299/2015 Coll.
FINDINGS


Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic


Constitutional Court decided under ref. Nos. Pl. US 18/14 of 15 September 2015 in the plenary
court composed of the Chairman Pavel Rychetsky (Rapporteur), judges
Louis David, Jaroslav FENYK, John Philip Vladimir crust Thomas
Lichovník, Musil, Vladimir Sládečka, Radovan Suchanek, Šimáčková
Catherine, St. Adalbert Šimíček, Milady Tomková, David Uhlir and
Jiri Zemanek on the proposal of the Supreme administrative court, acting President of the Chamber
4 Afs JUDr. George Palla, the annulment of § 264 paragraph. 4 sentences
First and Second Act no. 280/2009 Coll., The Tax Code, the participation of the Chamber of Deputies
Czech Parliament and Senate of the Czech Republic as parties
and the Government of the Czech Republic, and Mgr. Anna Šabatová,
Ph.D., Ombudsman, as interveners,

Follows:

The petition is denied.

Reason:

I.


Object Management
First The Supreme Administrative Court (hereinafter "petitioner") is under sp.
Brand. 4 Afs 105/2014 subject of proceedings concerning a cassation complaint Appellate
Financial Directorate (such as a procedural successor
Financial Directorate for Prague) against the judgment of the Municipal Court in Prague dated
24th April 2014 ref. no. 11 Af 15 / 2013-124, which was the response
trading company ODIN Investments, Inc. (hereinafter "the applicant")
canceled the decision of the Financial Directorate for Prague of 20 | || December 2012 ref. no. 18268 / 12-1300-106629, no. 19192 / 12-1300-106629 and
no. j. 19193 / 12-1300-106629. Mentioned decisions was rejected
appeal against the additional tax assessments
Revenue Authority for Prague 1 dated March 20, 2012, ref. No. 143558/12/001513105042, dated
19th March 2012, ref. no. 143684/12/001513105042 and dated March 20, 2012
no. j. 143722/12/001513105042 which she was assessed a VAT
value for the tax period of the second quarter of 2007 amounting to 1,064,754 CZK
, for the taxable period of the third quarter 2007 in the amount of CZK 776,801 and || | taxable period fourth quarter 2007 amounting to 3,363,411 CZK.
These assessments were also confirmed.

Second The decision depends on the cassation appeal in the Supreme Administrative Court
to answer the question of whether the tax was assessed a final decision before the end
to set a limitation period.
Commencement of tax audits by the applicant on 23 November 2009 was the act
which was according to § 47 para. 2 Czech National Council Act no. 337/1992
Coll., On Administration of Taxes and Fees, interrupted run
limitation periods for calculating the value added tax for the taxable period of the second, third and
fourth quarter of 2007. the new three-year period and began to run from the date of
31st December 2009 and its expiry envisaged by the end of 2012.
present case, it is undisputed that the action contested decisions
Financial Directorate entered into force until 25 January 2013 when
been duly notified the applicant's representative. For a timely tax assessment because
could occur only in the event that prior to the expiry of the limitation period occurred
legal fact, which resulted in its re
interruption or extension. Otherwise, it would have to be established
lawlessness, decisions on tax assessment occurred.

Third While the Prague Municipal Court has not found any evidence to that effect
action and annulled the contested decisions, the Supreme Administrative Court assessed thing
legally differently. In his opinion, it had to be delivered
adjustment notices on March 20, 2012 considered a
notification decision on additional taxes to which § 148 paragraph. 2 point. b)
Act no. 280/2009 Coll., the Tax Code, connects to extend this period by 1
year. According to § 264 paragraph. 4 first and second sentence of the Tax Code in fact
effects of legal facts that occurred after its effectiveness and impact on
running of the limitation period for tax assessment (including its extension
), judge according to the tax Code, even if the period in question
started even for the effectiveness of the Act on administration of taxes and fees.

Fourth These considerations led the Supreme Administrative Court to the preliminary conclusion that
due to the extension of the limitation period in question was in terms of sub-constitutional law
value added tax for the period of the second, third and fourth quarter for 2007
lawfully assessed a timely manner. However cassation

Complaints (yet) would not comply. In his view, namely
transitional provisions of § 264 paragraph. 4 first and second sentence of the Tax Code, which
such an extension in the case, the applicant allowed, contrary to the prohibition
retroactivity as one of the principles of the rule of law within the meaning of Article . 1
paragraph. 1 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter "Constitution").
Supreme Administrative Court therefore order dated August 7, 2014, ref. No. 4 Afs 105 / 2014-38
submitted a proposal to repeal the Constitutional Court and on time to his decision
stayed the proceedings on a cassation complaint. His proposal was
Constitutional Court received on 4 September 2014.

II.


Petitioner's arguments
Fifth Conclusion on the inconsistency of the contested provision with the constitutional order
justifies the Supreme Administrative Court that in a situation where
limitation period for tax began to run for the effectiveness of the Tax Administration Act
and fees, must be in its extension to based on subsequent legal
treatment - following the announcement of the decision on the additional tax under § 148
paragraph. 2 point. b) Tax Code - seen as an exceptional case
constitutionally impermissible false retroactivity. This is so because the time period in question
defines the existence of a legal relationship between the manager
taxes and tax entity to which should not interfere with the determination
other rules, if they are to result in an extension. Otherwise
case would be in this relationship introduced legal uncertainty that would
touched the rights of a tax entity, including those related to its
obligations arising from other legislation, for example.
Obligations store accounting and other documents.

6th The petitioner acknowledges that the contested provisions set
dealing with the relationship of old and new legislation would
despite this negative impact to succeed, however, sees the existence of any significant or
overriding reason on which this conclusion might be leaning. For such reason while
not be regarded as an attempt to avoid problems of interpretation
during the transition from the old to the new system of assessment periods for determining and paying taxes
(and related aspect of legal certainty), and elimination of double
legal regime for the assessment period for assessing tax in relation to the acts
made from 1 January 2011. Although you can
rules contained in the tax Code described as precisely formulated, already
previous legislation, the tax administration Act and a number of charges
interpretive ambiguities removed by case law.
Situation in which a certain institute applies for certain legal relationships
by previous legislation and other legal
under the new legislation, are also in practice quite common phenomenon, which is usually not necessary to defend
. No other reason for which the limitation period for tax
yet begun for the effectiveness of the Tax Administration Act and
charges must be in relation to the acts made after the entry into force of the Tax Code
assessed under the new rules, already according to the petitioner
you can not invent. Thus defined false retroactivity is therefore
be evaluated as a disproportionate measure.

7th That argument relates only to the contested provisions.
Contrary, the petitioner does not challenge the constitutionality of § 148 paragraph. 2 point. b)
Tax Regulations, whose purpose is to establish the status of legal certainty about the course
limitation period for assessing tax and permit sound tax administration at
respect to taxable persons whose rights are not an extension of this deadline
started after the effectiveness of the tax code by one year
disproportionately interfered. This extension is in the future prevent situations where the tax administrator
second stage had minimal time for implementation
appeal proceedings, which negatively reflected on the quality of its
decision-making.

III.

The proceedings before the Constitutional Court

8th The Constitutional Court, under § 69 para. 1, 2 and 3 of Law no. 182/1993 Coll., On
Constitutional Court sent the petition to Parliament Chambers as
parties and to the Government and the Ombudsman of such bodies, which are
entitled to join the proceedings as interveners.
Simultaneously from the Supreme Administrative Court requested the file under file. Ref. 4
Afs 105/2014, the content of which corresponds to the above summary proceedings
cassation complaint.

9th The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, in its observations on 8 October 2014 and

First October 2014 signed by the chairman of each chamber and Jan Hamáček
Petr Pithart, succinctly summarized the legislative process, in which
framework was discussed and approved by the Tax Code.

10th On 9 October 2014 the Constitutional Court received notice of the Government that
enters this control (government resolution dated October 8, 2014 no. 827).
Contain an identical Ombudsman informing him of that
22nd September 2014. In both cases this was done within the statutory time limits
.

11th For the Government, dated 23 October 2014, signed by the Minister for
human rights, equal opportunities and legislation Mgr. Jiri Dienstbier,
suggests that defining period for assessing tax under § 47 of the Act on
Administration of Taxes raised for a long period of legal uncertainty
due to ambiguities of interpretation. Without knowledge of the practice of the courts
that developed a few years, this provision essentially
not be interpreted and applied. Therefore, a need has arisen to solve this situation
new legislation that would as soon as possible and definitely rectify.
Contested provision complements regulation of the period in accordance
Tax Code in the sense that it prevents the continuation of legal uncertainty
that after a certain period of time (which would be its length could possibly approaching 10 years
) will apply two rules. Although generally
true that maintaining such a duality is a legitimate solution
respect the old and the new legislation, in this case, the solution
undesirable, with respect to a qualitatively better treatment under the tax
Regulations also a large number of subjects, which would be the state concerned, and possible
its duration and the need to do so in some cases, certain acts or practices
with an impact on more than one tax period, which would keep
mentioned duality led inconsistencies in assessing the effect
individual acts. Mention may also interest in the economic performance of public
power. The transition to the new legislation, even if the proceedings which were
started before January 1, 2011, had for tax entities represent
comprehensible model in which they are uniformly applied new rules.
Provided Tax Code combines period for assessing tax with
reasons with which they did not do so by law on the administration of taxes and fees, such
fact has only limited significance because the taxpayer could not
under the original legislation adjustments to estimate what the actual length of
period.

12th The above reasons the Government's view justify false
retroactivity, founded by the contested provision. They can be seen
strong public interest in selected legislative solutions that
contribute to greater clarity or clarity of the legal status
individual taxpayers. Furthermore, the new legislation for
tax assessment is not always borne a tax entity, since its
extension with him and extending the period in which it is entitled to
additional tax return for lower tax or apply excessive deduction.
Although the Supreme Administrative Court challenging the constitutionality of the contested provision
terms of legal certainty, the government is convinced that in this direction
would have a negative impact on the status of taxpayers vice versa
its annulment by the Constitutional court. In cases where the
still not a final determination of tax, or this determination is subject
extraordinary legal and supervisory resources, or
judicial review would be certain acts in accordance with § 148 paragraph. 2 of the Tax Code | || stared so that the course of this period affect, which would
depending on specific circumstances could result in the inability to determine the tax
or illegality still not entered into the determination of taxes. In cases in which
has been finally determined tax, but have not yet been
her payment would be quite appropriate decisions lost its enforceability. For the first
groups can be estimated impact of the derogation on public budgets in the range of approximately
. CZK 6 bn in the second group such an estimate may be made.
Of all these reasons, the government does not agree with the proposal to repeal the contested provision
.

13th Ombudsman Mgr. Anna Šabatová, Ph.D., also expressed opposition to the proposal
Supreme Administrative Court. In its statement of
On October 22, 2014 stated that the Tax Code provides tax
entities with effect from January 1, 2011 substantially greater legal certainty only by

That defines exhaustively the facts leading to the extension and its
interruption, and the circumstances under which the period is not running. Therefore considers
controversial claim that its new tax rules unjustly retroactive transitional provisions
intervened in the legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations
confidence in the law. This should in turn could cause precisely the abolition of the contested provision
. In the rest of its statement, noting that the draft
meeting a need arose interpretation of the application of the limitation period under the Act on
Administration of Taxes in the "new conditions". For tax obligations by
which began the period for tax assessment under the Act concerned
Administration of Taxes, in such a case unlikely to be
apply § 55b Par. 2 of this Act, under which it may be
review tax decision instituted within two years following
year in which the reviewed decision came into force. The Tax Code
It ties the opportunity to review the decision to suspend the period for determination
taxes. Result would be either unverifiable some
decisions, or, conversely, the complete opening of the review until the expiration of the original deadline
limit for tax assessment. The provisions of § 264 paragraph. 3 of the tax code would
in relation to this period was not applicable.

14th Those observations were sent to the Supreme Administrative Court, to which they responded
reply of 18 November 2014. In it
repeatedly emphasized that the contested provision creates space for application of § 148
Tax Code to the time limits for assessment or additional tax that started
run for the effectiveness of previous legislation. But that's unacceptable
interferes with the longer running of the limitation period, which shall be finally settled
material relations between the public budget and
taxpayer. On its basis is the deadline may be extended beyond
objectively given time space jejž
accurately defined the original legislation. This extension gives rise
almost exclusively in favor of the state, and not also the tax subject to
which will not preserve the possibility of filing a supplementary tax returns
practice almost no meaning. Using false retroactivity for solving
respect the old and the new legislation in this case it was not necessary and
been given to him, nor any significant or overriding public interest.
This is true even for the alleged interest of legal certainty, from whose point of view would certainly
bearable and the shutdown of existing limits. Regarding the negative consequences
derogation, even if not estimate its impact on public budgets in the amount
CZK 6 billion. Lofty, can not overlook the fact that that income has been achieved at the cost
interference in the running of the limitation period already,
testified unequivocally that the interests of the state at the expense of the rights of taxpayers. Finally
petitioner insisted on its proposal.

15th In accordance with § 44 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court case
without holding a hearing, because since it could not be expected
further clarification of the matter.

IV.

The text and context of the contested provisions

16th As mentioned above, the Supreme Administrative Court seeking the annulment of
(first and second sentence) of the transitional provisions of § 264 paragraph. 4
Tax Code, the entire text is as follows:

"§ 264 Transitional provisions





... (4) Cross and the period for assessment, which started under the previous legislation and
ended until the effective date of this Act,
the effective date of this Act assesses
under the provisions of this Act governing the time limit for tax assessment; instant
beginning of such period is specified under the existing legislation remains
maintained. the effects of legal facts that have an impact on the running of this
periods and that occurred before the effective date of this Act shall
judged according to the legislation. the legal reality newly
founding building of the deadline for tax assessment by this Act
that began before the effective date of this Act, shall suspend
period until the effective date of this Act. "

17th The purpose of the period for assessing tax under § 148 of the Tax Code, as well as former
period for tax assessment in accordance with § 47 of the Act on Administration of Taxes and Fees
is a defining period during which the tax administrator is authorized

Determine the tax subject in a particular tax obligation by its decision.
In order to determine the tax was in accordance with the law, must be listed
decisions (except in the cases provided for in § 148 paragraph. 6 and 7
Tax Regulations) come into force before the expiry of that period. This moment is subject
authorization expires. Only in that period may also occur
application of other instruments used to change the last known
taxes, whether in favor or against the tax entity, including
additional tax return under § 141 of the Tax Code.
Its expiry would be finally settled relations between the public
budget and the taxpayer.

18th The contested provision provides, according to what rules should be
from 1 January 2011, which came into force Tax Code, assessed
still open period for tax assessment, which started even for the efficacy
Act on Administration of Taxes and Fees . On the basis of need with legal
facts that have occurred since that date, associate in relation to
run and the length of this period, the legal effects foreseen by § 148 of the Tax Code, including its
paragraph 2. b) under which the deadline for determining tax
extended by one year if in the 12 months before the expiry of the existing
period for assessing tax was notified of the decision
tax assessment. It is not essential that such an extension
Act on Administration of Taxes could not.

19th For completeness, it should be added that the contested provision constitutes
special treatment in relation to the transitional provisions of § 264 paragraph. 3
Tax Code, according to which the assessment and running the length of the period which began
under the existing legislation proceeds from the date of entry into force of this Act
under the provisions of this Act that govern
period that she is the nature and purpose of the closest;
this period ends earlier than the day that would end with under the existing legal regulations
. It is clear that in relation to the former deadline for tax assessment should be
its nature and purpose come closest deadline for tax assessment
therefore would be in cases that reach the contested provision, on the basis of this
applicable provisions of § 148 of the tax Code.

V.

Conditions
assessment of the substance of the proposal
20th Before the Constitutional Court could proceed to substantive discussion
proposal under Article. 87 paragraph. 1 point. a) of the Constitution, to examine whether they are to
it fulfilled all the conditions laid down by the Constitutional Court.

21st § 64 par. 3 of the Constitutional Court Act provides that an application
to repeal the law or its individual provisions is also entitled to file
court in connection with its decision-making activities under Art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution
. According to this article occurs if the court concludes that a statute which
to be in resolving the matter, is inconsistent with the constitutional order,
submit the matter to the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the condition of the design right is
yet fulfilled if it is a law whose application should be given immediate
things, respectively. inevitable [resolution of 23 October 2000
sp. Nos. Pl. US 39/2000 (U 39/20 SbNU 353)]. Of particular purpose and meaning
control of constitutionality, then it follows that "the law which is to be in resolving the matter
used" only one (resp. Its provisions), which interferes in order to achieve the desired
(constitutionally conforming) outcome [eg.
judgment of 6 March 2007 sp. Nos. Pl. US 3/06 (N 41/44 SbNU 517;
149/2007 Coll.), Paragraph 26; Judgment dated 28 January 2014 sp. Nos. Pl. US 49/10 (
44/2014 Coll.)].

22nd In the case of this proposal is that condition is met, since
just by evaluating the constitutionality of § 264 paragraph. 4, first sentence and second
Tax Code and any consequences deriving from it for the application of this provision
depends on the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court in particular
things. If the contested provision, even after the decision of the Constitutional Court
applicable, the receipt of the additional payment assessments applicant
led by § 148 paragraph. 2 point. b) Tax Code to extend the deadline for tax
1 year (ie. until 31 December 2013).
Decision on the appeal which these payment assessments confirmed, would
came into force even during it (ie. In January 2013), which would mean
it to the final tax assessment was in line with law. Conversely
if the Constitutional Court declared the unconstitutionality and the

Conclusion would result in his (back) inapplicable, would thereby
based reason for declaring the illegality of administrative action
contested decisions of financial institutions. For a final assessment of the tax would be on the basis
occurred after December 31, 2012, at a time when this
State authorization has expired (been time-barred).

23rd These conclusions must be applied to both sentences
contested provisions. Although the rule expressed in the second sentence stand up and
alone, the contested provision is designed in a way that this phrase
follows the first sentence and explains its contents. It is through
so the Tax Code defined intertemporal legal standard that determines the relationship
old and the new legislation, the subject of the limitation period. If
by the Constitutional Court concluded that this legislation is
inconsistent with the constitutional order, it would have to cancel both sentences. Even in such a case
would continue to apply, that the effect of the fact that
affect the running of such periods for the assessment and that occurred before the date
efficiency of the Tax Code, are judged according to legal regulations
. The difference would be only in the fact that the legal basis of this rule would
newly consisted in the prohibition (right) retroactivity, which is the normatively
expressed in the rule of law pursuant to Art. 1 paragraph.
1 of the Constitution (see below, paragraphs 29 et seq. of the judgment).

24th Regarding other conditions, the Constitutional Court found no reason
inadmissibility of the proposal, no reason to stop with one.
Proposal is therefore able to deal with the merits.

VI.

Assessment of competence and constitutionality of the legislative process

25th According to § 68 para. 2 of the Constitutional Court consists
assessing the constitutionality of the law with the constitutional order of answering three questions: whether
was adopted and issued within the bounds of constitutionally prescribed jurisdiction, whether
was passed in a constitutionally prescribed manner and whether its contents is in compliance with
constitutional laws.

26th In the case of the contested provision it is beyond any doubt that Parliament should
within the meaning of Article. 15 paragraph. 1 of the Constitution responsibility for his
adoption. From the statements of its chambers, as well as other publicly available
documents relating to the legislative process, as well
The Constitutional Court found that the draft Tax Code (Parliamentary Press no. 685, 5th electoral
period 2006-2010 ), which included the contested provision
Government submitted to the Chamber of Deputies on 15 December 2008. the Chamber of Deputies approved it
at third reading on 17 June 2009 at its 59th meeting
(resolution no. 1297 ), which voted for him 112 deputies present, 127
, 2 voted against and 13 abstained.
Senate discussed and approved the bill (Senate Document no. 132, 7th term,
2008-2010) on 22 July 2009 at its 9th session (resolution no. 240).
Voted for 62 of the 71 senators present, against 4 abstained fifth
adopted law was delivered to the President on 4 August 2009 and it was
signed on 11 August 2009. Its publication was in
collection of laws on September 3, 2009 in the amount of 87 under no. 280/2009 Coll .;
came into force on 1 January 2011. The findings in this proceeding sufficient to conclude that
law was passed in a constitutionally prescribed manner [by analogy, judgment of 30 June 2015
sp. Nos. Pl. US 24/14 (187/2015 Coll.), Paragraphs 28 and 29].

27th In view of the above findings, the Constitutional Court for assessment
substantive compliance of the contested provision with the constitutional order,
then found that the application for revocation is not justified. This conclusion
made for the following reasons.

VII.

Generally, the non-retroactivity

28th To evaluate the constitutionality of the contested provision was crucial
question whether it is in terms of non-retroactivity permitted to run
length and still unexpired period for assessing tax assessed by
Act, which came into force only after its commencement and which
allows its extension beyond the original statutory scheme.

29th The democratic rule of law (Art. 1, paragraph. 1 of the Constitution) must have
addressees of legal norms fair opportunity to acquaint themselves in advance with their
contents and identify the extent of their rights and obligations. Only in this case
them because they can adapt their behavior and assume responsibility for it
. Legal standard that becomes effective only after
the facts, in relation to which it is applied, already at this

Actions can have an effect; he can only - whether retroactively or for the future
- admit or deny legal effects. However, because individual content
such a legal norm in the past could not know is fundamentally unacceptable
to make its originally lawful act retroactively made illegal,
or so with him were later joined the legal consequences that come to his | || expense. Preference here must get the legal certainty and confidence in the law. In
Otherwise no one could never be sure whether it is by right, because
in this direction would be subject to the unlimited power of the future
legislator.

30th The principles of legal certainty and confidence in the law and protection of acquired rights
(resp. The prohibition of interference in acquired rights) affect not only changes in legal
standards, which took effect retroactively. The legislature must otherwise take care of that
interference with the already existing legal relations meant denial
legitimate expectation which their bodies effects
previous legislation provoked. This is the future possibility of some changes
either eliminated or at least limited in terms of the manner of their execution, including
was necessary to retain a transitional period in
effectiveness of existing legislation, to the addressees of the new legislation could
realistically adapted from the resulting rights and obligations.

31st Thus, the limits expressed permission of the legislature, which can be inferred from the above principles
form a whole prohibition of retroactivity (
retroactive effect of legal norms), which is the normatively expressed in principle
law under Article. 1. 1 the Constitution; Strictly speaking
one of its defining traits [Constitutional Court of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic
dated December 10, 1992 sp. Nos. Pl.
US 78/92 (Judgment no. 15, Collection of Decisions of the Constitutional Court of Czechoslovakia, Prague:
Linde Praha, as, 2011, p. 92); further judgment of 24 May 1994 sp.
Brand. Pl. US 16/93 (N 25/1 SbNU 189; 131/1994 Coll.)].

32nd As is clear from settled case law of the Constitutional Court [see. especially
judgment of 4 February 1997 sp. Nos. Pl. US 21/96 (N 13/7 SbNU 87;
63/1997 Coll.), Judgment of 12 March 2002 sp. Nos. Pl. US 33/01 (N
28/25 SbNU 215; 145/2002 Coll.) And the judgment of 19 April 2011 sp. Nos. Pl.
US 53/10 (N 75/61 SbNU 137; 119/2011 Coll.)], The prohibition of retroactivity
applied differently depending on whether in a particular case
changes in legal standards is a right or false retroactivity. Generally,
while genuine retroactivity is permitted only in exceptional cases, if
false retroactivity is the principle of its admissibility.

33rd The essence of true retroactivity lies in the fact that the legal norm
has a legal relationship before it becomes effective under conditions that only
additionally set, or if on that basis there is a change
legal relations arising under the old legislation, and with effects in
period before the effect of the new law (eg closer. Tilsch, E.
Civil law. General part. Prague, 1925, p. 75; Prochazka, A. Introduction to law
intertemporal with respect § 5 of the civil Code. Code. Brno 1928, p. 70; Tichy,
L. the temporal scope of the amendment to the civil Code. the lawyer no. 12, 1984
p. 1104). Her ban, however, relates only to cases where the said
retroactivity was to the detriment of (borne by) the individual, unless
concerned legal entity with regard to the content of previous legal norms
could not be justified confidence in the law (stability in the legal system), or would
even had a retroactive adjustment to count. That would
especially if the legal standard has been at odds with fundamental,
generally recognized principles of humanity and morality, or with a fixed
requirements of a democratic rule of law.

34th Regarding false retroactivity, in her case, the Act does not constitute legal consequences
back, in the past, but change occurred
legally qualifies as a condition of future legal consequences or the future
modifies the legal consequences established under previous regulations
(eg. Tilsch E. Civil law. General part. Prague, 1925, p. 78
; Prochazka, A. retroactivity of laws. In Dictionary of public law. Vol. III
. Brno, 1934, p. 800 ). Though unlike her true retroactivity
can be considered fundamentally admissible, even if it can not be denied
confidence in the law where it is on the side of the addressees of legal norms
legitimate expectation that the current legislation will be maintained . false

Retroactivity is consistent with the principles of legal certainty and confidence in the law,
if it is appropriate and necessary to achieve the objective pursued by law and when
overall benchmarking "disappointed" the trust and the importance and urgency of legal reasons
changes will be preserved border capacity (cf.
decision of the Federal constitutional court dated July 7, 2010, file no. Ref. 2 BvL 14/02, BVerfGE
127, 1, 25, paragraph 58).

VIII.

Limits arising from the non-retroactivity in relation to statutory regulation, taxes

35th The Constitutional Court in its case-law on several occasions
constitutional limits of the authority of Parliament to establish taxes and charges (resp.
Tax and fee obligations) under Article. 11 paragraph.
5 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter "Charter"). In this context
briefly noted that the tax may constitute an interference in property rights
entity tax, but is imposed in the public interest, which in the first instance, a
state budget revenues for purposes connected with the fulfillment || | state functions [the judgment of 21 April 2009 sp. Nos. Pl. US 29/08 (N 89/53
SbNU 125; 181/2009 Coll.), Paragraphs 40 and 41; also judgment file. Nos. Pl. US 53/10,
paragraph 170]. The existence of these revenues is a prerequisite for the functioning of the state and tax
undoubtedly a means capable of reaching follows
defined purpose. Asked what should be the subject of taxation and in what amount,
already but can not be answered in the abstract; its solution depends on
political decisions that are within the exclusive competence of the Parliament [cf..
Judgment of 10 July 2014 sp. Nos. Pl. US 31/13 (162/2014 Sb.)
Item 42]. Constitutional review, it received statutory tax adjustments are therefore
terms of property rights fundamentally confined to the exclusion of her extreme
disproportionality expressed in "thwarting the very essence of property"
[Judgment dated 13 August 2002 sp. Nos. Pl. US 3/02 (N 105/27 SbNU 177;
405/2002 Coll.)] Or its liquidation (rdousícím) effect [Judgment dated
18th August 2004 sp. Nos. Pl. US 03/07 (N 113/34 SbNU 165; 512/2004 Coll.)].
Other aspects of the review again represent the requirements arising from the principle
law, including the requirement of certainty and predictability
law, the prohibition of arbitrariness and the prohibition of retroactivity (cf. Judgment file. Nos. Pl. US
53/10, paragraph 172, and judgment of 12 July 2011 sp. Nos. Pl. US 9/08
(N 127/62 SbNU 3; 236/2011 Coll.), paragraph 14). Should not also forget the principle of equality
(cf. Judgment file. Nos. Pl. US 31/13, paragraph 43).

36th In this case, not the constitutionality of the tax itself
obligation that the proceedings before the petitioner suffered by the applicant, but
legal rights and run the length of the period during which lasts administrator privileges
tax the obligation to establish a final decision. The requirement that the legislature provided
temporal limitation stems from the principle of legal certainty
which implies that public action for the private sector
individuals were basically always limited over time.
Purpose of the relevant periods is to "stimulate the tax administrator to timely exercise its
rights and obligations and in terms of legal certainty of taxpayers then
restore the situation when after the expiry cease their duties
which particular as regards the obligation to prove that they are over a longer period
always associated with some problems "[judgment dated 11 January 2007, file no.
Brand. II. US 493/05 (N 5/44 SbNU 53)]. Unlimited tax administrator privileges
decide to impose taxes would undoubtedly lead to a problem
decisions both by the relevant administrative authorities and by the
courts, which would be forced to decide on a very old claims, moreover
in a situation where already to establish the facts may not be
sufficient evidence. In this respect, can agree with the opinion that
foreclosure "brings a stability and security, and allows
borrowers to plan their lives knowing that owing to the passage of time has
against a claim can not be applied" (
judgment of the Supreme administrative court of 19 February 2009 ref. no. 1 Afs 15 / 2009-105;
publicly accessible on http://www.nssoud.cz). Leaving the possibility of setting tax without
regardless of the passage of time would have opened the space to challenge the procedure administrator
taxes with regard to the requirements of equality and non-discrimination. It is therefore
duty legislators to define his decision to run and the period for assessing tax
way that is next to the public interest in the proper collection of taxes
adequately take into account the legal certainty of taxpayers.


37th Prohibition of retroactivity in a case of statutory tax adjustments
different meanings depending on whether the change relates to a)
own definition of tax, respectively. its individual components (entity tax
object, tax base, tax rate and tax), or b)
related obligations to record and store materials documenting
fact determining tax calculation, or whether it relates to the c )
deadline for tax assessment.

38th In relation to the tax liability, respectively. with her related legal
relations with the ban reflected in the sense that its existence or
change (if it is borne by the individual concerned) can not depend exclusively from
legal events that occurred before the Act, which was
its determination. For example, the legislature can not establish additional tax
income for last year and making it based on the aggregate income
which had the taxpayer in this period. This entity is the time when he
that income arose, he could count on the fact that it will have to pay even
this tax. Eventually, he has therefore did not have to possess necessary
amount for its payment. This is not to say that
subject to taxation can not be upgraded and property, which was subject to income tax
last year. The reason for the tax, however, can not be (only) the fact that it
acquired within a certain time period, but that it owns
when his tax liability arose. Only from that moment
must reckon with the fact that part of its current assets will be subject to tax
and adjust their behavior. These conclusions relate only to the right
retroactivity. Regarding possible changes in statutory tax adjustments in the future
tax entities must reckon with the fact that they may
legislature to proceed on the basis of their political decisions. Even here, however
can not be ruled out that the new legislation, even though it will be a false retroactivity
will be their legal status to intervene in a manner that
totally denies their trust in the law. Examples include changes
statutory regulation in the accounting and tax period in which
result would have occurred in the context of a different nature
tax assessment of the relevant facts, which would be the taxpayer could not adapt
(judgment. Nos. Pl. ÚS 9/08, paragraph 16).

39th In the case of an obligation to record and store materials documenting
fact determining tax calculation, the prohibition of retroactivity
reflected in the fact that after the tax entity tax arises, is already
not on the side of the responsible entity subsequently set stricter || | demands to prove its amount (cf. judgment file. Nos. Pl. US 33/01).
Example, if the law at the time when the tax entity created to achieve certain income
costs, provided that their demonstration
for the purpose of reducing the tax base requires a certain document, then you can not subsequently establish stricter
requisites for its form, which would make it materially impossible
subsequent implementation of these costs in tax proceedings.
This change legislation would formally constituted only
false retroactivity because it would apply to the eventual
management, which will be conducted after its effectiveness, in fact, would lead to a modification
own range of tax that this entity
arose in the past. Its effect would - considered material -
corresponded to the retroactivity of the right, with the result that the result of its constitutional
assessment had to be concluded by the breach of the prohibition
retroactivity.

40th The retroactivity can finally think even if
lapse period for tax assessment. Changing the legal regulation would work right
retroactivity if they had or could have resulted in a 'resurgence'
period elapsed before the entry into force of the new legislation.
The reason is that it would result in an additional rise
already defunct State authorization to establish a tax as it factually and 'resurgence'
corresponding tax obligations for whose fulfillment would otherwise tax
body could no longer be owed. The false retroactivity goes contrary
when the new law takes place or on the basis thereof will be
(on the basis of future legal facts) to extend already begun, but the date
its effectiveness unexpired period for assessing tax over
beyond the original statutory scheme. Such a change would not be touched

Contents of an existing tax, nor would itself
not given rise to the emergence of any other pertinent obligations, but would have a positive impact on
borne by tax entity. In the result would be authorized to determine the state tax
lasted for a longer period of time and taxpayer would
possibility of its use must continue to count. Another term related obligations
record and preserve evidence to support the fact determining
for tax calculation, as well as any actual need to retain certain
financial reserve for the differing assessment of those facts
by the tax administrator, moreover, could, depending on the specific tax
entity (typically entrepreneurs) and the nature of its activities give rise
not minuscule cost.

41st That intervention does not set out the regulatory changes and run lengths
period for assessing tax without further inadmissible. As in other cases
false retroactivity is crucial to its assessment of whether
encroachment upon legal certainty, which would result in new legislation
occurred, with due regard to the trust of the bodies concerned in the previous law || | adaptation (resp. she induced legitimate expectations) should be considered acceptable.
Statutory rules should primarily allow the tax entity
predict when will the expiry of the period in question. The tax body at the time of chargeability
naturally can not know exactly when this will happen
because this time depends on the future of legal facts,
not or may not be able to influence (eg. The initiation tax | || control). However, it can act in confidence that his destination will
in accordance with these rules, and in this respect adapt its run
its next meeting.

42nd The principle of legal certainty precludes the legislature to retain the possibility of setting
taxes indefinitely or for which (extreme)
length should - with regard to the possible impact on the legal sphere of taxpayers -
lacked any reasonable justification . Nor should it be contrary,
if the statutory rules determining the course and length of the period for assessing tax
changes have been made in so short a time before the expiry of that
affected by taxpayers not be fair to expect
extension to its "last minute" to adjust their behavior.
In such a case it would be inadmissible false retroactivity, unless
on the part of public power, there was a strong public interest, especially
justified by extraordinary circumstances which would outweigh
legitimate interest of taxpayers on that their legal relationship
arising under the relevant tax obligations have been finally settled.
Otherwise the ban on the regulatory changes period for assessing tax, which would
future, also influenced the course and length of the period commenced by the original legal
editing, only the principle of legal certainty generally can not be derived.

IX.

Contested provision was consistent with the prohibition of retroactivity

43rd The above was the basis for determining compliance assessment
contested provisions with the prohibition of retroactivity, which results from Art. 1
paragraph. 1 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court in its deliberations accentuated by the fact
how the legal sphere taxpayers to whom this provision applies
, translates any application of § 148 paragraph. 2 point. b)
Tax Code on the basis thereof.

44th First, it should be noted that the tax code, part of which was from the beginning
both the contested provisions, the § 148 paragraph. 2 point. b)
was promulgated in the Official Gazette on 3 September 2009 and came into force on 1 January 2011.
The extension of the deadline for tax assessment initiated under
Act on Administration of Taxes also may only
against those entities in which the deadline expired possible during the year 2011.
cases where it happened later than 31 December 2010, the tax
Regulations apply. It is thus evident that, although the Law on Administration of Taxes and Fees
not allow extension of the deadline for tax assessment
reasons specified in § 148 paragraph. 2 of the Tax Code, the tax entities
possible application of this provision in relation to
legal matters that occur once in effect, the tax code could count
well in advance (at least 1 year and 4 months) prior to its expiration by
original law. The changes in them, therefore, not be surprising, and

They could adapt to their next meeting. Due to the limitation of the deadline for tax
maximum term of 10 years since its inception under § 148
paragraph. 1 Tax Code (§ 148 paragraph. 5 of the same Act) can not be found, then
disproportionate interference with the legal certainty for the taxpayers nor
with respect to its overall length possible in a particular case, if there would be in her
during her to single or repeated extension.
Decades objective already set a deadline § 47 para. 2 of the Law on Administration
taxes and fees.

45th The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the contested provision, even
pointing out the absence of a sufficiently strong reason for the legislature specified solutions
respect the old and the new legislation. The Constitutional Court in this regard
notes that the purpose of the contested provisions can be seen both in the
attempt to unify the rules and run the length of the period for tax or
tax assessment (and thus ensure their clarity for their next
application), partly in the fact that even in cases where the period began to run
under Law on administration of taxes and fees, occur
its extension under § 148 paragraph. 2 of the tax Code.
Latter provision creates a time frame for it to the tax administrator
finally decide on the acts enumerated in it, which would otherwise
case for brevity remaining period may not be possible. In both cases
terms of objectives, which can be described as legitimate and can not be seen in them
arbitrariness on the part of the legislature. This is not to say that
legislature had to deal with the relationship of the two laws in this way.
In relation to cases where the period in question started to run even after
effectiveness of the Act on Administration of Taxes could also continue to keep the previous
applicable legislation. However, if you chose a different solution, then
not associate with his decision impermissible interference
legal certainty for the taxpayers. With regard to the overall impact
the changes in their legal status and the possibility of it
resulting consequences in advance to predict, can not on their side
seen so intense interest in preserving the original legal
adjustments which would in their case in relation to the running and the period length for tax assessment
exclude the application of the tax Code and did so
contested provision unconstitutional.

46th The Constitutional Court concludes adds that in that judgment dealt only
question of compliance of the contested provision with the principle of legal certainty and
ban on retroactivity, not even any other interference with the constitutionally guaranteed
rights and freedoms of taxpayers to which it may result in the application itself
§ 148 paragraph. 2 point. b) Tax Code.
Petitioner's proposal aimed to repeal this provision, while no
part of this judgment can not be interpreted as meaning that it would
merits and assessed its constitutionality.

X.
Conclusion


47th Since the Constitutional Court concluded that the contested provision is not in conflict with Article
. 1. 1 of the Constitution, decided, pursuant to § 70 para. 2 of the Constitutional
rejecting the application for its annulment.
Chairman of the Constitutional Court


JUDr. own hand