In The Matter Of An Application For Annulment Of The Act On Civil Service

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zrušení zákona o státní službě

Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=84482&nr=199~2F2015~20Sb.&ft=txt

199/2015 Sb.



FIND



The Constitutional Court



On behalf of the Republic of



The Constitutional Court ruled under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 21/14 on 30 November. June 2015

the plenary consisting of the President of the Court, Pavel Rychetského and judges Jaroslav

Fenyka, Jan Filip, Vlasta Formánkové, Vladimir Crust, Tomas

Too, Jan Musil, Vladimir Sládečka, Radovan Suchánka,

Catherine Šimáčkové, Vojtěch Šimíčka, Milady Tomková (judge

the Rapporteur), Jiří Zemánek Uhlir and David on the proposal of the President of

Republic for annulment of the Act No. 234/2014 Coll. on State service, or its

individual provisions, § 1, paragraph 1. 2, § 5 para. 2, § 11 (1) 3, §

14. 2, article 15, paragraph 2. 3, § 16, § 17 para. 3 the fourth sentence, § 21, art. 3,

section 22, § 31 para. 2, section 78 (a). (c)), § 85 para. 5, § 104 paragraph. 3, § 145

paragraph. 3, § 165, 172, 173, 178, § 184 para. 2 and § 189, with the participation of

The Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament and the Senate of the

The United States as parties to proceedings and of the Government of the United Kingdom as

intervention management



as follows:



I. the provisions of § 17 para. 3 sentences of the fourth Act No. 234/2014 Coll., on State

the service is cancelled on the date of publication of this finding in the statute book.



II. The remainder of the proposal is rejected.



Justification



(I).



The subject of the proceedings



1. On 7 December. from 1 November 2014, the Constitutional Court received a proposal from the President

Republic for annulment of the Act No. 234/2014 Coll. on State service,

Alternatively, for annulment of article 1 para. 2, § 5 para. 2, § 11 (1) 3, § 14

paragraph. 2, article 15, paragraph 2. 3, § 16, § 17 para. 3 the fourth sentence, § 21, art. 3, §

22, § 31 para. 2, section 78 (a). (c)), § 85 para. 5, § 104 paragraph. 3, § 145

paragraph. 3, § 165, 172, 173, 178, § 184 para. 2 and section 189 of the Act.



II.



The arguments of the applicant



II./a



Argumentation concerning the adoption of the contested act



2. the proposal to repeal the law on the civil service as a whole justifies

the appellant protiústavností procedure, which was adopted by the contested act.

As the rapporteur recapitulates, originally a group of MEPs presented

27 June 2002. December 2013 draft bill amending Act No. 218/2002

Coll., on the service of civil servants in administrative offices and on the remuneration of

These employees and other employees in administrative offices

(business law), (71/0). This Bill was then replaced in

the form of the so-called. a comprehensive amendment Bill with an entirely new

the civil service, the projednaným of deputies of the Czech Parliament

States for the first time on 16. July 2014 in the context of the second reading, and then,

What was on 27. August 2014 of the third reading returned to second reading, was

day 10. September 2014, the Chamber of Deputies approved in the third reading.

The Senate of the Parliament of the United Kingdom was the draft law approved on 1 May 2004.

October 2014. This led to the fact that the original amendment to the then valid

Service Act No. 218/2002 Coll., on the service of civil servants in the

administrative offices and on the remuneration of such employees and other

employees in the administrative offices (business law), as amended

infringements in the course of further legislative process in the Chamber of Deputies

the House replaced with a bill on State service, which at the same time

existing Service Act set aside.



3. The procedure described in the opinion of the appellant were in violation of fundamental

the principles of legislative activities set out how the Constitution of the United States

(hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution")-article. paragraph 41. 2, Act No. 90/1995 Coll., on

rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, as amended, (hereinafter the

also "rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies"), specifically the provisions of section 63

paragraph. 1 point 5 (b). and the rights of members of the Confusion) to submit the draft law

with the right of members to submit amendment was withdrawn by the Government of the

constitutional law to submit a draft law on the civil service is of the opinion

It was taken out of consideration of the Bill in the Chamber of deputies in

the first reading. a comprehensive amendment lacks Executive

message. The purpose of the amendment is not in accordance with the claimant's original

the proposal in principle, alter or extend the principle, as it happened in the

the present case. In similar cases, the Constitutional Court has repeatedly

dealt with, and therefore the applicant only refers to the findings of the Constitutional Court

SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06 of 15 July. 2.2007 (N 30/44 SbNU 349; 37/2007

Coll.), finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 56/05 of 27 June. 3.2008 (N 60/48 SbNU 873;

257/2008 Coll.), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 53/10 of 19 April 1996. 4.2011 (N 75/61 SbNU

137; 119/2010 Sb.).



4. the applicant also States that it is not essential that the rules of procedure of the

the House of the concept of "comprehensive amendment" has no knowledge, nor that of the

the original proposal of the amendment to the law was the law of the State

the service taken only about half of novelizačních points. For substantial

on the contrary, the applicant considers that the so-called. a comprehensive amendment to its

the subject and purpose of the original proposal did not change at all, but completely replacing

a new draft of the law. The applicant attacks this procedure even in the knowledge that

procedural aspects must be assessed in relation to the principles of

the material rule of law; to do this, then draws attention to other parts of

This proposal, and that the law will be applied in its entirety in the

Basically, up from 1. July 2015.



II./b



Argument relating to the alleged unconstitutionality of the provisions of

law



5. In the next section the appellant challenges the constitutionality of the proposal below

specified provisions of the contested act.



Modifying the employment relationship of the so-called. other employees in administrative

offices



6. The first group of objections refers to § 1 (1). 2, § 11 (1) 3, § 14 para.

2, article 15, paragraph 2. 3, § 16, § 78 (a). (c)), § 85 para. 5, § 172, 173, 178, §

184 para. 2, section 189 of the Act on the civil service. According to the appellant, it is common

and apparently even constitutionally acceptable legal technique

If the law, which regulates the business conditions of civil servants in the

business offices, refers to the institutes in other laws in this

the case mainly on the institutes in the Act No. 262/2006 SB., labour code,

as amended, in order to avoid cribbing these institutes

in relation to civil servants in the law on the civil service; This is the case

for example. in paragraph 98 to 100, 102-104, § 109 paragraph. 3, § 112 to 114, § 117

paragraph. 3, § 118-124, 131. Another thing, though, is the law of the State

the service modifies the things employees which are otherwise covered by the code

work; as to section 1 (1). 2, § 11 (1) 3, § 14 para. 2, article 15, paragraph 2. 3, §

16, § 78 (a). (c)), § 85 para. 5, § 172, 173, 178, § 184 para. 2, s. 189.

In this second case, according to the appellant about the indirect amendments

the labour code [cf. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 2/97 of 2 June 1997 7.1997 (N

91/8 SbNU 325; 186/1997)] which does not conform to the basic principles of

the rule of law, which include not only the principles of predictability and

the clarity of the law, but also its internal control (cf. find

SP. zn. PL. ÚS 77/06), and from this point of view is considered by the applicant

inadmissible.



7. the above allegations the appellant the following the following arguments.

Pursuant to section 4 of the labour code, labour relations governed by the labour code,

and if you cannot use this law, is governed by the civil code, not

Thus the law on government service. According to § 1 (1). 2 of the law on the State

the service of this Act regulates the organizational Affairs of the staff who

they work in basic employment relationship, but from the series above

the contested provisions, except for the provisions concerning systemising,

It is clear that the overall management of labor relations. According to § 2

paragraph. 1 (b). (c) the civil service law) this law does not apply to

Deputy member of the Government, contrary to the provisions of § 173, however, is that

the position of a Deputy member of the Government. His status modified

that puts it outside the organizational arrangement of the Administrative Office, or

does not give him any decision-making competence, which, apart from the above

referred to the claimant's leads to the conclusion that this provision in the law on

the civil service does not belong. Deputy member of the Government is to be in employment,

his type of work therefore is to be referred to the labour code agreed in working

the Treaty, however, is his job description is defined directly in § 173 paragraph.

1 of the law on civil service, and in accordance with the mission set out in section 9

paragraph. 8 of the law on the civil service for the Deputy for management section; also

This fact, according to the applicant, in order to control the law leads to the

the proposal to repeal section 173 of the Act.



8. the constitutional objections to another individual by the contested provisions of the law

the civil service applicant formulates as follows:



The adjustment of disciplines of the civil service regulation of the Government



9. According to § 5 para. 2 of the law on government service Government Regulation

branches of the service. That provision is, in the opinion of the applicant in breach of

with the article. 78 of the Constitution, according to which the implementation of the law and within the limits of the

the Government is authorised to issue the regulation. The provisions do not provide for the limits within which the

the Government has to move, and could not be inferred or interpretation is probably the

the law. The law does not define the term "scope of service", as is apparent for example.

from section 24 or 30, it's about the concept in terms of the law. From the constitutional

point of view it is a violation of the Division of power between the legislative and the Executive and


violation to the principle of legal certainty and predictability of the law. In this

context the applicant refers to a number of the findings of the Constitutional Court, for example.

the findings SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/95 of 11 December. 10.1995 (N 59/4 SbNU 91;

265/1995 Coll.), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 17/95 of 25 October. 10.1995 (N 67/4 SbNU

157; 271/1995 Coll.), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 35/95 of 10 October 1995. 7.1996 (N 64/5

SbNU 487; 206/1996 Coll.), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 45/2000 of 14 February 2000. 2.2001 (N

30/21 SbNU 261; 96/2001 Coll.), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 40/02 of 11 March. 6.2003

(N 88/30 SbNU 327; 199/2003 Coll.). Notes on section 5 of the repealed

Service Act, in which, in the opinion of the party making the limits established

have been, since the scopes of services associated with the activities arising out of the

special legislation.



Modifying the barriers in the service of the Government Ordinance



10. The provisions of § 104 paragraph. 2 of the law on the civil service provides that

cases when barriers in the service belongs to the employees salary.

The provisions of § 104 paragraph. 3 of the Act provides that the Government may

by regulation establish further obstacles in the service (i.e., beyond the scope of the Act), for

that pertain to the State employees salary. Referred to the provisions of paragraph 3

is clearly contrary to article. 78 of the Constitution.



The determination of the grade of the staff authority for activities not included in the

the catalog administrative activities



11. The provisions of § 145 paragraph. 3 the law on the civil service provides that for

new business instead of State employee, on which it is to be exercised

activities not listed in the catalog administrative activities, IE. in the regulation of the Government

referred to in paragraph 2, the grade provides business with the approval of authority

The Ministry of labour and Social Affairs and the Ministry of finance. Referred to

the provision is contrary to the fundamental principles of the rule of law, establishing

creates legal uncertainty and, outside the normative modification contained in the regulation

the Government, space for discretion when making decisions.



The wording of the requirement of respect for democratic principles of constitutional

order for admission to employment



12. the provisions of section 22 of the Act on civil servants provides that the service

the ratio can only accept the person for which it can be assumed that it will be in the

service to adhere to the democratic principles of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic

and properly perform the service. The fact that that provision is based on the

subjective, inconclusive and unrestricted presumption is contrary to the

the basic principles of the rule of law. In this context, refers to section 30

paragraph. 1 the second sentence of the law, which, however, was to act on the

Government service inappropriately, but originally was reworded as follows: "to the

services cannot appoint a natural person under the first sentence, which cannot be

proven to be assumed to be in respect of the Democratic

the principles of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and to perform properly. "



The approval of some official authorities systemising



13. the provisions of section 17 para. 3 of the law on civil service in the sentences first and

the second provides that a proposal be submitted to the Government Interior Minister systemising and

systemize the following calendar year, approved by the Government. In a sentence

the fourth then provides that in the case of the Office of the Council on radio systemize and

television, the Czech Telecommunications Office, energy

regulatory authority, the Office for protection of competition, the Bureau of

protection of personal data, the Czech Statistical Office or the State Office

for nuclear safety, the Government cannot, without the consent of the person who is in

their head, reduce the number of official places referred to in paragraph 1 (b). a) and

(b)), i.e., the number of business locations for State employees, and the number of business

jobs introduced, and the volume of funds for salaries of civil servants

compared to systemize for the previous calendar year.



14. in section 17(2). 3 sentence of the fourth law on State service is included from

a total of thirteen called other central bodies of State administration,

as defined in section 2 (2). 1 Act No. 2/1969 Coll., on establishment of ministries and

other central bodies of State administration of the Czech Republic, as amended by

amended, the enumeration of the seven Central Government authorities, which

the provisions in question puts the Government on a par with, if not above the Government,

Nevertheless, pursuant to article 5(2). 67 para. the Constitution is the supreme body of authority

the Executive Government, and not to another body, as it would otherwise, of section 17(2). 3

the fourth sentence of the law on Government Service statement.



The determination of other cases in which a person can be taken into service

the ratio of fixed-term



15. in section 21 para. 1 and 2 of the law on government service are dealt with cases in which the

a civil servant carrying out his function for an indefinite period and for a period of

a specific. Paragraph 3 provides that the additional cases in which can be given

the special nature of the service to accept a person into the service for a period of

a specific, determined by the Government Regulation. The concept of a "special nature of the service" is

vague, the provisions of paragraph 3, it is also in breach of article. 78 of the Constitution.



II./c



For more reservations to the contested Law



16. In the last part of the proposal your rapporteur presents a non-exhaustive enumeration

the shortcomings of the law on government service, that, although not in his opinion

"most likely in themselves constitutionally reviewable", but

they must be presented to possible examination of the other effects of the procedure

the approval of the law namítaného above (part of II./a). This includes the following

arguments:



-According to § 31 para. 2 of the law on the civil service if the State does

an employee of the service on the day that is specified in the decision on admission to the

leaving without him in that prevented a serious obstacle, or

He informs the institution of this obstacle within 7 days, service

authority of the decision to adopt the service. This provision

is internally contradictory or incomprehensible and in marginal cases

exploitable. The question is whether constitutionally Conformal interpretation can be overcome,

that instead of the word "or" should be used in the provision, the word "and".



-Under section 165 of the decision may be the first act in the proceedings, with

the exception of disciplinary liability or termination of service. Referred to

the provisions of the verbal phrase "may be" without specifying the conditions

room for legal uncertainty, as it allows the previously unspecified

cases, exclude the code of administration procedures laid down in particular in the

the discovery of a basis for decisions and evaluation thereof.



-According to § 2 (2). 1 (b). and a) and b) the Civil Service Act does not apply,

In addition, the employee who carries out other activities for a Member

Government, and to the employee who carries out activities for the head office

the Government of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the authority"). Without these activities,

or their organizational integration, closer defined, literal

the interpretation of the condition that the law is on a particular Ministry or at the Office

the Government will not apply to anyone; the provisions will therefore require

the restrictive interpretation, guided, of course, subjective, and not

objective criteria.



-According to § 5 para. 1 (b). g) service includes management chapter of the State

the budget against the Organization of the State and legal persons folders, with

the exception of the staff of the Office in which the service is performed without the

account is taken of the fact that the administration of the chapter as a whole is generally

concentrated in one Department of the staff of the Office; According to § 5 para. 1 (b).

p) service includes public procurement without having taken into account

pursuant to § 2 (2). 1 (b). (j) the law does not apply), among other things,

even the ancillary and service work, which are apparently even actions immediately

related to the administration of assets, respectively. with the economy with property, where

public procurement is quite common, not to mention the fact that "the award

public procurement "is a process resulting in the meaning of the applicable law in

"the award of public contracts", § 5 para. 1 (b). p) doesn't count.



-In section 10(4). 1 (b). (b)) is missing from the expression of the Member of the Government who instructs.



-From section 13 paragraph 1. 2 show, and it manifests itself in other provisions

the law on the civil service, the Ministry of the Interior, the Deputy Director of the State

the service and the human resources Director for government service are separate

the authorities of the autonomous genius, in fact, the authorities

The Ministry of the Interior, and may only act on behalf of that

the Ministry, and not on behalf of his.



-The provisions of § 19 para. 3 provides that in certain cases it may

institution until the approval of the organizational structure of the staff of the Office

or her changes on a provisional basis to do so, as would the proposed organizational

structure or its amendment was approved, and if it is not designed

organizational structure or its amendment was approved, changes on a provisional basis

made from the outset and business relations with the return to the previous

status. If the organizational structure changes, or with which it is

provisionally linked fiction approval, in the event of subsequent

the disapproval from the beginning to cancel it, creates legal uncertainty for

for example. and in the meantime operations carried out, involving the public

with the associated resource.



-In section 30 paragraph 2. 2 is not in the enumeration of the particulars of the decision not to

post presented to execute successfully a desk is not a test

no doubt the legal obligation, how else could of § 35 para. 1 or

from § 191 para. 3.




-In § 37 para. 1 is reserved for the cases where the service scope

does not belong to the scope of any central administrative authority.



-In § 83 para. 1 the second sentence, it is assumed that the Government may, within

provide business space employees systemising, on which the

decide in the exercise of the rights and obligations of the provider in the implementation

support policy. Act No. 218/2000 Coll. on budgetary rules and the

changes to some related acts (budgetary rules), as amended by

amended, which regulates the provision of subsidies, however, in

connection with the private Institute for mediation.



-In accordance with § 117 paragraph 1. 1 of the law on civil servants can service authority

a civil servant to conclude an agreement on the execution of the service from another location, in

that particular conditions governing the performance of the service. With regard to the concept of law

the agreement in question will not have private, but public law

and from this point of view in the law modifying the terms of such an agreement is missing,

respectively of the Treaty.



-In article 185 paragraph 2. 2 (a). (c)), the words "and set a salary under part

the ninth "unrelated to the previous text and does not belong to that provision.



III.



The observations of the parties and the intervener control



17. the Constitutional Court according to § 69 para. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the constitutional

the Tribunal, as amended by Act No. 18/2000 Coll., requested the observations of the parties

control of the Chamber of Deputies and Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.



18. The Constitutional Court has sent the President of the Republic Government proposal also [section 69

paragraph. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended

Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "law on the Constitutional Court")] and the public defender

rights (article 69, paragraph 3, of the law on the Constitutional Court).



19. The Ombudsman of the non-21. November 2014 informed

The Constitutional Court that does not use the right to join the proceedings

participant.



20. the Government in its resolution of 8 June 1993. December 2014 No. 1043, delivered to the constitutional

of the Court on 11 July. December 2014 acceded to the proceedings

participant. In the same resolution the Government stores to the Minister for human rights,

equal opportunities legislation and notify the Constitutional Court about this

the Government's decision and draw up, in cooperation with the Minister of the Interior, and send

The Constitutional Court the Government's observations to the present proposal, the President of the

of the Republic. Furthermore, the Government referred to the resolution mandated the Minister of the Interior

representing the Government in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.



III./a



Representation of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic



21. In the representation of the Chamber of Deputies, signed by Chairman John

Hamáčkem, that was the Constitutional Court delivered on 10. December 2014, is

rekapitulován the course of the legislative process so that the design group

members of the Chamber of Deputies was submitted on 23 December 2005. December 2013 and

circulated to members as the house printing 71. The opinion of the Government was handed out

members of the day 9. January 2014 as printing 71/1. The Government had expressed in it

opposition to the proposal of the law with reference to the legislative deficiencies and

conflict with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.



22. First reading of the draft law was made on 22 November. January 1, 2014, when

The Chamber of Deputies adopted a resolution, which ordered the draft to

discussion of constitutional and legal Committee of the Committee for public administration, and

regional development and extended the deadline for consideration of the proposal in committees

to 90 days. The two committees discuss and draft bill on 27. June 2014

constitutionally the legal Committee adopted a resolution which recommends that the Chamber of Deputies

the House approved the proposal in the text of the comprehensive amendment

the proposal. The Committee on public administration and regional development resolution

did not accept.



23. in the second reading on 16. July 2014, the Bill passed through both General and

a detailed debate. A proposal to reject the draft law has not been filed. In

detailed debate with its amendments left the 18 deputies.

All the amendments have been submitted to a comprehensive amendments

the proposal contained in the resolution of the constitutional legal Committee. In the third reading

held from June 30. July and 1. and 27. August 2014, the Chamber

the Chamber of Deputies finally decided on the repetition of the second reading of this proposal

the law.



24. The draft Bill to renegotiate the two committees, i.e.. constitutionally the legal Committee

and the Committee on public administration and regional development. Committee for public

management and regional development on its 12. meeting held on 27. August 2014

a comprehensive amendment adopted and recommended to the Chamber of Deputies

the adoption of the draft law, as amended by this amendment.

Constitutionally the legal Committee at its 16. meeting held on 27. August 2014, set aside

its resolution of 27 June 2002. June 2014, and noted that discussed the

a comprehensive amendment presented by Deputy Jan Chvojka, takes

and it recommends that the Chamber of deputies that it took as a basis the

to the hearing.



25. The repeated the second reading of the Bill took place on 2 February 2005. September 2014, when

the Bill passed through both General and detailed debate. In a detailed debate

in the absence of a proposal to reject the Bill and amendments

presented MEP Jan Chvojka-comprehensive amendment-and

the other 14 members who submit their amendments to the

a comprehensive amendment of the MEP Jana Chvojky.



26. the third reading of the Bill took place on 10. September 2014, when the proposal was

the act as amended by the amendments approved by the number of 127

members of the 172 present, while 12 deputies voted against.



27. The Chamber of Deputies referred the Bill to the Senate on 12 June 2006. September

2014, which discussed and approved at its 25. the meeting, held on 1 May.

October 2014. President of the Republic has not signed the Bill, handed it back to

The Chamber of Deputies, which again acted on 24. October 2014 and the

She remained on its proposal. Out of 166 deputies present voted for the proposal

123 members and against 12. The Bill was subsequently delivered to the signature

the Prime Minister, and on 30 November. October 2014. The law was promulgated in the collection of

laws under no. 234/2014 Sb.



28. In conclusion, the Chamber of deputies in its observations, notes that the proposal

the law was adopted by the constitutionally prescribed procedure, that it is constitutionally

prescribed procedure made the consent of both houses of Parliament, was

signed by the respective constitutional factors and properly declared. It is on the

The Constitutional Court to examine the question of the constitutionality of the law or its

individual provisions and decided on the application for annulment.



29. the President of the Chamber of Deputies Signed Jan Hamáček further States that

Although according to the reasoning of the award SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/07 of 31 July. 1.2008

(N 26/48 SbNU 303; 88/2008 Coll.) are the Presidents of the Chambers of Parliament

authorized to independently form the will of the Chamber, in the observations of the participant

the proceedings shall be entitled to the Constitutional Court on behalf of the Chamber to disclose only the factual

and the undisputed circumstances of the discussion of the draft law, it considers necessary

comment specifically to the part of the proposal, in which the President of the Republic presents

objections to the procedure, the adoption of the law. This statement has not been

discussed and approved by the entire Chamber of Deputies, and therefore cannot be

be regarded as the expression of opinion. The President of the Chamber of Deputies

pointed out that the question of the so-called. comprehensive amendments to the constitutional

in its findings, the Court has repeatedly dealt with, and came to the conclusion

This is one of the institutes of parliamentary practice, which ranges

the limits of the constitutional order. In this context, the Constitutional Court did not find

violation of the legislative process, a violation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution

even the law on the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, the violation of the rights of the Government of

or members of Parliament, etc. The Constitutional Court did not yet even this procedure

in the case that came as a Committee of the initiative

the Chamber of deputies or members of Parliament. Complex amendment is, in the opinion

The Constitutional Court still only amendment in the meaning of § 63 para. 1

point 5 (b). and) of the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies. In

the case under consideration a comprehensive amendment to its subject, content

and the basic purpose of the nevybočil from the borders outlined the main group

the draft of the law. Although there has been to change the form of the amendment to the proposal for a complete

the text of the law, however, the full text of the law has changed, the subject and the

the content of the comprehensive amendment relating to the subject matter and content

the original proposal, the purpose of the comprehensive amendment had a close relationship

for the purpose of the original proposal and even prevent connections to other proposals

the laws, which were unrelated to the editing in question. For these reasons, it can be

clearly reject even hinted at by the President of the Republic, in the proposal

that could be treated in the relevant case. přílepek. You can also

reject the plea of President of the Republic, that the Government could not sufficiently

to exercise their rights, as in the present case, it was readily apparent that

a comprehensive amendment was initiated by the Government. At the same time should

the Government sufficient time to comment on the proposal during its

discussions in the Chamber of Deputies. In terms of clarity, legal

editing and legal certainty of the addressees can be evaluated receipt of the complete text of the

the law on the civil service as a more convenient procedure than the procedure through the

extensive amendment of many tens or hundreds of novelizačních points.


Adopted legislation must be clear, understandable and

predictable, and therefore the adoption of the new law is for the addressees of the significantly

clearer and easier to understand than the very extensive amendments to the

the existing Act by novelizačních points. On the basis of

of the above, the President of the Chamber of Deputies expressed the belief that in the

during the discussion and approval of the law has progressed

The Chamber of Deputies, in accordance with the Constitution, the law on the rules of procedure

The Chamber of Deputies and the existing case-law of the Constitutional Court.



III./b



Expression of the Czech Senate



30. In its observations to the Senate signed by the Chairman of the Milan that Private

the Constitutional Court was delivered on 28. November 2014, is an introduction

mentioned that the proposal made by the President of the Republic to the Constitutional Court after after

approval of the draft law in accordance with article. 50 para. 1 Constitution Day 8. October

2014 returned the law the Chamber of Deputies, the President of the Republic and its

access to this legislation, has said in his address in the Chamber of Deputies

House of the day 2. September 2014, which expressed a clear message against

the Institute of the so-called. political Deputy. The Chamber of deputies at its 19.

meeting of 24 April 2001. October 2014, the law remained and the law on the civil service

He was on 6. November 2014 the amount declared in the collection of laws under no. 99

234/2014 Sb.



31. the process of discussing the draft law on civil service in the terms

The Senate, in the observations that this Bill was after his

the approval in the Chamber of Deputies delivered to the Senate on 12 June 2006. September 2014 and in

The Senate was in his 9. term being discussed as Senate document No 336.

The Bill was referred to the discussion in three committees, in

the Committee of constitutional law, which was the Committee of guarantee, and the Committee of the

for territorial development, public administration and the environment, and the Committee for

health and social policy. Constitutional Committee Bill

discussed at its 37. the meeting held on 24. September 2014, and in its resolution

No 180 recommended the Senate approve the Bill discussed in the text of the

transferred the Chamber of Deputies. The Committee for territorial development, public

management and the environment discussed the Bill at its 30. a meeting of the

June 30. September 2014, and in its resolution No. 114 recommended the Senate

the present draft law approved by the Chamber in the wording of a transferred

the Chamber of Deputies. Committee for health and social policy discussed a proposal from the

the Act on their 24. meeting held on 30 November. September 2014, and adopted a resolution,

the content was, to this Committee-with regard to its scope of application-

Bill did. The Senate debated a draft law on the civil service

at its 25. meeting on 1 May 2004. October 2014. After the speeches of the rapporteurs of the committees

the proposal was presented to the Senate Bill, with reference

on it, the circumstances in which the Bill was discussed and approved in the

The Chamber of Deputies. This proposal (which have been voted on after the break

meeting of the Club of the SOCIAL DEMOCRATS) was not accepted, when the present 71 and senátorek

Senators when 36 quorum for proposal voted 28 and against was 32 senátorek

and senators. Subsequently, a general debate took place, and by the

Some Senators were on the Bill, the following reservations:



-reference to the opinion of the reconstruction of the State sent to the senators,

whose content was evaluation of the draft law is approved by the

The Chamber of Deputies with the requirements while the Reconstruction

State; in this sense, the Bill was seen as "the lack of

in terms of creating conditions for the stable and professional operation of the

the Czech Government ";



-in some performances it was pointed out the alleged politicization of the

the fact that the draft law was launched on

the Institute Directorate-General, and was incorporated into the draft law

the Institute of the so-called. political Deputy;



-in some of the performances have been given a substantive reservations to specific

the provisions of the draft law and it was announced the submission of amendments

the proposals, if the Bill gets into the details of the debate;



-on the objections relating to non-standard legislative process was

stated that it was actually about the non-standard process, on the other hand, however,

It has been pointed out, the circumstances in which the legislative process

"running";



-to the discussed matters relating to the so-called. political Deputy was

pointed out that this Institute is in many Western countries, quite common

and its function is based on the constitutional right of the system.



32. After the end of the general debate, in which also was filed the proposal to

the rejection of the draft law was in accordance with Act No. 106/1999 Coll., on the

the Senate's rules of procedure, as amended, first voted on

the proposal to approve the draft law, as amended by a transferred by the

the House, in its resolution as recommended by the two committees, and this proposal

has been approved; in a vote with a serial number 6 of the present 71

senátorek and Senators when 36 quorum voted for this proposal and against the 47

senátorek and 15 senators.



33. the President of the Senate, summed up that when discussing the Bill in the Senate

to it were the expression of reservations, in any of the performances, however, have not been

the appropriate adjustment in the sense, as is the case in the proposal

President of the Republic, that is contrary to constitutional principles, whether

in terms of the legislative process itself, in which it was adopted the law on the

the civil service, or certain of its provisions listed in submitted

the proposal. For discussion of the said draft law known to the so-called.

a comprehensive amendment was prepared under the responsibility of the Government (when

Office of the Government, then the Ministry of the Interior), and was also with the participation of the President

the Government and the other members of the Government discussed with the representatives of trade unions and

employers, as is apparent from the record meeting 110. plenary meetings

The Council of economic and social agreement of the Czech Republic. In the Senate overall, and

conscious of certain shortcomings of the Bill outweighed an approach based

on the need for its early adoption, saying that some of the charged

editing will be possible in the next period of change.



III./c



Observations of the Government of the Czech Republic



34. On 9 April. from 1 January 2015, the Constitutional Court received the observations of the Government sent

authorised by the Minister for human rights, equal opportunities and legislation

Jiří Dienstbierem.



35. the Government states that at the outset of its participation in the present proceedings it considers

necessary not only because of the needs of the rebuttal of the claims contained in the draft

President of the Republic, which it considers unfounded, but understands it as

the opportunity for a public defense of the need for the President of the Republic

the contested act, as well as rationality and constitutional conformity process

its adoption. The Government recalls that the President of the Republic affected

the law represents the fulfillment of 23 years of legitimate expectations

citizens of the Czech Republic in the adoption and application in the article. paragraph 79. 2 of the Constitution

the proposed law, which regulates the legal relations of public servants

in the ministries and other administrative authorities, and business law.

218/2002 Coll., in the opinion of the Government cannot be considered to meet that

legitimate expectations, since before its complete cancellation was its

efficiency, the originally planned from 1. in January 2004, a total of five times postponed

last by Act No. 445/2011 Coll. at 1. January 2015. Now the contested Law

According to the Government while the Government's obligation to the citizens of the United

States on the adoption of a functional and quality of the Act on civil service

obligation the United States resulting from the agreement on the document

Partnership for the programming period 2014-2020, or meet the ex-ante evaluation

conditionality for access to European funds that are for the Czech

Republic reserved for the years 2014-2020, the result of intensive

the synergy of the professional public, the Government and Parliament in the course of

the legislative process, the result of a democratic discourse, held by the

across the political spectrum, and this discourse in which all participants

they got the opportunity to get acquainted in detail with the present matter and

to make an informed comment on it, and at the same time also satisfy the condition

President of the Republic for the appointment of the Government (with reference to the speech

President of the Republic of 10 June 1999. January 2014).



1. the opposition procedure the adoption of law neústavnosti



36. the Government will first comment on the alleged unconstitutionality of the legislative

process. It stated that the legal argument of the applicant is based

especially on a general challenge to the constitutional conformity procedure the adoption of

the law on land in the Chamber of Deputies within the meaning of the alleged non-fulfillment

constitutional rules of parliamentary law or non-compliance with

constitutionally concurrent legislative procedure. Specific objections to the petitioner's

then are directed against: 1. the disposal of the Government of the constitutional law, submit to the

the draft law on the civil service of the opinion 2. the absence of explanatory memorandum to the

the draft law and, in particular, then 3. against the sheer scale of the complex

amendment submitted to the legal Committee of the constitutional

the Chamber of Deputies the draft, members of the Roman Sklenáka, Jerome Tejce, and the other on the

release of the law, amending Act No. 218/2002 Coll., on the service of the State

employees in the administrative offices and the remuneration of these staff, and


other staff in administrative offices (business law), [House

print 71/8 (hereinafter referred to as "the first comprehensive amendment")].



37. the Government at the outset, brings the relationship to the text of a comprehensive

Amendment (first and second), as these proposals are

President of the Republic contested the basis of the law. Formal-legal

aspects of the use of the Institute comprehensive amendment is then

at the same time and have become the subject of a proposal for the review of the constitutionality of the adoption process

the Constitutional Court Act.



38. the Role of the Government as the initiator of the submission, respectively.

legislatively-the first comprehensive technical text processor

the amendment is a generally known fact. Despite the fact that it is

According to the Government about the evident notorietu, forcing the formulation contained in the preamble to the

President of the Republic Government proposal to briefly describe your role

in the legislative process, the result is the President of the Republic

the contested law.



39. the Government recalls its statement of 14 January. February 2014, in

which mj. committed to the adoption of a functional and quality of the Act on the State

service with the fact that this law must ensure full depoliticize State

the Administration, clearly define the criteria for the recruitment and remuneration of officials,

to set the conditions of promotion and to ensure a high level of

education officials.



40. In its resolution of 8 June 1993. January 2014 No 39 the Government of Jiří Rusnoka had expressed the

its disagreement with the content of the proposal, members of the Roman Sklenáka, Jerome

Tejce and the other on the issue of the Bill amending Act No. 218/2002 Coll.

about the service of civil servants in administrative offices and on the remuneration of

These employees and other employees in administrative offices

(business law), (print, 71). The reason was mainly collisions

a number of provisions of the present proposal with the constitutional order and a valid

the law.



41. by its resolution of 3 July 2003. February 2014 No 85 in favour of the Government of Bohuslav

Sobotka family consent to the withdrawal of the draft bills, which presented the

The Chamber of Deputies the Government of Jiří Rusnoka. Among those proposals was also

the Government's proposal to amend the staff regulations Act and the accompanying Act to

professional law (print 96) and related Government proposal

the law on the amendment of laws related to the law on the civil service

(House print 97). The Government justified the Bills listed withdrawal

the need to "submit to the concept of State services for more professional and political

discussion, whose conclusions will be due to the rationalisation of the process of consultation

This adjustment reflected in parallel to the present parliamentary proposal

the amendment of the law on government service ".



42. Following the resolution of the Government No. 85/2014 discussed the Government on 5 December.

March 2014 material "Information for the Government of the Czech Republic on the procedure in the

Agenda civil service "(No. 195/14). This material included a description of the

the work on the preparation of a comprehensive amendment (i.e., information about the

the establishment of the Working Group and for the law on the Civil Service Council

the economic and social agreement, consisting of a legislativců Government Office,

The Ministry of labour and Social Affairs, the Ministry of the Interior and

The Ministry of finance and representatives of trade unions and employers ' organisations and

information on the meetings of the expert group to the political-design paragrafového

the text of the comprehensive amendment of the amendment Service Act composite

representatives of the coalition parties, legislativců, experts in the field of State

the service and the non-State non-profit organizations).



43. the impugned material was also the document "Factual overview

a comprehensive amendment to the printing house No 71, which was

at the same time submitted to members, professionals, but also to the general public to the

discussion (the material was also published on the website

The Chamber of Deputies). This document contained the instantiation

the elements which are necessary to ensure the efficient, professional,

public interest in defending and apolitical civil service, but the house printing

71/0 is either did not have or had to be newly defined. In the case of

the choice of different solution then the material suggested by the variant solution

designed for professional and political discussion.



44. On 5 July 2004. may 2014, the Government discussed material "timetable

implementation of the amendment to the law "(No. 430/14) and its resolution

No 325 members of the Government imposed, the head of central administrative authorities and

the head of the other administrative authorities cooperate within its scope

on the implementation of the timetable for implementation, and to provide to the head of

The Cabinet Office and Minister for human rights, equal opportunities and

legislation in its implementation.



45.28 June. may 2014 Government resolution No. 406 approved the mandate of the

for the Secretary of State for human rights, equal opportunities and legislation

negotiations with the European Commission on the Service Act.



46. at the same time during the year, the Government adopted a series of resolutions

relating to the implementation of the law (e.g., resolution of the Government of

on 5 July 2004. March 2014 No. 147, on the movement of personnel and issues

training activities in the public administration of the Ministry of the Interior to the Office

the Government; resolution of the Government of the day 9. April 2014 No. 242 to the agreement on

Partnership for the programming period 2014-2020; resolution of the Government of

27 June 2002. August 2014 no 694 to the agenda of the civil service).



47. the Government considers that the above enumeration of its

official documents (and their contents) is sufficient to

factual rebuttal of any concerns about violating the separation of powers

"the Government, in terms of the disposal of constitutional law to submit a proposal for a

the law on the civil service opinion ". It is evident that the Government has not been

not in fact truncated to its constitutionally guaranteed right to comment

on draft laws, since it is itself actively involved in formulating its

content and its legislatively-technical processing (including its

consultation of the social partners and professional public). Complex

the amendment was presented with her mind and publicly

the declared support of the breach of the separation of powers-or "the right to good

the legislation "(as defined by the Constitutional Court in finding SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

77/06) as in the opinion of the Government in this case.



48. The above, that is, the active participation of the Government in the preparation and formulation of

the text of the law, then apply not only for the first comprehensive amendment

(print 71/8) but also for the so-called. the second comprehensive amendment

draft (prints 71/10 and 71/11), which was submitted to the Committee

for public administration and regional development, and a member of Jan

Chvojka, as a result of political negotiations and coalition Government

the opposition, but also with the knowledge and support of the Government's publicly declared, and

at the same time and for the draft members of the Roman Sklenáka, Jaroslav Faltýnka and

Jiří Junek on the issue of the law on the amendment of laws related to the adoption of the

the law on the civil service (House print 242).



49. If the President of the Republic further argues that the "so called. complex

amendment lacks the explanatory memorandum ", the Government considers that this

objection irrelevant as factual, as well as of the Constitution

point of view. The first comprehensive amendment had been accompanied by the Executive

the message was. It was drawn up by the expert team established by the Government (see

above) and physically provided not only members, but it was

made available and the general public (URwww.statnisluzba.cz). With regard to the

that these Web pages do not contain these documents, Government

Annex to its observations for the Constitutional Court attaches a copy of the

that document of 29 April. may 2014, which includes

the preamble to each of the proposed provisions.



50. with regard to the above statement of fact of existence of the explanatory memorandum

the message then the Government merely points out that the Constitutional Court with the question of the consequences of

the lack of a comprehensive justification of the amendment in the past

He repeatedly, and concluded that the absence of justification

the proposal itself does not lead to neústavnosti as follows of the present and

the approved law [see e.g. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/08 dated May 6. 10.

2010 (N 207/59 SbNU 3; 294/2010 Sb.), paragraph 39].



51. The question of the constitutionality of the use of a comprehensive amendment, which

the essence is to replace all of the text of the proposal of the law

complete text of new, or the general question of constitutionally Conformal

interpretation of the sources of law governing the legislative process, the Constitutional

the Court in the past has repeatedly explored [findings SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

21/01 of 12 October. 2.2002 (N 14/25 SbNU 97; 95/2002 Coll.), SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

5/02 of 2 July. 10.2002 (N 117/28 SbNU 25; 476/2002 Coll.), SP. zn. PL.

TC 12/02 of 19 June. 2.2003 (N 20/29 SbNU 167; 83/2003 Coll.), SP. zn.

PL. ÚS 23/04 of 14 July 2004. 7.2005 (N 137/38 SbNU 9; 331/2005 Coll.), sp.

Zn. PL. ÚS 56/05, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/07, SP. zn.

PL. ÚS 38/08, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 42/08 dated March 21. 4.2009 (N 90/53 SbNU

159; 163/2009 Sb.) as amended by an amending resolution SP. zn. PL. ÚS 42/08 from

27 June 2002. 5.2009, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 17/09 from day 1. 12.2009 (N 250/55 SbNU

415; 9/2010 Sb.), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 53/10, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 55/10 of 1 March.

3.2011 (N 27/60 SbNU 279; 80/2011 Coll.), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 10/13 dated

29.5. 2013 (N 96/69 SbNU 465; 177/Sb.)].




52. the Government recalls that the conclusions of the Constitutional Court on the question of the constitutional

conformance to the use of the Institute comprehensive amendment are

summarised in recitals 39 and 40 of the award SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/08

(opinion of the Government then CITES both points).



53. In light of the above described Government's role in the legislative process and the conclusions of the

resulting from the above relevant case-law of the Constitutional Court

the Government considers the proposal of the President of the Republic for the derogatory nedůvodný, respectively.

justification this part of the proposal shall be considered as a sign of přepjatého of the theoretical

formalism, whose acceptance of the Constitutional Court in a given case would be just

meant de facto intervention, the autonomy of the legislature, and thus a violation of

the separation of powers between the legislative and the judicial. You can have a hard time

Imagine obhajitelnost derogation of the law justified merely on the basis of

the proposition that the implementation of a comprehensive modification of the legislation in the form of

novelizačních points is constitutionally conformal, but implementation of the content

the same modification in the form of new text (instead of the forms of

novelizačních points and while maintaining the material the same normative

content) already not.



54. Despite the above, the Government considers it appropriate, in order to meet the constitutional

the Court with reasons that it and the legislature led to the rational understanding on

the use of the Institute a comprehensive amendment of the type, respectively.

a comprehensive amendment, whose essence is to replace the whole

the text of the draft law submitted complete text new.



55. the Government worth that at the initial stage of the legislative process

responsibly engaged i (in the context of the content of the proposal of the President

crucial) the question whether the present (within the meaning of article 41, paragraph 2, of the Constitution)

the Bill is identical to the text content of the first comprehensive

Amendment (which would have been completely eliminated any theoretical

doubts about the constitutional conformity formal legislative page

procedures), or whether the use of the Institute a comprehensive amendment,

should the text of the original proposal was modified by law-

a proposal to members of the Roman Sklenáka, Jerome Tejce, and the other on the

release of the law, amending Act No. 218/2002 Coll., on the service of the State

employees in the administrative offices and the remuneration of these staff, and

other staff in administrative offices (business law).



56. A key role in choosing between the two above variants

played, in addition to the above conclusions resulting from the case-law

The Constitutional Court, in particular, take account of the factual situation summarized in the introduction

part of the representation of the Government, or its time dimension. Therefore 1. constitutionally

legitimate expectations-based acceptance function, and quality of the Act on

Government service, 2. the commitment of the Government to fulfill this expectation, so that

such a law came into effect on January 1. January 2015, 3. the question of the

vacatio legis law, 4. the question of the creation of the preconditions for the implementation of

the necessary preparatory steps for the application of the law in practice before

the planned efficiency, 5. the question of the development and release of the necessary

implementing legislation and official regulations, and last but not least

6. the question of ex ante conditionality for drawing on European funds, which

are reserved for the Czech Republic for the period 2014-2020.



57. the Government is therefore convinced that the chosen procedure (prioritization

of the initiative before the legislative initiative of the Government)

He was a rational, legitimate, constitutionally Conformal and did not violate the

the balance of power.



58. On the question of the constitutional conformity of a comprehensive amendment,

whose essence is to replace all of the text of the proposal of the law

complete text with the new, the Government states that, in the preparation of the texts of both

the amendments gave the maximum attention to the fact that the

all true kautely constitutionally drawn to the legislative process, and

it not only after the formal, but in particular the material. The Government, therefore,

in particular, while being careful to carefully, to 1. is a comprehensive amendment

apply to the subject matter of the proposal of members Romana Sklenáka, Jerome Tejce, and

more on the issue of the Bill amending Act No. 218/2002 Coll., on

the service of civil servants in administrative offices and on the remuneration of these

employees and other employees in administrative offices (business

the law); 2. the fundamental purpose of the comprehensive amendment had a narrow

the purpose of the present relationship to the fundamental law, or that the

the same as (edit the most challenging points of Act No. 218/2002 Coll.

in order to create a functional and modern model of the civil service and its marketing

in practice, after more than 12 years after the adoption of the original Act, was

available for sale); 3. a comprehensive amendment was based on the content of both

the original design group, partly from the original Government proposal

contained in house print 97 (called the amendment submitted by the Rusnokovou

the Government), who, although the current Government has taken back, but do so

Therefore, in order not to at the same time raised two parliamentary publications with the same

the goal, which would greatly znepřehlednilo the legislative process; 4. complex

the amendment responded to complaints that the original group

the proposal put forward in its opinion on the Government (that it cannot be neither

theoretically thinking about circumventing the Government, or the violation of the principle of the Division of

power); These complaints concerned the mj. the fact that the original proposal does not respond to

substantial changes since 2002 in the legal order has occurred, and that the

does not contain the so-called. change the law (i.e. that does not change the other related laws

though it was objectively necessary); 5. the selected procedure (complex

Amendment) abbreviated MPs on their right in detail with

the content of the proposal, and to submit it to the parliamentary discourse, and, where appropriate,

submit to it their own amendments. To the question of compliance with the law on

rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies a defined time and procedural

framework of the examination of both complex amendments (in which the

constitutional guarantee of protection projects of the real functioning of the parliamentarism)

the Government merely notes that all procedural time-limits and procedures were

respected, and for more detailed information refers to the observations of the President

The Chamber of Deputies.



59. the Government in connection with the above, does not conceal that its original

the intention was to prepare "standard" comprehensive amendment (i.e.,

the proposal, which would be in the form of novelizačních, or he changed points

he expanded the original proposal). During the legislatively-technical work

in preparing such a proposal, however, has shown that this "standard"

drafted a comprehensive amendment to the final recipients

standards greatly confusing and would effectively end its scope so as

thus represented a completely new version of the draft law, only with the difference that the

would be divided into a few hundred novelizačních points.



60. with regard to the above, as well as on the fact that clutter

the proposal should certainly result in a limitation of real options

such a proposal was qualified to discuss the lawmakers ' (which would be in violation of the

with the principle of parliamentary democracy), the Government decided, after

consultations with parliamentary parties, the first comprehensive amendments

the proposal will not be processed (and presented) in the form of novelizačních, but

in the form of a comprehensive text, thus de facto "full text", as the range of

the changes have been substantial (though often it was only the necessary formal refinement) and

the reflection of all these changes to "spot amendment" would not only lead to a

less clarity of text, but also to increase the risk of

formal defects in the course of the legislative process.



61. the Government considers that, in the course of parliamentary procedures to demonstrate that the

It was a beneficial procedure and, as already mentioned above, since

aprobovatelný, since you can hardly imagine obhajitelnost derogation

Act only on the basis of a reasoned argument, that the implementation of comprehensive

modification of the legislation in the form of novelizačních points is constitutionally

Conformal, but perform the same page content modification

in the form of new text (instead of the forms of novelizačních points) has not.



62. in the light of the foregoing, my Government considers that the proposal by the President

Republic for annulment of the act as a whole, as it is formulated in the first

the variant with the remedies, should be dismissed as nedůvodný.



63. in the event that the Constitutional Court agreed with the arguments of the Government and

He went to the derogation of the law, then the Government publicly declares his

readiness to resubmit an identical to the legislative process

legislation, and at the same time recalls the conclusion resulting from the award SP. zn.

PL. ÚS 56/05 (see above): "the Constitutional Court shall examine other circumstances

the present case, if the formal repeal of the legislation meant

the risk of readmission are identical edits except that

compliance with all aspects of the legislative process. In this case,

formal and procedural aspects of the review have receded from the standpoint of the principle of

of proportionality, the requirements of the material law, legal certainty

and effective protection of constitutionality. "



64. the Government is also shorthand for the thesis set out in the proposal of the President of

States that "the law will be applied in its entirety, basically from the 1.


July 2015 ". The Government draws attention to the fact that the law has acquired in the

for the most part from 1 January 2000. January 2015, with some of his

provisions should be laid down earlier efficiency, on the day of its publication in the

law, since even before the full effect of the Act was to be performed

some of the fundamental steps to its subsequent application seamlessly (cancellation

The General Directorate of the civil service in the Office of the Government, the existing

formally since 2002; the establishment of the staff of the place of the Deputy Minister of

of the Interior, civil service and your organizational unit called Department of State

services in the Ministry of the Interior as refunds for cancelled institutes

the Director-General of the civil service and the General Directorate of the State

the service; "flipping" existing senior administrative offices in the

proportion to the positions of leaders of official authorities in the prison service; the establishment of the

business places State Secretaries in the ministries and the Cabinet Office).



2. the objections relating to the individual provisions of the Act



Minor adjustments to the alleged unconstitutionality of the so-called employment relationship.

other staff in administrative offices



65. the objection that the contested provisions § 1 (1). 2, § 11 (1) 3, § 14

paragraph. 2, article 15, paragraph 2. 3, § 16, § 78 (a). (c)), § 85 para. 5, § 172, 173,

178, § 184 para. 2, section 189 of the Act on civil service are unconstitutional

an indirect amendment to the labour code, the Government states that the President of the Republic

the amendment to the labour code confuses the indirect, that did not occur, the

related specialties of the relevant provisions the law on government service

concerning employees in employment to subsidiárnímu

the labour code, which was in relation to "others" to employees in

the administrative offices in the election. This is a method of lex specialis derogat legi

generali, which is completely normal and permitted [cf. e.g. Act No.

312/2002 Coll., on officials of territorial self-governing units and amending

certain acts, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the law of

officials of territorial self-governing units ") or Act No. 563/2004 Coll.

about pedagogical workers and amending certain laws, as amended by

amended, which also contain special provisions for the

the labour code and that no one for indirect amendment to the labour code

albeit without referring to]. Special provisions generally apply in cases where the

There is a general law, however, cannot be sufficiently

the complex, to regulate this area completely. The labour code is so

in the regulation of legal relations of these employees in employment

in General, if the civil service statute provides otherwise.



66. the Government also cannot agree with the statement of the President of the Republic, that the

labor relations can regulate only the labour code with the

subsidiarity of the civil code. When the acceptance of this proposition would be

unconstitutional all labour legislation governing legal relations

certain groups of employees, such as the law on officials

territorial self-governing units, Act No. 553/1991 Coll. on the municipal police

as amended, Act No. 6/2002 Coll., on courts, judges,

lay judges and the State administration of courts and amending some other acts

(the law on the courts and Judges Act), as amended-

the assistants of judges, judicial čekatelům, and other judicial workers

Act No. 283/1993 Coll., on the public prosecutor's Office, as amended

-legislation in relation to the prosecutors and other personnel in the

prosecution offices, Act No. 257/2000 Coll., on probation and mediation

service and amending Act No. 2/1969 Coll., on establishment of ministries and other

Central Government authorities of the Czech Republic, as amended

the provisions of Act No. 65/1965 Coll., the labour code, as amended

regulations, and Act No. 359/1999 Coll. on social and legal protection of children,

(the law on probation and mediation service), as amended,

etc. The Government further notes that the legislation may contain both

standards of public law and private law [a typical example is

The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms ("the Charter")].



To the alleged unconstitutionality of the edit fields of the civil service



67. the President of the Republic, argues the unconstitutionality of § 5 para. 2 of the law on

Government service for the inadequacy of State services and the edit fields

potential "refillable" nature of government regulation on the branches of the State

service instead of the constitutionally drawn to the "implementation" of the character.



68. First of all, it must be stated that the alleged unconstitutionality should

not related to the law on the civil service, but a Government Decree issued on

under the authority of this Act contained. A violation of the Constitution, it would be

the release of government regulations that would "complement" the law.



69. Furthermore, the Government considers it necessary to point out the fact that

the appellant understates the importance of section 1 (1). 1 (b). a) of the Act

defining the personal scope of the law on civil servants performing

in the administrative offices of the State administration, in conjunction with § 5 para. 1

of the act containing the enumeration activities service, which

This personal scope to be added. It is these two provisions,

that create a legal framework of disciplines of the civil service (State administration

carried on by the administrative authorities within the meaning of the law on the civil service is defined by

special laws laying down the scope of the administrative offices and the State

management performed by Government employees within the meaning of the law on the civil service

It is a subset of a, then its because the exercise of State administration, next to them

involved in eg. (I) persons in prison service under Act No. 361/2003

Coll., on the service of members of security forces, as amended by

amended, or soldiers in the prison service under the Act No.

221/1999 Coll., on professional soldiers, as amended),

that should be done by regulation of the Government. The law thus defined the legal

a framework of disciplines of the civil service, their detailed specification, then because of the

a more flexible response to possible changes in the scope of official authorities kept on

the implementing regulation. Government regulation of service industries but can

be issued only within the limits of the list of activities contained in § 5 para. 1

of the Act and of course within the limits of laws governing

the scope of the administrative offices in the area of public administration (e.g. in the case of

the preparation and implementation of the administrative operations of dozens of laws from various

disciplines of State administration from the environment through transportation to social

Security), because the scope of administrative offices may be according to the article. 79

paragraph. the Constitution provided for only by law and only in these statutory limits

It may be that the Government also released. You cannot, therefore, agree with the

arguing that the limits for the issue of government regulation cannot be inferred interpretation;

systematic interpretation is undoubtedly can be inferred, while naked

isolated grammar interpretation itself § 5 para. 2 of the Act

of course not.



70. the provisions of section 5 of the original law, which argues

President of the Republic, is the only explicit declaration (not rule)

What is in the main staff law defined using the same

legislative construction as to delimit the scope of the civil service take

the law on the civil service.



To the alleged unconstitutionality of establishing additional obstacles in the

Regulation of the Government



71. To the contested section paragraph 104. 2 of the law on the civil service, the Government states that the

obstacles in the circuit, in the contested provisions shall be established by reference to the

the relevant provisions of the labour code and Decree-Law No 590/2006 Coll.

laying down a lap and a range of other important personal barriers

job. Due to the fact that the rights and obligations of the State

employees and employees in employment are different, and so can

experience different barriers in the service, empowers the Government to extend the

the circuit of the obstacles in the service beyond the scope of the labour code and its adjustment

the implementing regulations. It is therefore, in principle, a similar adjustment, what is the

in § 199 para. 2 of the labour code, according to which government regulation

range of other important personal barriers at work than are listed in section

191 of the labour code, the employer shall provide for time off work,

to pay the wages or salary.



72. According to the article. 78 of the Constitution, the Government is authorised to issue regulations for the implementation of

and within the limits of the law. According to the case-law of the Constitutional Court, the Government must

keep within the law, that are either defined explicitly, or

arise from the meaning and purpose of the Act (findings SP. zn. PL. ÚS 17/95 and sp.

Zn. PL. ÚS 45/2000). Due to the fact that the law on the civil service

in § 104 paragraph. 3 empowers the Government to issue a regulation, and provide for additional

barriers to service, for which it is for the national staff salary ranges

the regulation, within the limits of the law, and the Government and its contradiction with the Constitution

does not find it, even with regard to a similar adjustment in the labour code, which

from this point of view has not been challenged, even by the President of the

of the Republic.



To the alleged unconstitutionality of the determination of the grade of the staff authority for

activities not listed in the catalog administrative activities




73. the contested provisions of § 145 paragraph. 3 of the law on civil servants from the Government

It is based on essentially verbatim from treatment contained in § 136 paragraph. 3

Service Act No. 218/2002 Coll., which was replaced by the law on State

service, IE. from the recently valid components legal order of the Czech Republic.

The purpose of the provisions is to bridge the period when business office must

immediately start a new exercise activity that is not listed in the

the catalog administrative activities (newsletter of the Government Ordinance) until

the amendment regulation will be made to the relevant Governments, that the activity in question in the

the catalog administrative activities. State employees who will

This new activity, so it must belong to a salary, while the

determination of grade should be based on the principle that the employee has

the right to a fair remuneration for work (article 28 of the Charter of fundamental rights and

freedoms), IE. Whereas, for the same work or for work of equal value, it is for

all employees of the same employer at the same salary. Even in the

other aspects can not be subject to the determination of the grade of position

the competent administrative authorities. It should be borne in mind that the determination of the salary

class is the scope of the performance in the area of public administration implemented in

the form of an administrative act, which means the application of the provisions of the law on the State

service of proceedings on the basis of § 159 services para. 1 (b). (d))

This Act shall be subsidiárním by the use of Act No. 500/2004 Coll., the administrative

of procedure, as amended. The rule of law in order to create sufficient

"checks and balances" that the appellant disputed uncertainty and arbitrage

exclusive. That provision is, therefore, in the opinion of the Government fully in accordance

with the constitutional order.



To request the determination of unconstitutionality alleged compliance with the

the democratic principles of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic for the adoption of the

leaving the service



74. To the contested provisions of section 22 of the law on the civil service governing

the requirement for compliance with the democratic principles of the constitutional order of the Czech

States for admission to employment, the Government states that, in accordance with the

§ 159 paragraph. 1 (b). and the Civil Service Act), for admission to the

leaving the leads in cases concerning services, IE. proceed as indicated in

of the administrative code (section 160 of the Act on civil service). In the course of proceedings so

must be adhered to the basic principles of the activities of administrative bodies and other

the rules of procedure in matters relating to the service, the decision must be justified and is

judicially reviewable on the basis of article. paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights

and freedoms and the Act No. 150/2002 Coll., the administrative procedure code, as amended by

amended, which also applies to the above presumption of acceptance into the

of service. This is not a subjective or inconclusive

evaluation of the President of the Republic, argues.



75. The opposing provisions according to the contrary, a reflection of the constitutional Government

Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 9/01 of 5 February. 12.2001 (N 192/24 SbNU 419;

35/2002 Coll.), which in the context of assessing the constitutionality of Act No. 451/1991

Coll., laying down some of the other conditions for the performance of some

functions in State bodies and organizations of the Czech and Slovak

The Federal Republic, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, as amended by

amended, the Court held that the legislature should modify the

prerequisites access to public functions in its entirety and anchor in the

standard with such general application personal attributes directly in relation to the

of a democratic society. The Constitutional Court in that the award also pointed out

on the relevant case-law of the European Court of human rights (judgment in

things Vogt against Germany dated March 26. 9. the 1995 # 17851/91 and

things Pellegrin against France of 8 June. 12.1999 no 28541/95). In

the opinion of the Government then recapitulates the reasoning of the European Court

human rights and of the Constitutional Court concerning the necessity of loyalty

Government employees or employees of public service to the State and

the constitutional principles.



The alleged unconstitutionality of different procedures for the approval of systemising

some business offices



76. the provisions of section 17(2) was taken. 3 the law on the civil service is an exception

for the so-called. regulators, arising from the specific status of these offices

(from the requirement of independence of these offices enshrined in legislation

Of the European Union). Provision constitutes a guarantee for their independent and

impartial decision based on the fact that the Government cannot without the consent of

the one who is at the head of the competent authority (i.e. the one who guarantees the

independent status of the Office), limit the personnel of the authority and the financial substrate

resources for salaries, and effectively regulate (restrict) the activity of the Office.

If this exception was not in the law on government service listed, it would be

determination of systemising completely outside the real decision-making power of the person who

is at the head of the Office, even though for the proper exercise of its competence shall bear full

liability. Adjust the position of the so-called. regulators party systemising in

the law on the civil service is also in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice

The European Union (e.g., in the judgment of 9 March 2010 in case C-518/07

The Court of Justice of the European Union noted that the supervisory authorities in the performance of

its tasks must be provided with the space and conditions to act objectively and

impartially and for this purpose shall be protected against any external

the influence, including direct or indirect influence of the State, and not only before

the influence of the Organization, which oversees).



To establish the unconstitutionality alleged other cases in which it can be used with

view of the specific nature of the service to take the person to the service

for a limited period



77. In the contested provisions of § 21 para. 3 the law on the civil service, the concept of

"the particular nature of the services" without a doubt the vague legal term.

The legislature, however, its closer definition left to the discretion of

individual business offices as the indeterminate legal concepts

usual, but with regard to legal certainty has entrusted its definition

the implementing legislation. Intentionally created the space for it to

the Government itself has assessed, in which other cases, except cases

referred to in § 21 para. 2 of the Act (referred to in this provision,

to the service for a specified period shall take a person who has not yet successfully

has not exercised his official exam, and later in the case, in the case of the replacement of the

temporarily absent employee), it is possible to take a person to

of employment for a specified period, in order to respond to the

the possible development of this concept.



78. the Government may make regulations on its own initiative without any legal

the mandate, as it is empowered to do this article. 78 of the Constitution. It may, however,

as to the implementation of the law and its limits. The use of indeterminate

the concept of the rule of law in the empowering provision cannot, however, according to the

the opinion of the Government cause that government regulation will be issued praeter legem.



79. Having regard to all of the above arguments, the Government finally their

expression of the proposed that the Constitutional Court of the Republic on the proposal of the President

repeal of Act No. 234/2014 Coll. on State service, or its individual

the provisions of the rejected.



IV.



A replica of the applicant



80. The observations of the parties and the intervener was

sent to the applicant and to any replica. Applicant of its

the replica took advantage of the law, and a detailed comment, in particular, to

the opinion of the Government.



IV./a



A replica of the observations of the houses of Parliament



81. the representation of the Chamber of Deputies, respectively, of its President Rapporteur

refers to its opinion on the below representation of Governments, which is in the

compared to the expression of the Chamber of Deputies. For completeness

He adds that in the proposal presented to the Constitutional Court, nor to suggest that

should in the present case it was the "přílepek", how else could of

remarks by President of the Chamber of Deputies.



82. Similarly, in relation to the representation of the Chamber of Deputies, and in the

relation to the representation of the Senate refers to the opinion on the below

representation of the Government, if it comes to it, when it is called. a comprehensive amendment

the proposal constitutionally acceptable, and when not, and about the level of synergies

Executive with MEPs in the finalization of the draft law. At the same time

draws attention to the mention, in a representation of the President of the Chamber, that the

the objections in the general debate, even if it belonged to the final approval of the law in

The Senate did not alter that law was actually received in a non-standard

the legislative process.



IV./b



A replica of the observations of the Government of the



83. To represent the Government's opinion the appellant States that the Government sent

The Constitutional Court, the Government discussed and approved. From a material

point of view this creates doubt as to whether it is really the opinion of Governments,

or an expression of a personal opinion of the Minister for human rights, equal

opportunities and legislation, biased, where appropriate, in cooperation with the Minister

the Interior. The appellant, however, adds that this thing does not apply as the procedural

an objection, since it is based on the fact that fundamentally, whether and to what extent are

the relevant arguments put forward in the observations, however, draws attention to her,

as it fits into the overall context of procedural misconduct.



84. the participation of the Government in the preparation of hardened comprehensive amendment

the applicant States that it would be special if the Executive power at all


care about the Group of a draft law that directly relates, and

If its experts did not use to members with legislative

the processing of the proposal. Officials and members of the Government do not constitute a

the Government, as defined in the negotiations and the way it provides for the Constitution. Out of it

terms referred to in the expression of the Government's argument, issued for the views and

activities of the Government, is misleading.



The procedure of the adoption of the contested act



85. in its reply, the applicant insists that the procedure, in which

the contested act was adopted, is in contradiction with the fundamental principles

the legislative process enshrined in the Constitution. In the present case, there has been a

a situation where the existing law was replaced by a completely new conceptually

the legal adjustment by this new adjustment was made in the form of so-called.

a comprehensive amendment to the second reading of the draft

the law. Not so complied with the standard legislative procedure, where the draft

substantive law such as the law on civil service, IE.

the Basic code of service of public servants, is presented as a Government

the draft law, and is therefore provided with explanatory memorandum, passes through the

připomínkovým management, is discussed by the Government and its legislative

authorities, all this before proceeding to the discussion of the Bill

Parliament. However, the contested Law was discussed on the basis of the parliamentary

the Bill, to which, moreover, the Government originally took a negative

the opinion, in which, inter alia, draw attention to the conflict with the master

the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. It was only in the context of repeated second

reading of the draft law was submitted to a comprehensive amendment, in whose

the text of the contested act was subsequently approved. Due to these

facts the applicant is so convinced that in the present case was

ordinary legislative procedure violated the Constitution and guaranteed by the competent

successive legislation, which among other things has led also to the

the shortcomings of the law, on which the appellant points out in its proposal.

Their occurrence can be attributed to the absence of, for example, just execute

disagrees.



86. the applicant does not agree with the opinion of the Government, according to which the Government of the

the draft law on the civil service submitted its opinion and she has participated

to create this design. The reality is that the Government, on the basis of

article. paragraph 76. 1 of the Constitution, decides in the choir, in the meaning of article 87(1). 44 para. 1

The Constitution of the first or the second, final, comprehensive amendments

the proposal did not comment. If the Government refers in its observations on a variety of

the materials, which were discussed by the, then, apart from those

future regulation concern only indirectly, applicable only

material projednaný at a meeting of the Government on 5 December. March 2014, which had

informative nature, contained a factual overview of the comprehensive amendment

the proposal to the House of the press is, of course, 71 of the first comprehensive

the amendment, which still counted with the Directorate-General

the civil service, the material that the Government has discussed at its meeting on

May 5, 2014 and which contained a timetable for the implementation of the amendment

Service Act, in which the fiftieth anniversary of the existence of the Working Group on

the law on the Civil Service Council of economic and social agreement and with

political-group of experts composed of representatives of the coalition parties,

legislativců and experts in the area of the civil service, or material that

the Government has discussed at its meeting on 27. August 2014, which contained

the mandate for the Minister of the Interior and the Minister for regional development for dealing with

The Europeans by the Commission in the matter of Service Act, and information on the State agenda

the service, which concerned procedures related to the implementation of the future

the law. The proportion of officials selected resorts on finalising the parliamentary group

the draft law cannot be undoubtedly be mixed with constitutional law Government

comment on the draft law, the Government is not the submitter; the officials of the

they are not the Government.



87. The materials to which the Government refers in its observations, so

obviously cannot be understood within the meaning of the observations of the Government according to the article. 44 para. 1

Of the Constitution. This Institute (i.e., representation within the meaning of article 44, paragraph 1, of the Constitution)

has in the legislative process, however, of fundamental importance, since it is one

from the assumptions of the proper assessment and discussion of the Bill by the Parliament.

The right of the Government to comment on the draft law is also entitled

other participants in the legislative process to know the opinion of the Government of the

the present Bill. Together with the explanatory memorandum as the expression of

Government within the meaning of article 3(1). 44 para. 1 of the Constitution contributes to the smooth discussion

the draft law, which leads to a confrontation of different opinions

aspects, and when deputies and Senators on the basis of such a confrontation

vote knowing viewpoints of all parties. This is going to

maintaining openness to the public and control of the legislative process,

that are an essential part of the democratic principles on which it is

built the democratic rule of law. In the present case, however, the observations of the Government of

as well as the relevant explanatory memorandum to lose.



88. As regards the argument of the Government relating to the absence of the explanatory memorandum, the

According to the claimant's misleading. The Government referred to the explanatory memorandum

the first was a comprehensive amendment apparently submitted

members of the House in the form of printing, it was placed on the Internet

the page where is no longer present, and to the other comprehensive amendments

the proposal has not been submitted at all. There is no doubt that the absence of explanatory memorandum

reports on a comprehensive amendment itself still does not lead to

neústavnosti of the Act, the question is, however, must be assessed in the broader

context, as the applicant stated above.



89. in the reply, the applicant further notes that the vast majority of findings

The Constitutional Court referred to by the Government of the problem

does not apply to the remainder of the findings of the Constitutional Court shall in no case

findings from the findings of the Constitutional Court, the President's proposal

Republic refers and which is clearly and completely clear

the difference between the application of the legislative initiative in the form of the submission of the

the Bill and the amendment. On the basis of the applicant

marked with the findings it can be concluded that the second comprehensive amendment

the proposal exceeds 25 original proposal when edited by a whole new concept of law

the civil service, and so extensively that its content and scope

originally, the present Bill. The comprehensive amendment

the design does not fulfill characteristic of amendment, as

in relation to the original Bill did not show the character akcesority, but from the

This proposal, by contrast, significantly turned, respectively, to the fullest extent

He replaced. The Government's conclusion in the present case occurred the so-called.

the rules of marriage, is therefore necessary having regard to the above

on the contrary, reject, and noted that the comprehensive amendment

the proposal introduces a new legislative initiative. Approval of the design

the Act, as amended by the second comprehensive amendment was bypassed

Institute of legislative initiatives and violated separation of powers as one of the

the principles of the democratic rule of law. To the consideration that in drawing up the

a comprehensive amendment by novelizačních points to the original

the draft amendment to Act No. 218/2002 Coll., which follows the text of the reach

Act No. 218/2002 Coll., which would be consistent with the text of the law on the State

the service, and it would be so achieved constitutional conformity, the applicant for

completeness States that this reasoning is clearly contrary to § 63 para. 1

point 5 (b). and) of the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, which

He admits in the original proposal to change only some of its parts.



90. the observations of the Government that if the Constitutional Court, the law on the civil service

the Government shall submit the same cancels legislation, the claimant does not deal

opinion and opinion on this expression leaves fully on the Constitutional Court.



91. The explanatory memorandum, the opinion of the Government of a draft law and first reading are

themselves only a subset of the page with the legislative process. The entire

the legislative process is connected with the rules, which are formal,

but not an end in itself; their purpose is to create a high-quality

law of the democratic rule of law. There is a real risk that

If you allow the official to the hearing of a completely new design

a comprehensive Bill could start on the level of the second reading, as

in this case, it can have a negative and forward an indeterminate

implications for the entire legal order.



92. A mention of the applicant on the full applicability of the Act from 1. July

in its reply, the applicant then 2015 expands upon so that it was based on the conclusions of the

The Constitutional Court, that not always it is necessary to repeal the law, otherwise, adopted in

failure to comply with all procedural practices, if it should interfere with the

legitimate citizens ' trust in the law. Such a situation could occur if the

tens of thousands of employees will begin after 1. July 2015 request

admission to the service and following up on this to be the end

the year 2015 to service admitted.



To modify the employment relationship of the so-called. the other employees in the

administrative offices




93. the applicant repeats the reservation to respect the law on government service and

the labour code, the civil service statute that establishes a bi-directional relationship

to the labour code, in a way, that the employee in employment

the position, which is not with the legal order of the gracefully intertwined, and

founded as the clutter in the legislation. In the administrative service, respectively.

the offices will be in addition to the civil servants employed and employees, on the

that rule covered by the labour code. The civil service statute, however, with

them also counts, but without consistency on the labour code.



94. the applicant refers to several examples of neprovázanosti of both regulations.

In relation to section 178 of the Act on civil servants, according to which business

authority under certain circumstances to occupy the post by a person in the

the ratio for a limited period in accordance with labour legislation, argues

the applicant establishing inequalities between government employees and

employees. First, in the sense that for the performance of the same work had to State

employees, unlike the employees fulfill certain preconditions, and on the

the other hand, in the sense that, with the exception of the salary of employees find themselves

in an unequal legal status with government employees engaged in

the same work in the prison service.



95. The laws on which it is pointed out in the opinion of the Government, all

explicitly or implicitly assume the subsidiary application of the labour code,

without it a direct amendment be amended. As to the laws that govern, among other things

the conditions and procedure for the exercise of certain specialised activities, in

others are covered by the labour code, and in this sense can be

compared to that part of the law on civil service, which refers to Government

employees. None of the laws to which the Government refers, however, does not address the

labor relations for other employees, as it is the law of

the civil service, although no doubt these other employees, except those

already exercised by the law modified specialized activity, are both

territorial self-governing units, and the school of legal entities, courts,

the Prosecutor's Office and the probation and mediation service; from this

the Government's argument misses the point with the arguments of the appellant.



96. with regard to the opposition of the Government's claim of the appellant that the

labor relations can regulate only the labour code with the

subsidiarity of the civil code, the petitioner reiterates the §

4 of the labour code, the provisions of which read: "labour relations are governed by the

This Act; If you cannot use this law, is governed by the civil

code, always in accordance with the basic principles of the labour law

relations. " To do this, the applicant adds that the purpose of the law, to which the Government in

the opinion refers, edit them in the public interest assumptions for performance

certain activities, eg. functions and procedure for the exercise of these activities and

functions, with labour adjustment contained in the labour code on these

laws, with variations that are in them in accordance with their purpose

listed, smoothly. For legislation concerning the relationship

employees in the Civil Service Act and the labour code, however, it

the opinion of the plaintiff does not apply.



To the mandate for government regulation stipulating the service scopes



97. the appellant to the Government's argument that cited the unconstitutionality should

could relate to the regulation of the Government, not the law itself, States that it is not

rational wait for government regulation will be repealed by the Constitutional Court for

unconstitutionality and shall be withdrawn authorisation to its release.



98. the Government's argument that the legal framework for the issue of government regulation according to

§ 5 para. 2 of the law on government service can be inferred from § 1 (1). 1 (b). and)

in conjunction with § 5 para. 1 of the Act, it appears as a purpose.

Institute of field service to be essential for the definition of civil servants

within the meaning of the law on the civil service and to differentiate them from other

employees in the administrative offices, however, the law this term, and it

at least through its basic characteristics, which should

exhibit a, not an. These basic conceptual characters within the meaning of the above

provided, that would represent the legal bounds for government regulation, issued by the

According to § 5 para. 2 of the Act, and thus the basis for the systematic

the arrangement of the public administration, that is multi-layered, consisting of

a considerable number of different types of activities, cannot be found in the

the provisions of § 5 para. 1 of this Act. The rapporteur therefore considers that the

by the provisions of § 5 para. 2 of the law on the civil service has encountered a

the delegation of the editing issues to be regulated by the Act, the power to

the Executive, to the legislature, he resigned from his legislative obligation,

and undermine the principle of the separation of powers, so. As a result of this procedure also

among other things, the risk arises of a subjective approach, which may be exposed to

a variety of influences.



To authorise the Government to establish the range of barriers in the



99. the Government's argument referring to the similar modification contained in § 199

paragraph. 2 of the labour code, in the opinion of the plaintiff is misleading.

The mandate for the Government to establish a circuit of the barriers referred to in § 199 para. 2

the labour code, follows at least at the section 199 para. 1, while the authorization in §

paragraph 104. 3 the law on the civil service is not attached to anything and no legal

the limit does not. This is not to say that § 199 para. 2 of the labour code is

constitutionally entirely conformable. The criterion of meaning and purpose of the Act is in the

the case seems unusable ones.



To determine the grade of the staff authority for activities not included in the

the catalog administrative activities



100. According to the observations of the Governments of the applicant shows that if need be

to occupy the post uncovered in the relevant Government Decree catalog

administrative activities, the Government will have to be changed. Thus

the solution to speed up the legislative process in such cases than this thing

for a transitional period to deal with outside government regulation procedure, which is in the

contrary to the fundamental principles of the rule of law. The use of the

procedural rules in those situations, of which the Government talks, legal

the uncertainty of when the procedure outside of government regulation does not delete; procedural rules

they cannot replace the missing substantive.



To request compliance with the democratic principles of the constitutional order of the Czech

States for admission to employment



101. the applicant States that it is not a matter of loyalty to State

officials, as would result from the observations of the Government, but on an entirely

inappropriate reformulation of section 30 paragraph 2. 1 sentence last original staff

the law ("the service cannot be created ... person ... that cannot be

provably assume that it will comply with democratic principles... ").

The provisions of section 22 of the Act on civil service is: "To be leaving the

only accept the person for which it can be assumed that it will be in the

to adhere to the democratic principles... ".



102. The original Service Act required a "proof by presumption" that the person

duty to adhere to the democratic principles of the constitutional order and the

properly perform the service. By section 22 of the Act on civil service the

"weight" launched and, moreover, the negative wording of the phrase changed the replacement

the word "cannot" with the word "can" on its positive wording, the content of the entire

the provisions of the zrelativizoval considerably. According to the current text of the cited

the provisions comply with the basic condition for the adoption of the staff regulations

the ratio is left to the discretion of the de facto competent responsible persons,

respectively, the authority, with the law does not define the policy in any way, or

the limits, which should be guided by this reasoning. The procedural rules, which

the Government refers in its observations, cannot be understood as a material definition

the frame in which it is possible, an assessment of the fulfilment of the said

provided to move around, and this material cannot replace them frame.

Meeting of the assumption is left to the subjective, and nothing

Unlimited believe according to the applicant, which is contrary to the fundamental

the principles of the rule of law, in particular with the principle of legal certainty and the

the predictability of administrative decision, because as the appellant also

said, creates scope for discretion in deciding under which may

violate constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens of the United States,

in particular, the right to equal treatment or constitutionally enshrined the prohibition

discrimination, since that provision can become an instrument for

the manipulation of the results of the selection process to fill the free service

space.



For the approval of certain official authorities systemising



103. the applicant submits that the observations of the Government that is defended the legal

adjustment, on the basis of which it will have seven out of a total of thirteen called

other Central Government bodies of the Government de facto right of veto,

When it comes to systemize and the volume of funds for salaries, raises

doubts in a number of directions. The Government classified between the regulators and the Czech

the Statistical Office, or so. regulators is confused with the supervisory authorities, which

gives the impression that only these seven bodies must be provided with the space and

the conditions to act objectively and impartially, and that in the final

due to the volume of funds on systemising and salaries in each

chapters are not Affairs of the Government, but the Chamber of Deputies, which approved


the State budget in detail the structure, and that it is the authorities of the child to the Government

and the Government is responsible for them. According to the appellant lacks logic and sounds

Oddly, the idea of the Government that the Government could, through the budget of the

threaten their business.



104. It is not known that any of these authorities was in its activities,

which must be governed by the laws, threatened. If sometime in the future it

It should be otherwise, the matter can be addressed by other legal instruments, before trying to

deal with section 17(2). 3 the fourth sentence of the law on government service.



For the determination of other cases in which a person may be taken into

of employment for a specified period



105. in the reply, the applicant States that its claim in the proposal, that the concept of

"the special nature of the service" is vague, it has been incorporated into the proposal for

in case a participant argued that the limits for government regulation are given by

just this term. Otherwise, the provisions of section 21 of the Act on civil service

According to the appellant the whole in breach of article. 78 of the Constitution at its core.



In the.



The abandonment of an oral hearing



106. The Constitutional Court did not expect from an oral hearing, further clarification of the matter,

therefore dropped from him under section 44 of the first sentence of the law on the constitutional

the Court.



Vi.



Formal conditions of discussing the proposal and the constitutionality of the procedure of adoption of

the contested act



107. The proposal was filed by the competent authority [§ 64 para. 1 of the law)

No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court] and complies with all the formal

Essentials.



108. As a preliminary point, the Constitutional Court considers necessary to deal with doubts

the appellant contained in the reply that the opinion of the Government is actually

the opinion of the Government, or just "personal opinion of Minister for human

rights, equal opportunities and legislation, biased or in collaboration

the Minister of the Interior ". The Government at its meeting held on 8 June 1998. December 2014

discussed the material called "the observations of the Government of the United Kingdom to design

President of the Republic for annulment of the Act No. 234/2014 Coll., on State

service or its individual provisions, served under file number

Mark pl. ÚS 21/14 "and adopted a resolution to it sent to the constitutional

the Court, which among others. approves the entry of the Government to the said proceedings, stores

the Minister for human rights, equal opportunities and draw up legislation

in cooperation with the Minister of the Interior of the Government on the draft opinion on President

the Republic and send these observations to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court in this

respect the autonomy Government and respecting the manner in which its opinion in

relation to the specific proceedings before the Constitutional Court processes. On the difference

from the situation referred to in the award SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/07, which highlights

in its statement the President of the Chamber of Deputies Jan Hamáček, under whose

conclusion the President of Chambers of Parliament cannot without further form the will of the

for the purposes of the relevant Chamber observations directed to the Constitutional Court, here

It was a specific permission of the Minister to handle the representation of the Government based

Once the mandate from the Government, that is, by order of the Government in respect of

to a specific ongoing proceedings before the Constitutional Court. If you

the Government in particular the processing of Government Minister's credentials views

did not reserve the right of final approval of that opinion, it was a

its autonomous policy decision that respects the Constitutional Court.



109. The Constitutional Court, in the procedure for the review of legislation is always examining in

the meaning of § 68 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by

Act No. 48/2002 Coll., that the contested regulation was adopted within the limits of the Constitution

set out competences and constitutionally prescribed way. In the first part

the rapporteur proposes the remedies sought annulment of the contested act as a whole just

because of the way in the adoption of this tempered protiústavního law.



Vi./a



The course of the legislative process



110. the Constitutional Court on the basis of publicly available prints of the

the House and Senate, as well as the stenozáznamů of their actions (all available

on www.psp.cz, www.senat.cz) found the following facts:



111. On 23 December 2005. December 2013 was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies a proposal

members of the Roman Sklenáka, Jerome Tejce, and the other on the issue of the law,

amending Act No. 218/2002 Coll., on the service of civil servants in the

administrative offices and on the remuneration of such employees and other

employees in the administrative offices (business law), containing 104

novelizačních points. The proposal was circulated to members as the house printing 71.

In his opinion, the Government has expressed its disagreement with the proposed law (print

71/1). The President of the Chamber of Deputies has appointed a Rapporteur proposal, MEP

Jana Strategy.



112. The Chamber of Deputies on 22. January 2014 at its 5. the meeting ordered in

the first reading a draft law to discuss the constitutional legal Committee and the Committee of

for public administration and regional development, and extended the time limit to

review of the draft in Committee by 30 days (i.e. 90 days).



113. Constitutionally the legal Committee to draft law was adopted by 27 June. June 2014

resolution No. 52, which recommends that the Chamber of deputies that the draft

approved as amended by the comprehensive amendment of constitutional law

Committee (71/8). The Committee on public administration and regional development on

its meeting of 27 June. June 2014, the resolution did not accept.



114. The second reading took place 16. July 2014 at 12. the meeting of the

the Chamber of Deputies. In a detailed debate with its amendments left the

18 members, while amendments were submitted to a comprehensive

Amendment of constitutional legal Committee (all amendments

proposals are contained in the press 71/9). At the conclusion of the third reading on 27.

August 2014, the Chamber of Deputies agreed on the repetition of the second reading

(vote no. 107, resolution No 393).



115. The Bill again discussed the constitutional legal Committee and 27. August 2014

adopted a resolution (printing 71/11), in which, inter alia:



"I cancelled the resolution No. 52 of 27 July. June 2014 to print, 71;



II. notes that a comprehensive amendment was delivered to print 71

at the beginning of the hearing of constitutional legal Committee of 27 April. August 2014, Member of the

JUDr. Jan Chvojka,



III. discuss a comprehensive amendment members JUDr. Jana Chvojky

and takes note of it,



IV. it is recommended that the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament, to take a comprehensive

Amendment members JUDr. Jan Chvojky as the basis of discussion. "



116. The draft law also discussed again the Committee for public administration, and

regional development, 27. August 2014 adopted its comprehensive

amendment and recommended the adoption of the draft law, the Chamber of Deputies

in the version of this comprehensive amendment (71/10).



117. repeated the second reading of the Bill took place on 2 February 2005. September 2014,

the law has gone through both General and detailed debate. In a detailed debate was not

a proposal to reject the draft law. Amendments was brought by 15

members of Parliament. Jan Chvojka delivered a comprehensive amendment,

a further 14 members of its amendments to be submitted to a comprehensive

Amendment of the MEP Jana Chvojky (all the amendments

the content of the print are 71/12, a comprehensive amendment of the MEP Jan

Chvojky is listed under the letter B1).



118. the third reading of the Bill took place on 10. on 14 September 2014. a meeting of the

The Chamber of Deputies. From the stenozáznamu of the 14. the meeting follows that

a comprehensive amendment of the MEP Jana Chvojky (71/12, letter

B1), recommended by the resolution of constitutional legal Committee (71/11) was

The Chamber of Deputies approved (vote no. 6, 171, are present for 127,

against 11). All other approved amendments shall apply to the

a comprehensive amendment of the MEP Jana Chvojky. About the complex

amendment to the Committee for public administration and regional development

It was not voted on, as it was in the words of the Rapporteur of the draft law of Jan

Chvojky substantively identical to its a comprehensive amendment that

has been agreed as the basis for further amendments (verbatim

minutes of 14. meeting of the Chamber of Deputies, 10. September 2014).



119. In voting no. 53 (resolution No. 395) was a bill approved in the

the text of the adopted amendments (172, are present for 127, against 12).



120. The Chamber of Deputies referred the Bill to the Senate on 12 June 2006. September

2014. The Senate it on your 25. the meeting, held on 1 May. October 2014 and discussed

has approved. President of the Republic adopted the law returned by the Chamber of Deputies,

that day 24. October 2014 remained on it (the present 166, 123,

against the 12). The approved law was delivered to the Prime Minister to sign a 30.

October 2014. The law was declared a 6. November 2014 (in the collection of laws in

the amount of 99) under no. 234/2014 Sb.



121. the Act took effect 1. January 1, 2015, with the exception of the provisions of § 13,

184, 185, 186, 187, 202 and 206, which took effect on the date of its publication in the

the Act, IE. November 6, 2014.



Vi./b



Assessment of the conformity of the legislative process of constitutional



122. the Constitutional Court to question the constitutional souladnosti of the legislative

the process has already expressed many times. Already in the award SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/02

The Constitutional Court stressed the general requirement of "stability," and

the necessity of the legal acts on which the rule of law, and also in correlation

the lives of citizens in it lies; such acts, and also reaching the required

the authority of the legislative bodies, however, cannot rearm otherwise than respect for the


rules (principles of legislative activities) which, moreover, the Chamber's

the Chamber of Deputies as a major recipient of the legislative authority for this activity

the Act itself "(part V).



123. It should be assumed that the Constitutional Court is the judicial

authority of the protection of constitutionality, legality, and not normal (article 83 the Constitution).

In the case of supervision of compliance with the rules of the legislative process is

in doing so, keep in mind that the constitutional order modifies only some of the

legislative rules and their substantial part is left to adjust the

contained in the rules of procedure of the two houses of Parliament. The reason for the cancellation

the Act therefore cannot be free from non-observance of any provision

of the rules of one of the Chambers, but only the violation of constitutional standards.



124. To this must be added that in evaluating the constitutional conformity

the legislative process of the Constitutional Court is based on the fact that its rules

they are not an end in itself, but rather are set in detail and clearly

that is why, in order to avoid their abuse and to the Suppression of rights

of the different actors. Derogatory intervention the Constitutional Court could therefore

coming into consideration in principle in two cases: when the violation of any

the standards enshrined in the Indonesian Constitution (cf. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/02), or

If, as a result of violation of the rules of procedure of the Chamber of deputies or

The Senate, in violation of the constitutional law, a principle or value.

These values are, in particular, legal certainty and predictability of the law

arising from the characteristics of the United States as the rule of law (article 1

paragraph. 1 of the Constitution), the free competition of political parties (article 5 of the Constitution) and

protection of minorities (article 6 of the Constitution), for which it is to be in that context

consider, in particular, the parliamentary opposition (in the case of abuse of the State of

legislative emergency. findings SP. zn. PL. ÚS 55/10 or SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

53/10).



125. the constitutional defects in the legislative process, that the applicant expressly

formulates, can be summarized as follows: 1. the disposal of the Government of the constitutional law

to submit a draft law on the civil service position and disposal

discussion of the Bill in the Chamber of Deputies, on first reading 2.

the absence of the explanatory memorandum for a comprehensive amendment, 3.

a comprehensive amendment to its subject and purpose did not change at all

the original proposal, but it was replaced by a new draft of the law.



126. All of the above reservations is closely related to the issue of

the constitutional limits of the amendments. Without additional pay, for

each amendment is missing representation of Government within the meaning of article 3(1). 44

paragraph. 1 of the Constitution, since the Government according to the Constitution, the draft law,

not on the amendments. Likewise, for any amendment

the proposal (whether administered in the Committee or in the detailed debate in the second

read) does not occur in the nature of things to its consideration at the plenary in the first

read. Justification the amendment also was not, until the amendments to the

rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies made by Act No. 265/2014 Sb.

effect from 1. March 2015, a legal requirement.



127. In other words, all of these reservations have constitutional relevance just

up in connection with the assessment of the extent to which have been preserved, the constitutional

the requirements formulated by the Constitutional Court (see below) on the amendments

proposals. Inadequacy of legislative procedure, whereby the circumvention of

the first reading, in the freeze-out representation of the Government or in the absence of justification

the amendment was formulated by the Constitutional Court in the background

undesirable practice called. "přílepků", when, in the second reading the draft law

adds in the form of amendment materie factually non-

by the draft law.



128. In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06 (see above), the Constitutional Court

the issue of amendments extensively. According To The Constitutional

the Court "requirement of predictability of the law as part of the principle of the rule of

the State shall cease to be implemented — the moment when the Act is

part of another act in a formal sense, content with the adopted

the law has nothing to do. The orientation of the addressee the legal standards in the legal order

without the use of instruments of information technology becomes completely impossible "

(paragraph 39). "The right to be given to the draft laws during a parliamentary debate

amendments derives from the right of legislative initiative, however,

It is not identical with it, since it is naturally limited the realm reserved just

the realization of the right of legislative initiative. Already from the need to distinguish

the legislative initiative, and the proposed amendment, due to compliance with the

the elevated constitutional claims to the first named, it can be inferred that the

amendment should really only modifying the present legal

editing, therefore it should not even fundamentally altered or substantially expanded, and

the less should move outside the subject of legislative initiative, respectively.

the draft law "(paragraph 49). "Deviation from the limited space dedicated

amendments can be exceeded in intensity of the nature

the design or nature of the subject-matter defined by the proposal of a broad crossing

the law. The first case is the doctrine known as ".

legislative riders (â € šlegislative riders '), the use of which is in

The US often and excitedly discussed, however, is considered as

side, but constitutionally Conformal... " (paragraph 50). "From this first

the case, however, it is necessary to distinguish the second case called â € šwild 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, it is about testing the question of whether in a particular case

It is a proper amendment or the draft, for which in the Czech

date of the so-called environment. â € špřílepek '. In this case, the

the technique of the amendment to the draft law, joins the Edit completely

another law, the legislative draft unrelated "(paragraph 51).



129. the Constitutional Court in the above-cited finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06

concluded that "constitutionally Conformal interpretation of the provisions governing the right of

amendment to the present draft law requires

that the amendment actually only pozměňoval presented by the legal

editing, IE. in accordance with the requirements of the so-called. the rules of marriage, according to the

the amendment must relate to the same subject matter, which is

currently being discussed in the legislative process, the amendment

not yaw from the limited space dedicated amendments in

the form of a broad subject of the present draft law exceeded "

(paragraph 73).



130. In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 6/12 of 9 June. 1.2013 (N 6/68 SbNU 103;

39/2013) then again, the Constitutional Court confirmed that when the resolution

allowable amendment and an unacceptable "přílepku" is the key

the criterion "whether there is a close relationship between the content and the purpose of the original

the draft law, and the content and the purpose of the amendment under consideration "

(paragraph 57).



131. the applicant points out, however, even on another aspect of the issue,

When it states that "a comprehensive amendment to its subject and purpose

the original design did not change at all, but it was replaced by a new proposal

the law ". The applicant thus disputes that although it is a proposal for a

amendment, does not "mangled" proposal, but effectively replaces the one

proposal (amendments to the original law) with a completely new design (the new

the law on the civil service). It then points out in its reply, the applicant also to

the observations of the Government that it is in fact a new legislative initiative.



132. The practice of the fact that the amendment does not formally

the Bill (in the form of novelizačních points), but its content is called.

a comprehensive amendment (that is, the form of the complete texts of the New Testament),

already the subject of an assessment of the Constitutional Court has in the past, albeit so far

It was never about replacing the amendment no longer applicable law the law is completely new.

For complex amendments then you can meet with those deficits

the legislative process, on which the appellant draws attention and which were

the Constitutional Court also critically reflected in the previous case law, i.e.

in particular, with the absence of the explanatory memorandum for a comprehensive amendment

or the absence of a comprehensive representation of the Government to this amendment.



133. In the present case is so necessary to distinguish between two aspects of the problem.

One is a form of a comprehensive amendment, the second is its contents

of the submission of the whole new testament.



134. as regards the actual form of the comprehensive amendment,

The Constitutional Court was already more than once in the past, faced with a proposal to

repeal of the law adopted on the basis of a comprehensive amendment,

While the existence of a comprehensive amendment has never been

derogačním the reason [cf. findings SP. zn. PL. ÚS 56/05, SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

24/07, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 42/08, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 33/09 dated March 29. 9.2010 (N

205/58 SbNU 827; 332/2010 Sb.) or SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/08]. Despite the above

mentioned deficits which forms a comprehensive amendment

inevitably arise, the Constitutional Court did not consider it necessary laws as follows

received.



135. Your access to comprehensive amendments then Constitutional Court


summed up in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/08 so that the "so called. complex

amendments are no longer part of the reglementového rights in

The Czech Republic. On the basis thereof shall be approved and the constitutional laws.

The Constitutional Court has not yet had reason to challenge this procedure or in

the case that came as a Committee of the Chamber of Deputies initiative

When discussing the Bills (the usual case), nor in the

If this initiative originates in fact from the Government, which

This sought to eliminate the adverse effects of political proposals.

Rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, the concept of a comprehensive amendment

does not know. It is one of the institutes of parliamentary practice, which, however,

moves within the limits of the constitutional order, when the draft law under discussion in the

the basis of the legislative initiatives of the authorized claimant under art. 41

paragraph. 2 of the Constitution ..., but the basis for the negotiations is just a complex

amendment ... However, this does not mean that a subject with law

legislative initiative ceases to be a â € špánem design ', since it is

still about his legislative initiative. Therefore, the only one with this proposal

(albeit in the form of a comprehensive amendment) has and can

take it back without further into the end of debate on the second reading, in which

on the basis of a comprehensive amendment of the legislative

the initiative involved (§ 64 in conjunction with § 86 para. 6 of law No. 90/1995 Coll.

of the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies), with the approval of the Chamber of Deputies

even in the third reading "(paragraph 40). The Constitutional Court in that award

He recalled that on the basis of a comprehensive amendment were

approved two key components of the constitutional order, and that the Charter

fundamental rights and freedoms and the Constitution (paragraph 41).



136. The Constitutional Court did not consider it inconsistent with the constitutional principles

the legislative process, even if it was a comprehensive amendment

introduced into the law a new Institute or being designed by the master

It did not contain. The material was the same subject of rights in rem link

editing. For example. in the above-cited finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/08

judged by the Constitutional Court complex amendment to the amendment

the law on courts and judges (No. 314/2008 Coll.), with a comprehensive

Amendment of constitutional legal Committee (print 425/1, the House

the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 5. the term) include also

topics in the Bill (425, 5. voting period) included

(appointment of judicial officers and removal or introduction of their

the functional period). The substantive link the same subject

(the regulation of the activities of the courts and judges), however, was retained. As well as

The Constitutional Court did not find in the report SP. zn. PL. ÚS 25/07 of 13 March 2002. 3.2008

(N 56/48 SbNU 791; 160/2008 Coll.) defects in the legislative process in relation

to the contested Act No. 181/2007 Coll., on the Institute for the study of totalitarian

procedures and on the archives of the security services and amending certain acts,

Although this law was adopted on the basis of a comprehensive amendment

the proposal, which according to the actual representation of the Chamber of Deputies (point 16 of the

the award) "brought a major conceptual change" compared with the submitted design.



137. In the case under consideration now is not disputed, that the substantive point of view,

how the original Bill [Bill members Romana Sklenáka,

Jerome Tejce, and the other on the issue of the law amending the Act No.

218/2002 Coll., on the service of civil servants in administrative authorities and

the remuneration of these staff, and other employees in administrative

offices (business law), print, 71], so a comprehensive amendment

[proposal for a Deputy Jan Chvojky (71/10, or 71/12)] concern in General

the plane of the identical, i.e., edit legal fabric of the relationships of employees of the State

within the meaning of article 87(1). paragraph 79. 2 of the Constitution, there is, however, present a new, Constitutional

the Court has not yet neřešený aspect of complex amendments,

the replacement of the amendment to the Act brand new law.



138. In this context, then, the Constitutional Court notes that the assessment of the

the context of a comprehensive amendment to the pozměňovanou template

You cannot only apply to the assessment of the conformity of the subject of legal regulation, but

also to the purpose of the comprehensive amendment tracks, IE. as to whether

its purpose is still mangled, or replacement by a master. Otherwise,

speaking, it is essential that the amendment still formally amends

a template, or it is replaced by the new draft law, which has not been

the content of the initiative.



139. In this connection, the Constitutional Court once again stresses the already above

the conclusion that "the need to distinguish the legislative initiative and amendment

the proposal, due to increased compliance with the constitutional claims to the former

appointed, can be inferred that the amendment should really only

modify the proposed legislation therefore should not even fundamentally

change, in principle, extend, and the less should move outside the

the subject of legislative initiative, and the draft law "(find SP. zn. PL.

TC 77/06, paragraph 49). The amendment is to be referred to the Constitutional Court "

the nature of the proposal an ancillary to a design that has been filed in the form of

legislative initiative pursuant to article. 41 of the Constitution. Therefore, § 63 para. 1 point 5

(a). and) rules of procedure of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

... demands that it emitted, expand or alter some of the

part of the â € špůvodního design ' "(find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 56/05, paragraph 41).



140. the requirement of akcesorického relation amendment to draft

Bill, a request for a mere alteration of the master in the form of amendment

the proposal, however, is not now the case under examination, as

proposal template (having the form of a novelizačních points in relation to the original

the staff of the new Act) revise the amending points, or form of

novelizačních points does not change, but the form of the amendment replaces by new

the law.



141. From the above perspective, it is so necessary to regard the applicant that

a comprehensive amendment, from which came the now challenged the law,

does not match the requirements of § 63 para. 1 point 5 (b). and the rules of procedure)

The Chamber of Deputies, or does not meet the requirement of akcesority in relation to the

the draft law, as the Constitutional Court required. Itself a form of

a comprehensive amendment, while the Constitutional Court tolerated,

However, it is permissible in the form of a comprehensive amendment to submit the

in the second reading the draft of the new law, which from the nature of things cannot

alter or add to the original template.



142. The case-law of the Constitutional Court, however, shows that even when the reunion

formal defects in the legislative process is not accessed without further

"automatically" to the derogation of the legislation, which of the following defective

the legislative process came: "in finding no. 37/2007 Coll., Constitutional Court

... to point out that any assessment of similar policy violations

the legislative process in the past, joining together with the test of proportionality in

principles of the protection of legitimate confidence of citizens in law, legal

certainty and acquired rights, possibly in relation to the other constitutional order

the basic principles, protected the rights, freedoms and public goods. The constitutional

the Court therefore had to assess the other circumstances of the case, not his

the role was limited to the review of hundreds of procedural misconduct of both

Chambers and their governing bodies, without any impact on the

the assessment of the material of the constitutionality of the rule of law. If the Constitutional Court

He began as follows by a reasoned proposals for repeal of the law suit from only

referred to procedural reasons on the border of the constitutional order and the

reglementového rights, created by the State of considerable legal uncertainty

particularly where there would otherwise be contested the law was not in terms of

the content can be above reproach. It was therefore to be assessed and the circumstances

that should lead to the Constitutional Court to restrict only to

a review of the observance of the close relationship between the original proposal and the amendment "

(find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 56/05, paragraph 44). In that finding, as the constitutional

the Court concluded that, despite the failure to comply with the requirements of the legislative

the process will not proceed to the derogation of the contested act. "In this case would

the formal repeal of the legislation ... has meant danger, when identical

the adjustment will be accepted again, only with the difference that the compliance with the

all the requirements of the legislative process. The Constitutional Court concluded

that, in the present case, the formal and procedural aspects of the review

pulling back from the standpoint of the principle of proportionality, the requirements of the principles of

the material law, legal certainty and effective protection

the constitutionality of "(paragraph 45). That finding is, moreover, relies on your

observations of the Government that also here "publicly declares its readiness to

resubmit into the legislative process, the same legislation ".



143. In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 55/10 (see above), the Constitutional Court further

distinguish "between whether the defect in question with regard to the legislative

process at all the conditions were met for the adoption of a specific law (eg.

because of the absence of the consent of one of the ventricles) or whether it is a defect in the

as a result she was hit by the constitutional order guaranteed rights

each of the participants of the legislative process, the use of which is fully


their ". The Constitutional Court reminded that it is not its role

"to examine, whether the discussion of the Bill constitutionally Conformal procedure

led to a different result (the content of the Act) than it was on the basis of faulty

procedure. Its mission is to protect the constitutional principles, which are to

prescribed procedure. " At the same time, however, is obliged to "take into account and

to other contexts, in particular to take into account the potential impact on the private

the person in terms of respect for the principle of legal certainty and good faith in

the validity of the law "(paragraphs 103-105).



144. The Constitutional Court had to consider whether it is possible to give in terms of

the principle of proportionality, take precedence over the derogations regulation "requirements

the principles of the material law, legal certainty and effective

the protection of constitutionality "and also assess" possible implications for private persons

from the point of view of respect for the principle of legal certainty and good faith in the validity of the

the law ".



145. As well as the Constitutional Court had to take into account the balance

the basic constitutional purposes for which in its case-law formulated by

the requirements on the quality of the legislative process, and assess the level of their

prejudice. The requirements on the quality of the legislative process is not an end in themselves.

Despite the fact that the Constitution nor any other part of the constitutional order of the most

aspects of the legislative process explicitly does not address, IE. nezakotvuje

requirements for the quality or content of the amendments, although the Constitutional

the Constitutional Court, the relevance of these important constitutional protection requirements

values, or constitutional purposes, through which it is then possible to procedure

infringing the right to podústavní (rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies) to consider

also the procedure unconstitutional. These values are typically legal

certainty and predictability of law as rule of law components or loose

competition of political parties and the protection of minorities, in particular the right of parliamentary

the opposition (see paragraph 124).



146. the difference in the situation where a defect in the legislative process will be

consist e.g.. in the absence of the consent of one of the Chambers, and goes about the apparent

contradiction with the formal requirement of the Constitution, or. Another constitutional law on

the one hand, and the situation when the unconstitutionality of violating podústavního

law (rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies) dovozována with the General

the constitutional principles, which can then be considered way or the degree of prejudice

the constitutional purpose (principle), for whose protection the Constitutional Court

formulates requirements on the quality of the legislative process, e.g. whether or not

on the form or the quality of the amendments.



147. it is therefore also Important to assess the extent to which were contested

the procedure without prejudice to the principles of legal certainty and predictability in the law (such as

the components of the rule of law), which are important constitutional purposes for

the protection occurs to some legal konstitucionalizaci

the requirements placed on the legislative process. It is equally important

to assess whether the alleged infringement of the rights of the Government of namítanému.

other bodies of the legislative process.



148. As regards the rights of the individual bodies of the legislative process, it is

no doubt that proponents of the amendment of the staff regulations to Act No. 218/2002 Coll.

members of the Roman Sklenák, Jerome Tejc and others remained "masters of design" and

they could at any time until their second reading to take a proposal back, even

twice, having regard to the fact that the second reading was repeated and

a comprehensive amendment submitted (after the political discussions and in

some modified form) repeatedly. As stated above, the Constitutional Court

not yet a reason to call into question the practice of complex amendments or

in the event that "should this initiative originates in fact from the Government, which

This sought to eliminate the adverse effects of political proposals ", which is

even now, the case is underlined by the fact that the Government draft law

a group of MPs expressed negatively (Government resolution dated 8 January

2014, the printing house 71/1).



149. The de facto Government's role in the legislative process leading to the adoption of

the contested act is closely connected with the alleged defect in the legislative

the process relating to the disposal of the Government of the right to submit its opinion on the

the draft law (de facto to a comprehensive amendment, which

the basis for the contested act). Rekapitulovaného observations from the top

the Government, it is clear that the Government not only does not feel prejudice neumožněním performance

its constitutional competence to express to each of the draft law within the meaning of

article. 44 para. 1 of the Constitution, on the contrary, on the origin of complex

the revised draft law reports.



150. The Government referred to the material called "Factual overview of the complex

the amendment to the printing house No 71, which was presented to the

professional discussion before processing the text itself of the complex

amendment and was available on the website

The Chamber of Deputies (Note 1), your objective, resolved to instantiate

the topics "to implement. Tejcovy amendment to the staff regulations of the law

(print no. 71) that are required for efficient, professional,

public interest in defending and apolitical civil service. The g/l entry is

divided into areas and primarily dedicated to requirements,

that so-called. Tejcova the amendment either does not contain, or have to be newly

define. The award is therefore not affect all aspects of the law, but

above all, change. This document confirms the default political agreement

the coalition of parties that will be legislated-technically finalised

a group of legislativců in the Office of the Government. In the case of a variety of possible solutions

the document contains variants for professional discussion. Factual overview allows you to

active involvement of all members and MPs to support debate on the form of

a comprehensive amendment to the amendment to the law and the application of

their critical comments before the competent committees of the Chamber of Deputies

the Chamber of deputies will begin to discuss the proposal with his paragrafového. It will also be

When the Office of the Government established political-expert group of representatives of the

political parties and representatives of the Office of the Government (UV), Ministry of finance

(MF) and the Ministry of labour and Social Affairs (MoLSA), dopracuje

the proposal in the area of pay and education. The so-called coalition amendment will

publicly discussed with the administrative authorities, the opposition, trade union representatives and

non-profit organizations. "



151. From the observations sent by the Government to the Constitutional Court, as well as from above

referred to "a substantive overview of the comprehensive amendment to the

House print. 71 "it is noticeable that the forthcoming comprehensive

the amendment was a Government initiative on the basis of the agreement of coalition

party.



152. The Constitutional Court in the findings, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06 and SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

39/08 approvingly mentioned the view of jurisprudence, that "the Government should in the so-called.

comprehensive amendments to insist on their right to comment on the

the draft law according to art. 44 of the Constitution, because in fact it is the

covert a new legislative initiative "(Kysela, j. Making law in the Czech Republic:

truchlohra with a happy ending? The legal rapporteur, 2006, no. 7). With the knowledge

This approach to the Constitutional Court so anything the Government is against the content

or form a comprehensive amendment to object or take on your

observations pursuant to art. 44 of the Constitution, was the appellant's contention that it would

the Government was on their right truncated. Each Member of the Government has the right to

attend meetings of the Chamber of Deputies with the right of priority (article.

38 para. 1 of the Constitution). The Constitutional Court in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/08 addition

in assessing the possible shortening of the rights of the Government to the Bill express

consider the absence of a formal expression of Government decide to

a comprehensive amendment, but de facto the role of Government in

the legislative process, respectively. in relation to the comprehensive

amendment, while taking into account e.g. also concurring

representation of the Member of the Government during a parliamentary debate.



153. From stenozáznamů from 12. and 14. meeting of the Chamber of Deputies (7. electoral

period) when dealing with the press, however, does not imply anything like 71 and de facto

the procedure of the Government (or its members) when discussing print 71 about nothing

a similar day. The Government has on the contrary to the origin and content of the comprehensive

amendment in the observations sent to the Constitutional Court.

However, formally expressing Government to a comprehensive amendment

missing, in fact, was not in any way affect the rights of the Government, as the Government itself has been

the initiator of the comprehensive amendment and should be able to at any time

during the legislative process, so if the applicant's argument about the

shortening the constitutional competence of the Government, to notify or

directly to claim their right to express themselves.



154. It can therefore be concluded that, in order to be one of the purposes of derogačního intervention

The Constitutional Court's protection of the rights of the Government to comment on the draft law, the

this purpose in the case under examination now absentuje.



155. as regards the possible prejudice to the rights of other entities of the legislative

process, stressed the Constitutional Court in the above mentioned findings, SP. zn. PL.

TC 55/10 and SP. zn. PL. ÚS 53/10, that members of Parliament shall have

a real opportunity to get acquainted with the contents of the proposal and to take

its opinion in the context of its discussion in the appropriate Chamber of the

Parliament or in its institutions, which must have a sufficient time.

The purpose is to enable the adoption of reasons for confrontation or not


the relevant draft law, when representatives of the people must publicly justify

and defend their proposals and the public has the opportunity to check their

activity. This confrontation of positions on the parliamentary ground is also

the guarantee of free competition of political forces (article 5 of the Constitution).



156. In the case under consideration now, however, to the prejudice of the rights of the parliamentary minority

avoid, or it is not even explicitly argued. As indicated above, the

already the substantive intent of the comprehensive amendment was submitted not only

Parliamentary, but also broader public discussion (cf. for example.

The reconstruction of the State for an outline of a comprehensive amendment

to print the House No 71 of 25 April. 2.2014, available at

http://rekonstrukcestatu.cz/cs/archiv-news/8076-vyjadreni-to-vecnemu-

knowledge-komplexniho-pozmenovaciho-60% chance-to-print-snemovnimu-c-71).

The first version of a comprehensive amendment (71/8) included also

justification. In addition, as regards the relevance of the justification to Amendment

the proposal, in its reply, the applicant itself stated that "there is no doubt that the absence of

the explanatory memorandum to a comprehensive amendment itself still

does not lead to neústavnosti of the Act ".



157. For completeness, it should be added that the data available on the Web

the Chamber of Deputies website

(http://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw? o = 7 t & = 71), as well as the observations of the

The Chamber of Deputies as interested party shows that all statutory

the time limits for the consideration of the press have been observed 71.



158. It can be concluded that also the constitutional purpose of protecting other

the bodies of the legislative process in the case under consideration was not affected.

In contrast, the approach of the Government, which has been a de facto initiator and creator of

a comprehensive amendment, can be traced rather efforts to

transparent and open access.



159. as indicated above, an important constitutional purposes of the constitutional

the Court monitors when you examine the constitutional souladnosti of the legislative process,

It is also the clarity and predictability of the law or the rule of law as

a whole (find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06, paragraph 39). in connection with the so-called.

"classified laws" (the same findings, paragraph 54), when the Parliament's amendment

added to the law regulating the scope of factually distinct area is not

thematically, in the name of the law and is becoming so in the legal order

hidden. This constitutional purpose, on the basis of which enunciated the Constitutional Court

the quality requirements of the amendments, however, in the case under consideration

Once again, as a result of absentuje present a legislative

the process is the approval of an entirely new law on civil service, which

cannot be considered as an unpredictable and hidden part of the rule of law,

that would be the addressees of the law when working with any legal order to deceive her.



160. the value of legal certainty it is when the amount indicated the necessity of weighing

abrogation of the law on the one hand and nepřistoupení to derogation on the side

the second present on both sides. On the one hand, in the case

When the law is adopted in a manner contrary to the rules of the rules of procedure

The Chamber of Deputies, on the other hand, however, may affect the right whether or not

the derogations follows the adopted Bill. When considering the intensity of the interference with the

the value of legal certainty, whether by legislative procedure, or

on the contrary, the possible derogations to the contested act, the Constitutional Court had to take into

consideration of the specific situation related to the completely laws by State

services in the Czech Republic. Act No. 218/2002 Coll., which was to be the proposal

Act members of the Sklenáka, Tejce and other extensively amended, should

recover after a few delays the effectiveness of up to 1. January 2015 (to the minor

exceptions), in the same moment (again on the minor exceptions) as now

the contested Act No. 234/2014 Coll. on State service. Seen thus, optics

the constitutional purpose of legal certainty, predictability, and clarity (

the rule of law), it must be stated that the purpose is not fundamentally

prejudice in a situation where "the entry" of the legislative process, there is the amendment

the law, which has extensively changed for twelve years valid, already thirty times

the revised, but still (with minor exceptions) the ineffective law

governing the status of public servants, and the "output" section of this

There is a process rather than an extensive amendment to the original Bill, but the new

the law, which governs the terms of editing the same item. Moment

the effectiveness of legal provisions, the civil service of the original Act

2002 (as amended by a number of his novels, including the forthcoming extensive amendment to the members of the

Sklenáka, Tejce, and others) on the one hand, and the completely new edit contained

in the contested Law on State service on the other hand was

the same as. In terms of the law, therefore, is not about mailing a situation that would

undermining the principle of legal certainty so fundamentally as a possible derogation

following the adopted Regulation.



161. By contrast, the contested act in derogation from the principle of legal certainty and the

confidence in the right hit very significantly, for all employees of the State

the management, who are switching to the mode of the civil service, then what

Twenty-two years after the effectiveness of the Constitution managed to consistently fill her

article. paragraph 79. 2, and implement a system of the civil service, once again after a few

months of the effectiveness of the law found themselves in a State of legal uncertainty about the

the functioning of the entire State administration, or its human resources base.



162. Referred to as a result of any postponement would prevent or

the enforcement of the finding, since it cannot be derogačního, just from the perspective of the protection of

of legal certainty, to the activities of the State administration and the functioning of the new

the civil service has been exposed to persistent uncertainty about whether in the

a defined period of time (the deferral of the enforceability of the award) can

enforce and approve the same or a similar version of the law on government service. In

If the contrary should the enforceability of the award was derogačního personnel

the basis of the State administration of the Czech Republic in a State of legal vacuum. It is necessary to

Once again recalled that the reason for this derogation should not protect entities

the legislative process that would feel without prejudice to the procedure that violates the

the rules of the legislative process, but the protection objective values

arising from the principle of the rule of law, the violation of the defective

the legislative process it represents. Implications of the derogation should, however, have been just

in terms of the principles of the rule of law, disproportionate.



163. it is thus necessary to see the difference in the legislation which the derogation in

the time of the enforcement derogačního the award has not yet been effective, or not

still applied, and regulation, according to which is crucial

the reform of the human resource base of public administration in the Czech Republic. On this

aspect, moreover, the Constitutional Court has already pointed out in the report SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

56/05, where in relation to the first of the finds that the question of limits

the amendments dealt with the "přílepku" embedded in the law on

banks said: "you cannot ignore the fact that, in the case of a finding of no.

37/2007 Coll. were unrealized law. In pioneering

the case of the article. (II) and article. (III) Law No 443/2006 Coll., amending Act

No 319/2001 Coll., amending Act No. 21/1992 Coll., on banks, in

as amended, the law has not been applied yet. In addition to the

It was his application essentially one-off. " (point

45).



164. In terms of the security of the legal anchoring of the civil service cannot be

overlooked or objections against the absence of State services in the United

Republic in the long term also came from the European Union, or

the fact that the major financial resources of the Czech pumping

Republic of the European Union funds was subject to being by State

the service. It should be also noted that the existence of State services as a

a condition of entry into the European Union before the accession of the Czech Republic

The European Union is satisfied just by the adoption of law No. 218/2002 Coll.

that, however, never regained (with minor exceptions), as its effectiveness

the effectiveness of the subsequent twelve years was postponed last to date 1.

January 2015. With regard to the obligations of the Czech Republic to the European Union

cannot be any derogatory action in relation to the contested Law

an appropriate response in relation to misconduct that a defect of the legislative

the process has generated.



165. the Constitutional Court thus concluded that, in terms of the way in the adoption of

the contested act in violation of § 63 para. 1 point 5 (b). and)

rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, that is, from the perspective of the present

the case-law of the Constitutional Court to misconduct, which is also in contradiction with the

The Constitution. The Constitutional Court cannot aprobovat the procedure, in which the amendment is

the law (here the amendment Service Act No. 218/2002 Coll.) replaced when

a hearing in the House of representatives in the form of a comprehensive amendment

the design of an entirely new law (here the contested Act No. 234/2014 Coll.

Government service). There is then populated with the akcesority amendment request

the proposal, which requires that the amendment merely pozměňoval or

complement the original template, not replace it entirely new law,

even if it was the same, in substance, is the subject of legal regulation.



166. At the same time, however, the Constitutional Court had to consider whether any derogation

the contested act was not in conflict with the values of the material of the legal


the State of legal certainty and effective protection of constitutionality (article 1, paragraph 1,

article. 83 of the Constitution), and came to the conclusion that the protection of those values in the

the case under consideration now outweighs the interest in the derogation of the contested

the law, as explained above in paragraphs 142-164.



167. the political reasons that the Government gave rise to the said procedure, and that

the Government distributes rekapitulovaném in its observations above, it is not for

The Constitutional Court assessed.



168. the Constitutional Court for annulment of the Act No. 234/2014 Coll.

civil service did not find the reason.



VII.



The assessment of the constitutionality of each of the contested provisions of law No.

234/2014 Coll. on State service



VII./a



General starting points in the review of compliance with the constitutional provisions of the Act

policy



169. The Constitutional Court over the long term in the case of proceedings for review of legal

legislation highlights the principle of the primacy of the law constitutionally consistent interpretation

or its individual provisions before the derogations, that is

the duty of all public authorities interpret and apply the law of the

taking into account the requirement of the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms (article 1, paragraph 1, and

article. 4 of the Constitution).



170. As highlighted by the Constitutional Court for example. in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 44/03 of

on 5 July 2004. 4.2005 (N 73/37 SbNU 33; 249/2005 Coll.), in the democratic legal

the State which is seen primarily as a physical law, cannot be

allow the use of valid legal provisions in a manner contrary

some of the fundamental constitutional principles. The obligation of the courts to find

the right to not only search for direct, specific and explicit instructions in

the legal text, but also the obligation to identify and formulate what is

a specific law, even where it comes to the interpretation of abstract standards,

the constitutional principles, the provisions of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms and obligations

arising from international agreements. Of the many conceivable interpretations of the law

Therefore, you must in any case use only such an interpretation, which

respects the constitutional principles (if such an interpretation is possible), and to the cancellation of

provisions of the Act for unconstitutionality proceed only if you cannot

the provisions in question apply without was the constitutionality of the violated (the principle

minimize interference with the competence of other public authorities).



171. the alleged uncertainty range of the contested provisions, respectively.

inconsistency in some parts of the contested act, the Constitutional Court notes

that "the uncertainty of a rule of law should be considered as

for rozpornou with the requirement of legal certainty and, therefore, the rule of law (article.

1 (1). 1 of the Constitution), only if the intensity of this uncertainty

excludes the possibility of determination of its normative content using the usual

the interpretative procedures "[e.g. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 10/06 dated 13.

3.2007 (N 47/44 SbNU 603; 163/2007 Coll.) or find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 44/03

(see above)].



172. In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 56/05 then the Constitutional Court stressed that

"the lack of clarity in the legislation must delete the case-law of general courts

and remove any fragmentation in decision-making in general courts

the competence of the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court has already held that multiple times

in this area you may enter only in the case when at the same time it is a

a violation of the constitutional order, and unpredictability, uncertainty and inaccuracy

the legislation interferes with the basic requirements for extremely law in

the conditions of the rule of law. "



173. the constitutional dimension is typically given by, where is the unpredictability of

the impact of the legislation in the sphere of constitutionally guaranteed rights. For example. in

a satisfactory finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 2/97 of 2 June 1997 7.1997 (N 91/8 SbNU

325; 186/1997 Coll.), to which the applicant refers, it was also about the cancellation of

laws affecting personal freedom guaranteed in article. 8

Of the Charter.



VII./b



The assessment of the constitutionality of § 1 (1). 2, § 11 (1) 3, § 14 para. 2, § 15

paragraph. 3, § 16, § 78 (a). (c)), § 85 para. 5, § 172, 173, 178, § 184

paragraph. 2, s. 189-tempered violation of the principle of predictability,

clarity and control of the legal system and the indirect amendments

the labour code



174. The Text of the contested provisions is as follows (marginal headings,

designation of sections. introductory paragraph, which are not contested, the design are in the

some parts of the left and, for convenience, in brackets):



"[§ 1]



(2) this Act regulates the organizational matters relating to the staff

in the administrative offices, who work in basic employment relationship.



[Staff Regulation]



[section 11]



(3) Service provision is binding for the State employee; business

the code is binding even for the staff in the employment of the executing

activities pursuant to section 5 and for a person in prison service under another act

Unable to perform service in the staff of the Office. Business Office is obliged to

to ensure that these persons were duly brought to the attention of the service regulations and

should have access to them.



...



[section 14]



[The head of the staff of the Office]



(2) the head of the staff of the Office also carries out the tasks related to the

labour relations of the employees in the Administrative Office.



...



[section 15]



[Secretary of State]



(3) the Secretary of State also performs tasks related to labour

relations of employees in the Administrative Office.



...



section 16 of the



Specific provisions on the implementation of some of the tasks of the staff regulations of the authority



Business Office supervisor in organizational matters, business services

the relations of civil servants and employees in employment relations

Administrative Office tasks for a business office, in which the service carries out or in

the service has a total of less than 25 people, and for the district mining

Office, District Social Security Administration, the regional Inspectorate

work, the Board of the financial Directorate or the tax office.



...



[section 78]



[Introduced is also required to]



(c)) perform the duties of the employees against a child of the employee

under the labour code,



...



[paragraph 85]



(5) paragraphs 1 to 4 shall apply mutatis mutandis for the employee in employment

executing the activities under section 5 and for a person in the staff ratio according to the

another law, included to the service performance in the staff of the Office.



...



§ 172



Systemising jobs



For the determination of systemising jobs of employees in the Administrative Office of the

§ 17 and 18 shall apply mutatis mutandis, with the number of jobs the Deputy member of the Government and

employees who perform work for the Member of the Government, including employees

listed in the Member of the Government Cabinet, or employees who perform

work for the Head Office of the Government, and their salary plan specifies, and the volume of

funds for their salaries is proposing the Member of the Government or the head of the

Office of the Government. Member of the Government Cabinet, means a body in the Ministry or

in the Office of the Government in whose jurisdiction it is formulating policies of the solely for

Member of the Government.



...



§ 173



Deputy member of the Government



(1) the Deputy member of the Government is a representative member of the Government, with the exception of things

which Member of the Government's reserves by law. In particular, is entitled to participate in the

as a member of the Government talks of a meeting of the Government and to represent it at the meeting

the Committee or the Commission, the Chamber of Deputies including the Commission of inquiry,

If it is not expressly required the personal participation of Member of the Government, or at the meeting

the Committee or the Commission of the Senate.



(2) the job of Deputy member of the Government is not in the organisational arrangements

the Administrative Office of the degree of control; Member of the Government may have no more than 2 such

Vice Presidents.



(3) a Deputy member of the Government is in an employment relationship with the State and appoints and

refers to the Member of the Government; Deputy member of the Government, which is not

entrusted with the management of the Ministry, is included in the Office of the Government.



...



§ 178



(1) the institution may occupy a business person in the work place

the ratio for a limited period in accordance with labour legislation, if



and a public employee does not perform the service) because of a temporary inability to

service performance for more than 1 calendar month



(b)) a public employee carries out military exercises or extraordinary service,



(c) employee on maternity) a State holiday or State

the employee or civil servant take parental leave,



(d)) has been released from a government employee in services on the basis of the resolution on the

the initiation of a prosecution for the offence, or because of the binding,



(e)) the State employees was discontinued service performance in order to further

education or vocational training,



(f)) was a government employee, or



g) a public employee was placed out of service performance.



(2) an employee referred to in paragraph 1 shall agree on the required

activities as a kind of work in the contract and it must pay according to the

part of the ninth.



(3) the Employees referred to in paragraph 1 shall at his request, will allow to execute

official exam.



...



[§ 184]



[Systemising and systemising jobs]



(2) Systemising under paragraph 1 shall focus in particular on the definition of the

official sites of public servants and employees ' jobs.



...



§ 189



Deputy member of the Government



The former head of an employee who, on the date 1. July 2015 works

as a Deputy member of the Government, unless it is a Deputy under section 188 paragraph. 3

(a). and), is considered as a Deputy member of the Government under section 173 paragraph. 2. "



175. the constitutional stipulation of the claimant with respect to all top-rekapitulovaným


provisions is the claim that the law on civil service in the selected

parts of the "does not correspond to the basic principles of the rule of law, including

not only the principles of predictability and clarity of the law, but also its

internal control "with reference to the above finding in the case rekapitulovaný

legislative "přílepků" SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06. The applicant shall be deemed to

the contested provisions for indirect amendment to the labour code.



176. The Constitutional Court in its assessment of the top rekapitulovaných of the infected

the provisions of the law on civil service does not occur to the conclusion that it is a legal

that would be hated the material requirements of the rule of law,

the normative content would not be possible to determine the usual

methods of interpretation, whether in the context of the contested act and the

the legal system as a whole.



177. the applicant refers to section 4 of the labour code, according to which

"labor relations ... governed by this Act; If you cannot use this

law, is governed by the civil code, and always in compliance with the essential

the principles of industrial relations ", which concludes next

a special regulation concerning any regulation of the labour

relationships.



178. the constitutional basis of this argument, however, is not entirely obvious. In the case of

the alleged collision between two different laws (law on State

the service and the labour code) is necessary in the interpretation of the contested provisions

consider the relationship of specialties and generalities of specific provisions referred to

Regulations (method of interpretation lex specialis derogat legi generali ").

It cannot be argued that the possibility of relevant provisions of the law on intepretace

the civil service of their special nature in relation to the

the General and, secondarily, used the labour code constitutionally excluded.



179. Moreover, section 1 defining the scope of the Civil Service Act states that

the law applies. "the legal relations of public servants

engaged in the administrative offices of the State administration "[para. 1 (a))],

as well as this, that regulates the "organizational matters relating to the staff

in the administrative offices, who work in basic employment relationship "

(the contested paragraph 2). It is not clear from the claimant's argument, why would

should be the interpretation of the special status of the law on the State

Service (or its individual provisions) in relation to the labour code

as constitutionally-conformist eliminated entirely. Any political suitability or

cohesion of that solution is another issue and its evaluation

To the Constitutional Court.



180. This method of interpretation of the relation of the labour code and special provisions

governing the legal relations of certain groups of employees in

legal practice common (e.g. the Act on officials of territorial self-governing

plants or Act No. 553/1991 Coll. on the municipal police, as amended

regulations), and cannot be so considered quirky or standing

completely outside the scope of possible interpretations of the relationship of the law on the civil service and

the labour code, and thus should be inferred that it is not possible, the contested provisions

constitutionally conformally to unload and proceed to their derogation.



181. the same is true of specially formulated a reservation to section 173

(read the position of the Deputy member of the Government), which according to the applicant

"the Civil Service Act does not belong", and rather than challenge

the constitutional conformity of the provision as to the controversy with the adequacy

the selected solution or with the adequacy of the inclusion of the Institute into the Act.

The Constitutional Court overlooked that the law on the civil service, on the

one [§ 2, paragraph 1 (b), (c))] provides that this Act does not apply to

Deputy member of the Government, and in conflict with this definition ratione personae in

section 173 regulates the position of the Deputy member of the Government. This approach is indicative of

uncontrolled legislative technique that leads to a contradiction in the law and also

overlapping of competencies with the Deputy for management section. The request to the

bezrozpornost of the law, however, could reach the constitutional dimension of

When you cannot even with commonly used interpretation of procedures

to reconstruct the intention to zákonodárcův. There is no doubt that the intention

the legislature has been to modify in this law the position of the Deputy member of the Government

and this intention was-although technically a poorly-executed (in law to

According to the internal law would be sufficient in § 2 noted that the Deputy member

the Government does not exercise its function in the staff ratio or something similarly).

Is not a matter of the Constitutional Court to assess the suitability of the material existence of the Deputy

members of the Government in this or a similar position; The Constitution is about the

Deputy member of the Government mentions only in connection with the representation of the Member

Government in the meeting of the Committee, the Commission or the Commission Of inquiry

the Chamber of Deputies (article 38 (2)). Found a contradiction, so does not have a constitutional dimension.



182. In the reply of the applicant are detailed examples of neprovázanosti both

legislation (the labour code and the law on the civil service), and in relation to the

the contested section 178 new constitutional argument resounds in the proposal originally

unlisted, consisting in the fact that this provision is based are unequal

the position between "civil servants" (i.e. persons in the prison service)

and "employees" (i.e. persons in the employment relationship). The inequality

According the appellant in that institution may, under certain

circumstances, to occupy the post by a person in employment for a period of

a in accordance with labour legislation, and the person in the staff

the ratio of had to, unlike the employees in the employment relationship,

meet certain prerequisites.



183. With regard to the distinction between persons in State service mode

and persons in the employment relationship is not based on any of the

the prohibited grounds of the distinction (cf. Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Charter), it can be

the objection to be understood only in terms of inequality, violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness

by the legislature when differentiating between bodies and rights within the meaning of the protection of

equality pursuant to art. 1 of the Charter [cf. e.g. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 36/01 of

on 25 April. 6.2002 (N 80/26 SbNU 317; 403/2002 Coll.)]. Equality within the meaning of

article. 1 of the Charter may be breached only in the case when it comes to inequality

extreme or that lack any purpose and meaning, and it is

so the will of [cf. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 47/04 of 8 May. 3.2005 (N

47/36 SbNU 495; 181/2005 Coll.) or find SP. zn. I. ÚS 173/13 of 20 November 2003.

8. the text of the amending resolution 2014, SP. zn. I. ÚS 173/13 of 10 February. 9.

2014]. The Constitutional Court then assesses the existence of reasonable (rational)

reasons for the different treatment [cf. resolution SP. zn. I. ÚS

3302/1 of 6 September 2005. 2. the 2014 or resolution SP. zn. I. ÚS 4664/12 of 3 April.

4.2014, available at http://nalus.usoud.cz].



184. In the case under consideration the situation occurs when different

persons (persons in the prison service and the person in the employment relationship)

treated identically, i.e.. the law allows a person temporarily working

the proportion occupied by duty station for reasons set out in the Act. However i

equal treatment of different entities may be unequal treatment in

now the Constitutional Court does not see any situation under consideration, that would be a temporary cast

the service places a person in employment (not professional) ratio

It was a manifestation of the arbitrary power zákonodárcovy without rationally acceptable

justification or without purpose or meaning. The reasons for this procedure are

Indeed, the legislature defined exhaustively in the contested section 173 paragraph. 1 and

lie in the temporary impossibility of persons in the prison service (State

employee) exercise. As for reasons entirely rational (temporary

the inability to service performance, military exercises, maternity or parental

holidays, etc.), the purpose of that edit is also apparent, and it

to temporarily resolve the absence of employees in the prison service. With this

also related to the fact that the "provisional measure" is legally possible only

conclusion of a contract for a definite period. The Constitutional Court concluded that the selected

the solution cannot be considered the will of zákonodárcovu establishing a constitutionally

neakceptovatelnou inequality.



VII./c



The assessment of the constitutionality of § 5 para. the alleged violation of article 2. 78 of the Constitution



185. the text of the contested provisions:



"[§ 5]



[Service and service scopes]



(2) the Government shall determine by regulation the scopes of service. "



186. the essential starting point for the assessment of the constitutionality of the above

the provisions of the law on the civil service's article. 78 of the Constitution, which States: "to

implementation of the law and within the limits of the Government is authorised to issue the regulation.

Regulation shall be signed by the Prime Minister and the Member of the Government. "



187. The Government is so authorised to issue government regulation without authorisation in the

the Act, unlike the ministries, other administrative authorities and bodies

local and regional authorities, which may, within the meaning of article 87(1). paragraph 79. 3 of the Constitution issue

pseudo-legislation on the basis and within the law, if they are to

mandated by law.



188. With regard to the fact that the Government has a constitutional privilege (the General

the mandate of the Government Regulation) to do any act, or any of its

provisions, the issue of compliance with the constitutional conditions expressed by the words "towards

implementation of the law "and" in its limits "in the first place the question of the assessment of the

a specific government regulations, rather than the legal authorization, as this Government

to its regulatory activities. In General, therefore, that the derogation


any legal authorization to issue a government regulation does not change the

the power of the Government to issue a regulation, since it is based on its own Constitution in

article. 78.



189. In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 45/2000 (see above), the Constitutional Court when

review of Government Regulation (not legal authorization) stated: "[uu] exhibition

the definition of a derived standardisation Executive rests on the following

principles:-regulation must be issued to authorized body-regulation

cannot intervene in the Affairs of the reserved Act cannot, therefore, lay down (

the primary rights and obligations),-must be the obvious will of the legislator to

modify the above the legal standard (must be open space for sphere

Regulation). "



190. In the case under consideration now, it is clear that the Act is empowered to

the competent authority (the Government), and clear and the will of the legislator to modify the above

as though the legal standard to the general mandate in the Constitution

the legislature expressly authorises the Government to modify the questions in the Act in detail

that are not covered.



191. in assessing the constitutionality of the legal authorization itself will be

essential to assess whether legal authorization from the diction is not obvious that

the legislature hereby authorises the Government to normotvorbě, it is not constitutionally mandated.



192. Typically, this will be a situation where the Government was empowered to modify the questions

constitutionally reserved to the legislature, for example. saving primary obligations

(article 4, paragraph 1, of the Charter) or setting the limits of fundamental rights and freedoms

(article 4, paragraph 2, of the Charter). A number of objections to the Act contains also the Constitution (e.g..

article. 20, art. 22 paragraph 1. 1, art. 24, art. 27 para. 3, art. paragraph 79. 1 and 2, and

For more). So in the past, the Constitutional Court annulled the legal authority, that

was the Government to regulate the areas dedicated to the law pursuant to art. 31

The Charter of rights and freedoms [SP. zn. PL. ÚS 35/95 of 10 October 1995. 7.

1996 (N 64/5 SbNU 487; 206/1996 Coll.)] or statutory authority, which in

contrary to the article. 39 of the Charter of delegated the definition of the constituent elements of

the offence to the Government Regulation [find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 13/12 of 23 July.

7.2013 (N 126/70 SbNU 147; 259/Sb.)]. In both the findings of the constitutional

the Court stressed that it is unacceptable that the sphere of the protection of fundamental

rights and freedoms came under the jurisdiction of the Executive, which is not

justified. In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 13/12 the Constitutional Court with reference to the

the finding of the Constitutional Court of the Czechoslovak Republic no mouth. 120/22-2/10

of 7 November. November 1922 (official sheet of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1922:

284, 5605-5608) reminded that already in the early days of building democratic

States in the territory of the country, it was concluded that the legislative act containing the

Verily the delegation of legislative power to the Government would change the Constitutional Charter

the fact that they have not yet joined the neobsaženou reservation, that much legislative

shall be exercised by the National Assembly only in so far as it nedelegovalo to the Government.



193. in addition, it will be a situation where it is from the actual wording of the legal authorization

apparent that the legislature imposing a government regulation issues standing

outside of the course carried out by the law (i.e. outside the limits of the content and the purpose of

carried out the Act). The limits of subordinate Governments required by article standardisation.

78 of the Constitution would then it could not be inferred from the enabling itself

the provisions of the law, or undertaken as a whole. As the constitutional

the Court in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 17/95 of 25 October. 10.1995 (N 67/4 SbNU

157; 271/1995 Coll.), the Government "does not need an explicit delegation in the

the Act, however, the regulation cannot diverge for legal limits-cannot, therefore,

be praeter legem. In other words, it must keep within the law, which

are either defined explicitly or arise from the meaning and purpose of the law. "



194. Most problematic situations can then be authorised to issue

Government regulation in areas where there has been within the meaning of article 87(1). 10A of the Constitution to the

delegation of powers to a supranational organization or body, IE. where

the national authority cannot exercise their competence to the extent

which to transfer powers under art. 10A of the Constitution there [to CF.

find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 50/04 of 8 May. 3.2006 (N 50/40 SbNU 443;

154/2006 Coll.), which, however, dealt with this issue in the context of

the assessment of the constitutionality of government regulations, rather than the legal authorization].



195. However, if a legal warrant for any of the above deficits

does not have, will be assessed in terms of fulfilling the conditions of article. 78 of the Constitution

to specific government regulations, which can be based on its content and

the wording of the inferred that moves within the law, or whether these limits

exceeds.



196. the applicant challenges the § 5 para. 2 of the law on the civil service, with the

"the provisions do not provide for the limits within which you want to move, and Government regulations

cannot be inferred or interpretation is probably the law ". As has already been the top

stated limits for Government Regulation may not result from a specific

the legal provisions enabling (here an infected § 5 para. 2), which

Indeed, the Government to its constitutional mandate, thanks to normotvorbě

or does not need, but can be dovozeny "from the meaning and purpose of the Act".



197. In § 5 para. 1 (b). a) to t) lays down the law on government service enumeration

activities that defines as a "service" [legislative stands for State

the service, introduced in section 1 (1). 1 (b). (b)) of the law on the civil service]. In § 1, and

2 is then defined the subject of the edit and the scope of the law on State

the service. Does not occur here when the Government imposes a mandate edited

questions of law reserved or edit questions present apparently

excluding the subject of the legal provisions, and when it is no longer just the legal diction was

clearly, the Government in the issue of the regulation cannot move "within the limits of

the law "as it under the Constitution.



198. the content and purpose of the Act, in particular its § 5 para. 1

defining activities falling under civil service can be inferred in

where is the Government when its regulatory activities will move. Scopes

the services are therefore not a thematic area that would be passed outside the content and

the purpose of the law on the civil service, as it is not a question which would

It can be inferred from the constitutional order of reservation law. The assessment of

whether a particular government regulation moves within the law, it is then no longer

things to review that government regulation.



VII./d



The assessment of the constitutionality of § 21 para. 3, § 104 paragraph. the alleged violation of article 3.

78 of the Constitution



199. The contested provisions § 21 para. 3 and § 104 paragraph. 3 of the law on State

the Constitutional Court shall examine together with regard to the alleged the same reason

the unconstitutionality of the relevant provisions.



200. the text of the contested provisions:



"[article 21]



(3) other cases in which, having regard to the specific nature of the service

take the person to the service for a specified period, determined by the Government

by regulation.



...



[LEAVE]



[Obstacles in the State employee-side and leave]



[§ 104]



(3) the Government may by regulation establish further obstacles in the service, for which the

It is for the State employees salary. "



201. In § 21 para. 2 the civil service statute provides that "[d] of the staff regulations

the ratio of fixed-term always accepts the person that has successfully

has not exercised his official exam. For a fixed period may be accepted per person

also in cases where it is necessary to replace a temporarily absent

employee. " The contested provisions of § 21 para. 3 of the Act then

allows the Government to establish other cases where it is possible to

to accept a person into the service for a specified period, and it "s

given the particular nature of the services ". According to the appellant, the concept of

"the particular nature of the services" vague, and therefore in breach of article. 78 of the Constitution.



202. Similarly, § 104 paragraph. 2 of the law on the civil service provides that

cases when barriers in the service belongs to the employees salary.

The contested provisions of § 104 paragraph. 3 of the Act then sets out again,

the Government may by regulation establish further obstacles in the service, for which the

It is for the State employees salary. Conflict with the article. 78 of the Constitution here

the applicant considers that there is, in fact, that it is the determination of the conditions "over the

the framework of the law ".



203. As a preliminary point, the Constitutional Court refers to all the above,

When it comes to assessing the compliance of legal authorization to issue a regulation

the Government with the constitutional order. Again, now that the Constitutional Court does not consider the

the constitutionality of a particular government regulation, but only to the constitutionality of the statutory

the mandate.



204. the legislature Will modify some of the questions the Government over regulation

the legal standard is from both the contested provisions clear diction, whether

as to the determination of the possibility of admission to the service for a specified period

or definition of the barriers in the service for which the employee's salary.



205. Neither of the contested provision does not regulate questions for which

reservation is valid, i.e.. that are constitutionally barred to modify in the

the form of a subordinate standardisation.



206. Similarly, the contested provisions nezmocňují the Government to modify the areas,

that is outside the scope of the law, that is, to modify such

questions which would be government regulation must necessarily move out of bounds

the law.



207. as regards the fuzziness of the concept of a contested "the special nature of the service",

again, the limits for the issue of government regulation might not be established

explicitly in the legal provisions empowering the Government to its

normotvorbě or does not need, it is sufficient to infer them from the meaning and purpose of the


the law. However, if you already are the limits in the empowering provisions laid down

vague legal term "the special nature of the service", it should be added that the

given the indeterminate legal concepts are a normal part of the rule of law and

the subject of the standard interpretation of the legislation. As defined by law

a vague legal concept of then State authorities interpret. is

directly in the secondary regulations stipulate, if having a regulatory

powers. As stated in theory of administrative law, "diversity and variability

relationships, the need to take into account all the possible conditions of the application in the light of

to changing circumstances bring with them a fairly wide use of so-called.

indeterminate legal concepts. Indeterminate legal concepts include phenomena or

the fact that you cannot successfully legally define exactly. Their

the content and scope may vary, it is subject to the level of knowledge in the

technical sciences and the time and place of the application of the standard. The legislature creates

space management, to assess whether a particular case belongs to the extent

indeterminate term. Requires its expertise. Somewhere she helps,

try to include as many of the characteristics of things or events,

that has an indefinite term include, sometimes stores that the concept

refined management itself in the implementing legislation "(Hendrych (D).

Administrative law. General part. 8. release. C. h. Beck, 2012, p. 80-81).



208. Once again it would be things to a specific government regulations, assessment

If the regulation of the (albeit vague legal term)

the limits of the vybočilo and found itself in conflict with article. 78 of the Constitution. In itself, however,

the use of indeterminate legal concept for determining the limits of standardisation of the Government

the unconstitutionality.



209. As recalled in the report, the Constitutional Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 13/12, if the

ústavodárce has entrusted a certain competency solely to the law, "ruling out the

other cases possible and desirable secondary editing things

unforeseeable at the time of adoption of the Act, subject to frequent change,

drill down to a particular technicistního character, when the legal basis may

contain only the Essentials ". Just the reasons of

"the special nature of the services" can be (in the words of the cited award SP. zn. PL.

TC 13/12) "unpredictable in the moment of the adoption of the law" or "subject to

frequent changes "and thus eligible to teach advanced podzákonným

legal regulation.



210. In both the contested provisions occurs to the fact that some of the cases

that has otherwise by legal authorization to identify government regulations,

regulated by the Act itself (the cases of admission to employment and for a period of

a in section 21 of the law on government service or performance barriers in the services section

104. the applicant concludes from the above that (specifically in relation to § 104 paragraph.

3) that it is a modification of "beyond the law".



211. the provisions of the two, however, is the apparent will of the legislature, some questions

Edit directly in the law, and some leave to perform by way of regulation

the Government. Unless it is generally about issues for which the reservation applies, so

as it was defined above, this procedure cannot be regarded as unconstitutional.

Reservation of the Act therefore cannot be inferred merely from the fact that some

the questions that the Government has already directly itself, it specifies the

the legislature (e.g. some barriers in the service), if other questions

(other obstacles in) expressly Executive leaves. This

the procedure, while hampering Government legislature to adjust differently those obstacles

in a service, which decided to specify directly the legislature itself, by contrast,

However, the Government allows the explicit mandate to specify obstacles

For more. It's not so much a modification of "beyond the law", for the law with this

by adjusting the counts and expressly confers on the Government of this competency. It is for the

the legislature, which adjusts itself and the area to which empowers the Executive,

or leaves the Government space to her normotvorbě (for example, due to the need

a more flexible response to the new situation) if it is not the content of the mandate of any one

from the above defined cases (above sub VII./c), in which the authorisation can be

It is not (typically the Regulation subject to the Act, in particular the determination of the

obligations or the limits of fundamental rights). In both cases, however, under consideration

statutory violation, in particular, it is not about saving

obligations or of interference with fundamental rights.



212. The limits of subordinate legislation, obstacles in the service can be inferred

of the purpose and meaning of the obstacles in the Institute (or barriers in the

work), as well as the analogous species or type the nature of those obstacles,

that the legislature itself explicitly modified. Although you can't exclude blip is that

Executive power in normotvorbě, which is, however, no longer the question again

the constitutionality of specific implementing legislation.



VII./e



The assessment of the constitutionality of § 145 paragraph. 3-the alleged contradiction with the basic

the principles of the rule of law establishing the legal uncertainty and the possibility of arbitrariness



213. the text of the contested provisions:



"[§ 145]



[Special provisions on tariff and salary grades]



(3) for the new post of State employees, which have

engage in activities not listed in the catalog administrative activities, pay

the class provides for institution with the consent of the Ministry of labour and

Social Affairs and the Ministry of finance. "



214. the applicant considers that the contested provisions conflicting with the basic

the principles of the rule of law, establishing a legal uncertainty and creating,

outside the normative modification contained in Government Regulation (catalog of the administrative

activities), the room for discretion in decision making.



215. as already mentioned above, the Constitutional Court, in the case of proceedings for review of

legislation should always be considered whether there is a constitutionally

Conformal interpretation the contested legal option provision and the

only in the case that constitutional interpretation is not possible, you can

proceed to the derogation of the contested provisions.



216. According to the observations of the Government, the purpose of the contested provisions of the bridge

the period when the business office must immediately start a new exercise

an activity that is not listed in the catalog administrative activities

(the newsletter of the Government Ordinance), until the appropriate

the amendment to the regulations of the Government, that the activity in question in the catalogue of the administrative

activities make up.



217. The statutory provisions is therefore clearly intended to ensure that the possibility of

the determination of the salary of State employees until such time will

the Government Decree defining the catalogue of administrative activities relevant

the activity of the amendments added. In terms of the objectives of the legislation so as to

populate the requirement of article 81(3). 28 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (the right to

workers on fair compensation for the work).



218. The alleged risk of legal uncertainty and arbitrariness resulting from that

However, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court, preventing enough constitutional

the principles, which should be referred to the provisions of optics apply and

to interpret. In determining the grade institution must ensure

the principle of equal treatment in remuneration (for similar work similar

reward) and progresses in the procedural framework contemplated by the Act on

Government service [service proceedings according to section 159-169 of the law on the State

the service, among others. also in matters of decision making on remuneration according to section 159 paragraph. 1

(a). (d))], respectively. in the framework of the applicable banking predicted

of the administrative code (section 160 of the Act on civil service).



219. the Constitutional Court considers that the wording of the contested provision thus

does not conflict with the principles of the rule of law, on the contrary, its constitutionally Conformal

intepretace and, in particular, application is possible, therefore, to derogačnímu intervention

the parties to the Constitutional Court is not given the space.



VII./f



The assessment of the constitutionality of § 22-the alleged contradiction with the fundamental principles

the rule of law



220. the text of the contested provisions:



"§ 22



The basic prerequisite for the admission to employment



Staff can only be taken for a person that can be

assume that they will be on duty to adhere to the democratic principles of the constitutional

order of the Czech Republic and to perform properly. "



221. According to the applicant, the contested provision violates the principles of the rule of

the State as it is "based on subjective, inconclusive and unlimited

believing ".



222. now under consideration, or in the provisions of the Constitutional Court does not find it

unconstitutional defect does not occur, respectively, and concluded that it could not be given

the provisions interpreted constitutionally conformally. The purpose of the contested provision is

apparent, and to ensure the loyalty of the employees of the public service to the State,

or against the constitutional system and constitutional principles. The purpose of the provisions,

the Government in its observations, also with reference to the relevant case-law

stresses, however, is not the subject of the dispute, the subject of the dispute is the only

the wording of the provision.



223. The words "you can assume" but again cannot be interpreted in isolation,

but in the context of the requirements of proof for determining the status of things in

administrative proceedings within the meaning of § 50 et seq. administrative code, and generally

requirements to administrative decisions. As already mentioned above in the

the context of the assessment of the constitutionality of § 145 paragraph. 3, law on State

the service governs procedure in legal services subsidiárním using

Code of administrative procedure, and the procedure according to § 159 paragraph. 1 (b). and)


the law on the civil service, even in matters of adoption leads to employment.



224. the basis for admission to employment and cannot therefore be

the conditions of the material law subjective inconclusive or nothing

Unlimited presumption of public authority, as stated by the applicant. On the contrary,

the decision on admission to employment must be based on factual

State legal evidence, must be properly

justified and, moreover, is subject to judicial review.



225. the applicant in this regard, draws attention to diction section 30 of Act No.

218/2002 Coll., according to which "the services cannot appoint a natural person...,

that cannot be shown to be likely in the service to comply with

the democratic principles of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and to perform properly

the service ". The actual difference between an infected and at the same time the applicant

the said adjustment is in the absence of the word "proven" in the contested edit.

However, this doesn't change the fact that if the administrative authority will

the conclusion that a particular applicant for admission to the service cannot be

assume that "will be on duty to adhere to the democratic principles

the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and to perform properly the service ", this

the reality show and its conclusions to the duly substantiated.



226. Intepretace of the provisions leading to the conclusion that its content has

be the norm providing that staff can only be taken per person

with the "neprokazatelně" to assume compliance with certain principles, is

in material law impossible.



227. Again, it must be concluded that the contested provisions can be used to unload the constitutionally

conformally and space to derogatory action of the Constitutional Court is not here.



VII./g



The assessment of the constitutionality of § 17 para. 3 sentences of the fourth alleged violation-article. 67

paragraph. 1 of the Constitution



228. the text of the contested provisions:



"[section 17]



[Systemising]



[(3) approved by the Government to Systemize following calendar year. A proposal from the

the Government submits to the Minister of the Interior systemising. The Government is authorized to modify

in the context of the approval of systemising the organizational structure

the staff of the Office.] In the case of the Office of the Council on radio systemize and

television, the Czech Telecommunications Office, energy

regulatory authority, the Office for protection of competition, the Bureau of

protection of personal data, the Czech Statistical Office or the State Office

for nuclear safety, the Government cannot, without the consent of the person who is in

their head, reduce the number of official places referred to in paragraph 1 (b). a) and

(b)) and the volume of funds for salaries referred to in paragraph 1 (b). (c))

systemize for the previous calendar year. "



229. The alleged unconstitutionality of the contested provision according

of the applicant (see point 14) that the seven central authorities of the State

management referred to in it "puts the Government on a par with, if not above the Government", thereby

violates articles. 67 para. 1 of the Constitution, according to which "the Government is the supreme body of the

of executive power ". In the comments of the Government of this claim is countered with a link

the nature of the administrative offices. regulators and request

their independence in the regulations of the European Union (see paragraph 76).



230. The Constitutional Court notes that he is aware of the complexity of this

the issue from the perspective of the history of this type of authorities in the 19th century.

century or even earlier, the evolution of their legislative and judikatorního

solution and of the State in terms of the needs of the modern State and its

international integration. Likewise, it takes into account the development of vocational

discussion on subject position of such institutions in the system of executive power

based on a hierarchical order, and at the same time on the parliamentary

responsibility of the Government as the peak body of executive power to the Chamber of Deputies

the Chamber of Deputies (article 67, paragraph 1, and article 68, paragraph 1, of the Constitution). This case benefitted from

Neither the change of the concept of the law in the field of editing systemising (cf. section 14 and 15

Service Act No. 218/2002 Coll.), which constitutional point of departure

the organisation of the public administration and the civil service in its hověla far

more with regard to the incorporation of the parliamentary element in the solution of this disputed

questions and discussion about these so-called "only by reflecting on. independent administrative

offices, which then took place, in particular, in both chambers of Parliament and in

the Government (cf. Printing 1134, the Chamber of Deputies, III., 2001, election

See also paragraph 236).



231. However, with regard to the linking of the Petite proposal it should be stressed,

the proposal of the President of the Republic in this part is not directed to attack or

calling into question the very existence of the so-called. independent administrative authorities. His

the proposal can be briefly characterized so that only calls into question the provisions of the

§ 17 para. 3 the fourth sentence of the law on civil service, which is in contradiction with the

the constitutional position of the Government to limit its ability to edit questions

systemising as a tool for organization of official authorities in terms of

the number of service jobs, Government employees, jobs introduced and

the volume of funds for salaries (cf. section 17, paragraph 1, of the law on government service).



232. The provisions of section 17 para. 1 of the law on civil service, in the opinion

The Constitutional Court shows that, in the case of individual components of systemising

business offices is a key means by which the Government can

to live up to their responsibilities in a constitutionally enshrined top executive body

power for the proper functioning of the public administration, whose personal Foundation

employees on business areas will be classified employment salary

classes. To do so, in order to dispose of this resource, or to weaken

options (and at the same time the constitutional responsibilities and competences) of the Government on this

the key section, therefore, must be found corresponding constitutional kautely;

You cannot be content with an argument in the plane of podústavního rights

(section 21 and section 28 (1) of the Act of the Czech National Council No. 2/1969 Coll., on establishment of the

ministries and other central bodies of State administration of the Czech Republic,

in the wording of later regulations) led by referring to it, that an adjustment to the so-called.

independent administrative authorities is based on the laws of special,

both later. In the case of pre-emptive use of lex superior

can the settlement of the conflict in the plane of the podústavního rights for using the rules of the lex

specialis and lex posterior to board up in the second row.



233. the Constitutional Court does not question in any way the fact that the regulation of

or manage certain specific areas of public authorities requires independent

the position of the regulators (media, telecommunications regulation, protection of

personal data, regulation of the energy market, statistics, nuclear

security, protection of economic competition). Application of the elements of independence,

that can vary from case to case, however, there must be limited and

must respect the constitutional order. In this way it is possible to refer to the

the need for specific guarantees some constitutional rights (article 1, paragraph 1,

The Constitution), the need to ensure the proper functioning of the State, as well as the need to

implementation of international obligations of the State (article 1, paragraph 2, Article 10a of the Constitution).



234. the Constitutional Court, however, concluded that, in this particular case the intervention of the

to the constitutionally enshrined mechanisms of the relations of the institutions and governance

the Executive was not in place for reasons that will be provided later. Such

penetration into the area of responsibility and competence (which is in the Democratic

the rule of the same thing) parlamentně responsible Government is not necessary even in the

If the requirements arising from the provisions of European Union law, from which the

it otherwise can be inferred on the independence of the regulatory requirement, or other

authorities, IE. above all, effective structural separation of the decision-making

the activities of the administrative bodies of the subjects of child's interests such regulation

and supervision in some specific areas of public administration.



235. The specifics of the position of the mentioned administrative bodies (called independent

administrative offices) must be considered in the context of the overall system-

the constitutional arrangements of the Czech Republic as a parliamentary democracy, in which

the question of powers and competencies within the public authority necessarily weighs in on

parliamentary accountability of the Government for the performance of State administration. To do this, in order to

one of the institutions exempted from this system and the legitimačního string (which

must reverse lead away from the specific act of the public authority to the article. 2 (2). 1

The Constitution), in the opinion of the Constitutional Court is not always necessary, express

the constitutional entrenchment of the relationship of independence, even though the Constitution so in many cases

makes. You can point out for example. on independence or non-anchorage in the

the case of the members of the Chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (article 26), and in particular on the

the adjustment of the relations of State power and local self-government authorities (article 101, paragraph 4, article.

105), to the entrenchment of the position of the judiciary (article 81 and 82), Supreme

Audit Office (article 97) or the Czech National Bank (article 98). (I)

on defining the liability of links in relation to Parliament, the President of the

States and Governments (article 63, paragraph 4, article 65 and article 68, paragraph 1, of the Constitution).



236. With such a definition, however, exist in the system of administrative offices

and related institutions of the public administration, for which the Government bears the

responsibility, as this would be contrary to the very nature of performance

the State administration. Here it should be stressed that the Constitution speaks about

responsibility of the Organization in State law, so it is inextricably

linked with the question of the construction of the powers of the public authorities as


liability in both a positive and a negative sense (see

Clement, J. H. Verantwortung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, pp. 265 n.,

s. 338 n.). From the constitutionally enshrined principle of democratic rule

the State (article 1, paragraph 1, of the Constitution) implies responsibility for the specific section of the proceedings

(here including an exclusive permission to submit a draft law on the State

the budget pursuant to article. paragraph 42. 1 of the Constitution), which expresses

the competence of the Government in this area make decisions, manage, control or

Guide and match the activities of other elements of the Executive, respectively.

the State administration. The exception may be in the event of a collision of two public

interests only the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, ensuring the basic functions

the running of the State or the implementation of international commitments are generally

these areas overlap. On the edge in this context is meant to

the attempt to deal with this issue remind express editing in

a separate article. 80A of the Constitution under the Senate proposal to amend the Constitution (printing

1134, the Chamber of Deputies, III. the electoral period, 2001), which had

provide that "[o] rgány Executive independent of the Government can be established and

their scope should be specified only by law ". Finally, it should be beyond the scope of

solved questions added that break that string in the legitimačního point

"the Government" must be compensated for by other legitimačními the reasons for such

exceptions (cast feature requirements, expertise, experience, other

properties, constraints, discretion, tied to the law, the term of Office, etc.).



237. the non-acceptance of the amendment to the Constitution of the said proposal, therefore, cannot be

interpreted as proof of the neústavnosti of independence itself, but only its

certain elements in the otherwise hierarchically organized system of administrative offices

and their executors, or holders of, while the elements of independence,

the adjustment is a reserved Act, which must respect the Division of powers and

power and key functions of Government. It is therefore a fundamental difference in the situation,

When the Government of such a system of controls and organizes with the help of individual

components of the civil service, and systemising when it gets for example. to

conflict with the Czech Statistical Office in organising census or with

Office for the protection of personal data, the Office for the protection of

competition etc. in the performance of their competencies. In certain matters

decision-making-such as eg. express provision for section 28 of Act No. 101/2000

Coll., on the protection of personal data and on amendments to certain laws-are

holders of these offices from the obligation to comply with vyvázáni in their specific

the regulatory scope of the guidelines, resolutions, directives, etc., for it is in the

the area outweighed other public interest (protection of privacy,

of competition, access to information, etc.).



238. From this perspective, the provisions of the fourth sentence of section 17(2). 3 of the law on

in terms of civil service test of constitutionality withstood. The constitutional

Here are the basis for the separation of powers, parliamentary democracy, responsibility

Government control of the State by way of the State administration and the role of the Government in the preparation of

the State budget. Last but not least also the provisions of article. paragraph 79. 2

The Constitution, which explicitly speaks (as opposed to e.g. from article 80, paragraph 2, article.

91 paragraph. 2, article. paragraph 97. 3) just about modifying the legal conditions of State

staff in the ministries and other administrative offices. By this

the constitutional standard is clearly directed toward specific safeguards their status

corresponding to their tasks in the exercise of State administration as a whole,

taking out the constitutional modifications-Unlike the listed exceptions from

the hierarchical system-in no way does not mean that they should be the meaning and

guarantee the proper administration of the civil service in this respect, other than for example. in

such key administrative offices, which operate in areas of the Interior,

Defense, Foreign Affairs, justice or finance. In this respect, it is also

the court system edit this question in paragraph 15 of the original

Service Act No. 218/2002 Coll., subject to law and associated with

the public interest. At the same time that Parliament cannot give up performance

the scope of their control of the Government by its own area of responsibility

cut the decision-making on key issues of the functioning of the civil service by

its decision dependent on the consent of the head of the Administrative Office.

The provision does not hold water even in terms of ever constructed test

rationality. This is because that the interference with constitutionally enshrined Government position is not

based on the protection given to the administrative authorities and institutions against the possibility

interfere with the independence of their decision-making on the law defined

specific issues of their competence. If it is in these areas

(see paragraph 233) acceptable or even desirable in the area of systemising

It indicates an attempt to purge the constitutional powers and at the same time

the parliamentary accountability of the Government.



239. All of this is summed up by the contested provision section 17 para. 3 the fourth sentence

the law on the civil service attempted entrants into the obvious conflict with the

such rules of the functioning of the mechanism of State power in the Czech Republic,

such as article. 2 (2). 1, art. paragraph 42. 1, art. 67 para. 1, art. paragraph 68. 1

and article. paragraph 79. 2 of the Constitution. For the proper functioning of the public administration and the State

services are the responsibility of the Government to the Chamber of Deputies, not to

the Presidents of several central administrative authorities of different types. This

responsibilities it cannot get rid of, or an act of Parliament, even though the Government with him

She agreed. The Constitutional Court therefore proceeded to the annulment of the contested

provisions.



VII./h



The assessment of the constitutionality of § 31 para. 2 and § 165



240. The provisions of § 31 para. 2 and section 165 of the Act on civil service are

under assault, saying that "there are, most likely, in itself

constitutionally the courts, but shall be submitted ... for possible examination

other effects of the procedure namítaného of the above "(sub II/a), that is, the effects of

the alleged improper of the legislative process.



241. by the contested provision, the applicant puts forward To the reservation concerning the

legislatively-technical inaccuracies or drafting deficiencies

("non-exhaustive enumeration of the shortcomings of the law on government service"). In any of the

the contested provisions, however, is not raised a specific plea

the content of the contested constitutional provisions, which the claimant more or less

He admits, for the purpose předestření the alleged defects in the law has to be rather

illustration of the inadequacy of the process leading to the adoption of this law.



242. The Constitutional Court, however, is not to speculate whether they would otherwise

presented by or in any way projednaný the Bill led to a higher

precision engineering or legislatively-lower level

legislatively-technical deficiencies.



243. as regards the content of the contested provisions, the Constitutional Court here

refers to the basis of the review of the above (sub VII/a), in particular

reiterates that "ambiguities in the legislation must delete the case law

General courts. The Constitutional Court has already held that multiple times to this

the area may enter only in the case when at the same time it is a violation of

the constitutional order, and unpredictability, uncertainty and legal

editing extremely interferes with the basic requirements of the law in terms of

the rule of law "(SP. zn. PL. ÚS 56/05), as well as the fact that "the uncertainty

a provision of the law to be considered rozpornou with

the requirement of legal certainty and, therefore, the rule of law (article 1, paragraph 1,

The Constitution), only if the intensity of this uncertainty is excreted

the possibility of fixing its normative content using the usual

the interpretative practices "(SP. zn. PL. ÚS 10/06).



244. As recalled in the report, the Constitutional Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 33/97 (1)

17.12. 1997 (N 163/9 SbNU 399; 30/1998 Coll.): "the literal interpretation

represents only the initial approach to applied the legal standard. Is

only the starting point for clarification and clarifying its meaning and purpose (to

which is also used by a number of other procedures, as a logical and systematic

interpretation interpretation (e) ratione legis, etc.). "



245. According to the Constitutional Court, the contested provisions do not show such defects,

that their normative content was completely unknowable, and it would have been so given

the reason for the derogation to directly conflict with the article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution

defining the Czech Republic as the rule of law.



246. In view of the fact that in connection with the content of the contested provisions

the constitutional question is not levelled any, it didn't deal with the Constitutional Court top

those provisions in more detail. As he recalled the Constitutional Court in the

finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 7/03 of 18 May. 8.2004 (N 113/34 SbNU 165;

512/2004 Sb.) or in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/07 of 31 July. 1.2008 (N

26/48 SbNU 303; 88/2008 Coll.), if the applicant does not no reasons

the alleged unconstitutionality of the Act, carry the burden of one claim and

such a proposal is not eligible on merits discussion.



247. The determination of a specific normative content regulations podústavního

their interpretation of the law is the first and foremost thing the authorities with

right here, in particular, administrative authorities, and the courts in the case of the Court of

review. With regard to the position of the Constitutional Court as a judicial body

the protection of constitutionality (article 83 of the Constitution) is not his constitutional role

podústavní right to interpret and clarify its normative content before

to do this, public authorities called upon to accede to the application and interpretation of the


podústavního law. Only then, and in addition, in a situation that would in particular

the interpretation or application of the contested provisions in a manner

unconstitutional, opening space for the possible intervention on the part of

Of the Constitutional Court. Now within the abstract control of the contested provisions

However, any question of the constitutionality of their content (other than the alleged confusion

or inaccuracies) was not raised.



VII./ch



Objections to assessment section 2 (2). 1 (b). a) and b), § 5 para. 1 (b). (g)),

§ 10 para. 1 (b). (b)) § 13 para. 2, § 19 para. 3, § 30 paragraph 2. 2, § 37

paragraph. 1, § 83 para. 1, § 117 paragraph 1. 1, § 185 paragraph 2. 2 (a). c) in words

"and set a salary according to the part of the ninth".



248. the appellant in the preamble of the proposal (cf. section 16) formulates a reservation to

a number of other of the above provisions of the Act on civil servants again with

the fact that "most likely is not itself constitutionally

the courts "and represent a non-exhaustive enumeration of the shortcomings of the law on

Government service. Having regard to the fact that the subject matter of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court

is defined by the design, the Constitutional Court could not ústavností above

rekapitulovaných the provisions of the deal because of the document instituting the proceedings

It is clear that the appellant does not require the repeal of these provisions.



VIII.



The conclusion of the



249. For the above reasons, the Constitutional Court upheld the proposal to repeal section

Article 17(1). 3 sentences of the fourth Act No. 234/2014 Coll. on State service, as

came to the conclusion about the violation of this provision with the Constitution (section 239).



250. In the rest of the proposal rejected, for he found that despite the above

rekapitulované defects in the legislative process the repeal of law No.

234/2014 Coll. on civil service as a whole has hit a constitutionally protected

values predictability of law and legal certainty over the defects in the

the legislative process, respectively, than the existence of the law in this process

adopted. At the same time, concluded that the provisions of section 1 (1). 2, section 5

paragraph. 2, § 11 (1) 3, § 14 para. 2, article 15, paragraph 2. 3, § 16, § 21, art. 3,

section 22, § 31 para. 2, section 78 (a). (c)), § 85 para. 5, § 104 paragraph. 3, § 145

paragraph. 3, § 165, 172, 173, 178, § 184 para. 2 and section 189 of the Act No. 234/2014

Coll. on State service, not in terms of their content with the constitutional

policy in the United States in the conflict.



251. However, the Constitutional Court submitted the proposal with the exception of the application for revocation

§ 17 para. 3 sentences of the fourth has not complied with, it is the contents of the preamble to the

clearly, the finding does not constitute an obstacle to the rei iudicatae in relation to the

the possible future review of the various provisions of the Act on State

the service, of course, with the exception of the constitutionality of the legislative process, to

which is already in the Constitutional Court does not intend to return. It must be seen that now

conducted a review of the law on the civil service was made in a situation where

only became part of the applicable law, and based on a proposal aimed at

certain aspects of the legislation, and it is therefore difficult and excess options

The Constitutional Court completely think, how will it be in the future

applied, and what practical shortcomings may yet show them and

that will not be possible to bridge the constitutionally Conformal interpretation. This finding

therefore does not have the ambition to completely close off possible future discourse over ústavností

one of the specific provisions of the law on government service.



The President of the Constitutional Court:



JUDr. Rychetský in r.



Different opinions under section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,

as amended, a decision of the plenary, the judges adopted a

Jaroslav Norman F, Pavel Rychetský, Vladimir Sladecek, Radovan Suchánek,

Catherine Simackova, Vojtěch Prince and David Collier and its justification

judge Jan Filip and Jiří Zemánek.