excitedly discussed, however, is considered for the unwanted,
However, constitutionally Conformal form of amendments. From this first
the case, however, it is necessary to distinguish the second event, called the "wild riders"
("Wild Riders). In this case, the crossing of the test criteria
applied on the basis of the so-called. germaneness rule, i.e.,. rules narrow
the relationship. In other words, the test questions, whether in a particular case
It is a proper amendment or the draft, for which in the Czech
date of the so-called environment. "přílepek". In this case, the technique
the amendment to the draft law, joins the Edit completely different
the law, with the legislative draft as unrelated. Constitutionally Conformal
the interpretation of the provisions governing the right to make amendments to the
the present draft of the Act, requires that the amendment actually
only pozměňoval by the legislation. in accordance with the
the requirements of the so-called. the rules of marriage, according to which amendments
the proposal must relate to the same subject matter of the proposal, which is in the legislative
the process just discussed, the amendment did not diverge from the
the limited space in the form of amendments
extensive subject exceeded the present Bill.
53. The Constitutional Court is in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/07 in connection with already
previously issued by finding sp.. PL. TC 21/01 of 12 June. 2.2002 (N 14/25
SbNU 97; 95/2002 Coll.) said i to the constitutionality of the so-called. "the collection of novellas".
He stated that "the practice when one law is amended
several different laws is relatively frequent in legislative practice.
This practice is in principle constitutionally conformal, but only if the
amended laws related to meritorně each other. ". However, even in this
the case referred to was not the reason for the derogation, admonition but only
obiter dictum. The Constitutional Court in this finding also stated that
substantial changes in the legal regulations in the field of public and private law
they are an inevitable part of social development and is available
the democratic legislature to identify and define the structure of the law while
the subject of legal regulation of various laws-in that context also to consider the
the degree of implementation of the essential changes of a certain segment of the rule of law
in part, making amendments to the laws in force and in part to the adoption of a new
statutory adjustments.
54. In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/08 dated May 6. 10.2010 (N 207/59 SbNU 3;
294/2010 Sb.) the Constitutional Court commented on the constitutionality of the so-called. complex
the amendments so that the legislative practice in the form of so-called.
comprehensive amendments is not inconsistent with the constitutionally established
the rules of the legislative process, since it is still the subject of a legislative
the initiative, which has the design as a whole. The Constitutional Court
He recalled that on the basis of a comprehensive amendment were
approved two very key components, i.e. the constitutional order.
uvozovací the law of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms and the Constitution in 1991
in 1992. Institute of complex amendments is not the law of the
rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies is modified, this is only about the Institute
parliamentary practice, which, however, varies within the limits of the constitutional order. In
section 39 of the cited award then the Constitutional Court stated that it is not the task of the and
the competence of the Constitutional Court, to examine all the details and procedures for the
the adoption of laws, if it is not contrary to constitutional rules of the legislative
process (cf. above quoted find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 23/04). Did not find it
even in the case of a comprehensive amendment, which in its negotiations
the Senate used the [find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 14/02 of 4 January. 6.2003 (N 82/30
SbNU 263; 207/2003 Coll.)].
55. In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/02 of 2 July. 10.2002 (N 117/28 SbNU 25;
476/2002 Coll.) The Constitutional Court said that, in a parliamentary democracy the political
the decision shall be based on the will of the majority, expressed a free vote;
conditions for kautel the Constitution explicitly expressed ensure
constitutional legitimacy and the legality of the decision taken and that relevant
most in the course of the legislative process, however, are the various
and almost always look not only to the material that is the subject of negotiations and
the subsequent decision, but are themselves of, in particular, the majority of the ad hoc
also influenced by the time or the circumstances that arise from it. As follows
most of the established for the adoption of the decision (approval of the draft law)
relevant are (can be) but variable, and it often enough, that
in the above context in the course of time their numerical relevance can
(might) lose and become a minority, which, however, would have been exposed to
the risk of a reversal of the previously adopted decision. Protection resulting
majorities, more precisely their previously adopted a decision, it is therefore necessary
not only in terms of the stability of the legal acts, but is, as a result of
formal compliance in a given time (the compromise political will), also one of the
guarantees the constitutionality, which excludes from arbitration decisions, for which it
Naturally, it is not the place.
56. In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 23/04, in which it was dealt with the issue of
corrections in the text of the law after its approval in the Chamber of Deputies, Constitutional
in part III, the Court stated that the process of adoption of laws in the Czech Republic
entrusted with the sole authority of the legislature, which the Parliament is made up of
the two chambers. Adoption of the law, however, is a more multi-faceted and complicated
the process, which is only partly modified constitutional requirements. The Constitutional Court in the
that finding also deduced that the task of the Constitutional Court is not
interpret the results of the vote on each of the amendments
and their implications for the concept of the draft law as a whole in relation to the
other provisions of such a proposal and the rules of legislative drafting. His
the task is the interpretation of the constitutional text, in relation to the law, as proclaimed in the
The collection of laws. Way to the adoption and promulgation of the law has occurred, it is
subjected to the cognition of the Constitutional Court only within that constitutional order
outlines. The subject of the review activities of the Constitutional Court is therefore
the approved text of the law, the minutes of the meeting "serves as the main
evidence in the evaluation of one folder from the guest, tripartice
i.e.. compliance with the constitutionally prescribed method of adoption of the law.
57. In its resolution SP. zn. PL. ÚS 10/09 in section 71 the Constitutional Court recalled,
that the issue of the permissible scope of amendments to be submitted
in the framework of the legislative process to the present draft laws are already in
its case-law, in particular in its findings, the sp.. PL.
TC 77/06 and SP. zn. PL. TC 56/05. The Constitutional Court is of the opinion that in the article. 1
paragraph. 1 of the Constitution, which the Czech Republic is expressly referred to as
the democratic rule of law based on respect for the rights and freedoms of man and the
citizen, is contained the normative principle of democratic rule of law. From
It follows that the legislature cannot proceed arbitrarily, but is at its
the activities of the procedural rules of the legislative process is bound. The addressees of the
the legal standards are undoubtedly right to legitimately expect that any
restriction of their fundamental rights carried out by the law are the result of
discourse maintained across the political spectrum, in which all participants
they got the opportunity to meet with the present matter in detail and
informed comment to her. Therefore, posing in the foreground of the procedure
to ensure that both parties to a formal hearing, and the quality of the
the legislative work. In point 72, then, the Constitutional Court stated that the right to make
to draft laws during the parliamentary debate, the amendments shall
It derives from the right of legislative initiative, however, is not identical with it,
because it is naturally limited by the implementation of the law of the realm reserved just
legislative initiatives. Already from the need to distinguish the legislative initiatives and
the amendment, due to increased compliance with the constitutional claims
appointed for the first time, it can be inferred that the amendment should actually
only amended by law, therefore, it should not
fundamentally change, nor to expand, and the less should move
outside the subject of legislative initiatives, respectively, of the draft law. Buckling
from the limited space dedicated amendments may have the nature
the effort exceeded the design, which is considered not
side, but still constitutionally Conformal form of amendments
or the nature of the subject of extensive crossing, as defined in the proposal
the law, which constitutes a violation of the so-called. the rules of marriage and thus
speeches from the limits of constitutionality. In the context of the review of the Constitutional Court shall be
to assess whether the amendment was indeed amendment
in material terms, that is. whether it was an inadmissible extension of the interpretation of
What amendment is. While the constitutional court assesses whether the
There is a close relationship between the content and the purpose of the original draft of the Act, and
the content and the purpose of the amendment under consideration.
58. In the case in question, the Constitutional Court on the basis of written documents
the plaintiff attached to the proposal from the House of the press Chamber No. 259
Verify that the Senate after discussion of the proposal, amending the Act on the promotion of
Sport and other laws, its resolution No. 487 votes from 18. the meetings of the
on 23 December 2005. April 2010 decided to return the draft law, the Chamber of Deputies
in the text of the adopted amendments referred to in the annex to this
resolution and commissioned Senators Marcel Chládka and Jaroslav Kubera
justification for the resolution of the Senate, at a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies. 27 June.
April 2010 then returned the Senate Bill in a modified form to the
The Chamber of deputies to complete the legislative process. On the proposal of the law
returned by the Senate was in the Chamber of Deputies voted on 18 December. may
2010 at 79. the meeting and the law was enacted. For the Constitutional Court are in the
the case of a mandatory criterion of evaluation of the only constitutionally defined rules
the legislative procedure. After an assessment of the content and purpose as the original proposal
the law, as well as of the amendment after the assessment of the
the constitutionality of the legislative process, the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that
contents and purposes of both investigated objects are fundamentally different, and can be
conclude that the amendment in question nevybočil of the limited space
dedicated amendments.
59. The Constitutional Court did not find reasonable objection or other claimant that
proposal of amendment filed only one Senator, and not the entire
The Senate. It confirms not only the aforementioned resolutions of the Senate, no. 487, dated
April 23, 2010, but i stenozáznam the Senate from debating the draft law,
amending the law on the promotion of sports and other laws, in which the
stated that this Bill received 259 Senators such as printing,
the Rapporteur of the Committee, Senator Marcel Chládek, which Senators he met
reporting the news. In the general debate, then climbed the three Senators,
who predicted the amendment, Jaroslav
Kubera, Petr Vicha and Sonia J P. After the Senate voted on the proposal
the Bill, including the amendment and return the Bill Of
in the text of the adopted amendment. The amendment was
therefore be discussed completely in accordance with legislative rules of the Senate.
60. In the light of the foregoing, there is no doubt that, when discussing the
the draft law no 183/2010 Coll. was how the Chamber of Deputies, as well as
The Senate observed a constitutionally established rules of the legislative process,
specifically, how the legislative process the modified Act No. 90/1995 Coll.,
on the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, in the wording of later regulations,
Act No. 107/1999 Coll., on the Senate's rules of procedure, as amended
legislation, and article. 1 (1). 1, article. 2 (2). 3, article. 41 and article. paragraph 44. 1
The Constitution, including article. 2 (2). 2 of the Charter. In this context, it should be
point to the provisions of § 60 paragraph. 2 (a). e) of Act No. 107/1999 Coll., on the
the rules of the Senate, which declares that the proposal served to
the present case is a proposal for amendment. The binding of the Act on the promotion of sport
and the revised draft law amending the law on local charges, is
then given the provisions of section 6 (a). (d) the law on the promotion of the sport) that municipalities
saves the task of securing the financial support of the sport from its budget. Therefore,
be to refer to the words of Senator Jaroslav Kubera, who met
With the Senate amendment, and, inter alia, stated that: "... the law is about
the promotion of sport and very related to the various lotteries and bets, because part of the
proceeds are used to support the sport. " Here, it must also
emphasize that the amendments concerning the amendments to the law on local
the charges have been discussed in the Senate, and in particular from the perspective of their
accordance with the constitutionally prescribed manner of their adoption.
61. If then the appellant argues the conclusions made by the Constitutional Court
in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 77/06, attention is drawn to the fact that in the
If found, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 77/06 with a group of Senators called for a
the cancellation of the second, and this article. (II) and (III) Law No 443/2006
amended by law No 178/2005 Coll., on the abolition of the national property Fund of the Czech
Republic and about the competence of the Ministry of finance when the privatization of the assets
Czech Republic (law on the abolition of the national property Fund), and the law No.
319/2001 Coll., amending Act No. 21/1992 Coll., on banks, as amended by
amended. The Constitutional Court in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 77/06
considered crucial when considering the adoption of the legislative procedure
the contested provisions to assess the question of whether the draft MEP m. Dr
tagged as amendment and processed to the printing house No.
1222/3 it was actually in the material sense or whether the deviation from a limited
the space reserved amendments (paragraph 66). After examining the content of the
and purpose as the original draft of the Act, and the amendment in question
the proposal came the Constitutional Court concluded that the contents and the purpose of both investigated
objects are fundamentally different and that it was only on the so-called. the amendment,
that it could be, perhaps, only in the sense of formal, but not in the sense of
material (paragraph 69). In the case under consideration now is different
the situation as such a conclusion was made. It can thus be concluded that, in
the present case is of a přílepek within the meaning of the case-law is unconstitutional
The Constitutional Court or a similar situation.
62. The Constitutional Court, to the opposition of the Senate referred in his statement to the draft
(see paragraph 25), which draws attention to the fact that Amendment No.
565/1990 Coll. not a single amendment in that the law adopted,
notes that you cannot agree with this criticism before, since law No.
183/2010 Coll. was adopted within the framework of a single legislative procedures and
It was about how to vote in the Senate and in the Chamber of deputies after his
return one final vote by the Senate. Therefore, any
a declaratory judgement about the violation of the constitutionally prescribed method of adoption
only some of the provisions of Act No. 183/2010 Coll., respectively, one of the
amendments contained in the amendment to the Act on local-fees-could have
under conditions when the unconstitutionality of the legislative would be found to be
process, the impact on the finding of unconstitutionality of the entire Bill.
63. The procedural misconduct relating to the contested provisions, which
by the applicant are seen in the absence of a close relation of amendments
proposals with the subject of the proposed law, the legal framework in the crossing
for the submission of legislative proposals and technical, in fact, that the
the amendment by Senator Kubera was a separate proposal and as such
should be submitted to the Chamber of Deputies, and not the Senate, therefore, found to be
It was not. Therefore, the eventual finding of unconstitutionality of the contested
the provisions in effect meant a crucial and surprising at the same time
change in the case law.
64. On the basis of all of the above reasons, the Constitutional Court notes that, in
the complainant considered the matter raised the argument cannot be assessed in the
the meaning of the constitutional violation to grant the leading conformity
the legislative process, and therefore the proposal as nedůvodný under the provisions of section
70 paragraph. 2 of the law on the Constitutional Court rejected.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
