476/2002 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court decided on 2 February 2005. October 2002 in plenary on the draft group
Senators to repeal Act No. 501/2001 Coll., amending Act No.
513/1991 Coll., the commercial code, as amended, law No.
40/1964 Coll., the civil code, as amended, law No.
99/1963 Coll., the code of civil procedure, as amended, the law
No 591/1992 Coll., of the Securities Act, as amended,
Act No. 357/1992 Coll., on the notarial profession and their activities (notarial procedure), in
as amended, Act No. 370/2000 Coll., amending Act
No. 513/1991 Coll., the commercial code, as amended, the law
No 358/1992 Coll., on the notarial profession and their activities (notarial regulations), as amended by
amended, law No. 15/1998 Coll., on the Securities and Exchange Commission and
amending and supplementing other acts, as amended by Act No. 30/2000 Coll.
Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended,
Act No. 99/1963 Coll., the civil procedure code, as amended
regulations, and Act No. 328/1991 Coll., on bankruptcy and settlement, as amended by
amended, law No 227/2000 Coll., on the property of the Czech Republic and
its representation in legal relations, as amended, and
Act No. 455/1991 Coll., on trades (Trade Act),
as amended,
as follows:
1. Act No. 501/2001 Coll., amending Act No. 513/1991 Coll.,
the commercial code, as amended, Act No. 40/1964 Coll.,
the civil code, as subsequently amended, Act No. 99/1963 Coll.,
Code of civil procedure, as amended, law No. 591/1992
Coll., of the Securities Act, as amended, law No.
358/1992 Coll., on the notarial profession and their activities (notarial regulations), as amended by
amended, law No 370/2000 Coll., amending Act No.
513/1991 Coll., the commercial code, as amended, law No.
358/1992 Coll., on the notarial profession and their activities (notarial regulations), as amended by
amended, law No. 15/1998 Coll., on the Securities and Exchange Commission and
amending and supplementing other acts, as amended by Act No. 30/2000 Coll.
Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended,
Act No. 99/1963 Coll., the civil procedure code, as amended
regulations, and Act No. 328/1991 Coll., on bankruptcy and settlement, as amended by
amended, law No 227/2000 Coll., on the property of the Czech Republic and
its representation in legal relations, as amended, and
Act No. 455/1991 Coll., on trades (Trade Act),
as amended, is hereby repealed on 31 December. 3.2003.
2. the application for annulment of the provision of section 183b of paragraph 1. 3 (b). a) of law No.
513/1991 Coll., the commercial code, as amended,
rejects.
Justification
(I).
A group of 22 senators as a legitimate claimant [§ 64 para. 1 (b))
Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court] proposed the repeal of law No.
501/2001 Coll., amending Act No. 513/1991 Coll., the commercial code,
in the wording of later regulations, etc.; According to the preamble of the proposal process
the procedure in which it was adopted, has contested the law unconstitutional defects,
Since then, it has been as print No 824 on 39. a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies
Parliament of the Czech Republic in second reading with the adopted amendment
the proposal of Deputy Ivan Pilipa [in the formulation of the provision of section 183b, paragraph 3
(a). and)] and in the third reading with the adopted amendment
(resolution No. 1828) approved on 31 March 2004. October 2001, in the next meeting, namely the
the extraordinary 42. a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies was the approval of the resolution
"revokováno", and then-for the deletion of the amendment of a Deputy
Pilipa-was a modified Bill newly approved on 15 December.
November 2001 (resolution No. 1859) and with this resolution in the "repaired"
(revokovaném) the text was referred to the Senate.
This procedure, according to the appellants ' unconstitutional Parliament of the Czech Senate
States on their eleventh meeting on 22 November. November 2001 responded
Noting that the Chamber of deputies presented a Bill (and its
approval of the resolution) as a print # 150 is not a "draft law pursuant to art. 45
The Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC ", and for this reason it is satisfied.
According to the appellants ' assertion of Deputies chosen procedure was
justified by the alleged effort to "prevent serious economic damage to
which (for the mistake of the Chamber of Deputies) could occur "; the appellants
However, they considered that such a procedure, however, has already been given is
in "contrary to law". In the case under consideration was a "revocation of the
the final and the substance of the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies ", which was
(definitely) a bill approved and approved the wording in this way should be
referred to the Senate for approval of the resolution will become a "perfect
at the moment the vote for, which was not immediately challenged ".
With reference to the principle of political decisions, according to which the substantive
the decision established an ad hoc majority adopted in certain situations this
(potentially variable) most protects, and in particular with reference to the
the content of the article. 6 (in conjunction with article 39, paragraphs 1 and 2) and also on the content of the article. 47
paragraph. 1 and 3 and article. 50 para. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution")
and after the analysis of options, in terms of constitutional and legal
technique to the Chamber of Deputies adopted the law to her may (new
the vote) to return, the appellants came to the conclusion that the contested
the Chamber of Deputies Commission infringed the procedure "relative nezměnitelnost
usneseného of the Act "; by the adoption of the contested act finds itself
The Chamber of deputies in conflict with the constitutional order of the Republic. Anxious
all about the cancellation of the entire Act No. 501/2001 Coll., the appellants
alternative order proposed the cancellation of the provision of section 183b
paragraph. 3 (b). and other) and amending provisions in the
the remedies design accurately tagged and the unconstitutionality of regardless of the
unconstitutional way their acceptance form (without justification) of the
the provisions of article. 4 and article. 11 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, or the article. 1
paragraph. 1 of the additional protocol to the Convention on the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms and article. 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and
political rights.
The Chamber of Deputies for the Constitutional Court to challenge the design group
the senators as a party to the proceedings (section 69 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., as amended by
amended) expressed by administration of its President; in it, first,
zrekapitulovala the progress of critical votes, including the vote of the full
The Chamber of deputies of opposition parliamentarian Pilipa parties (Rapporteur
spoken) inability to vote on his proposal on the amended provisions of section
183b, which the opposition as opposition "technical changes without the underlying
context "then complied with, on the one hand stressed that this
the vote itself was listed in error, the effect of which was the provision of section
183b para. 3 "the existence of two identical provisions under its letters) and
and) and in the wider context, then the removal of exemptions from the obligation to make
the takeover offer to all holders of securities of the target
the company ". In particular, later referred to the fact, as demonstrated by the subsequent
the vote on the 42. a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies, according to which the design of a Deputy
Pilipa from 110 MPs voted against it, while no one
98 members of Parliament voted, however, contrary to the actual clearance Of
the Chamber of Deputies, and because-as regards the revocation of the resolution under consideration
the law was approved by the Chamber of Deputies as a whole-"ne bis
idem, the res iudicata or is not part of the rules of procedure of the
the Chamber of Deputies, was its decision to dispose of such a proposal. "
According to the final observations of the President of the Chamber of Deputies the legislative
the Corps acted in the belief that the adopted (i.e. under consideration), the law and procedure,
that led to its adoption, is in line with the constitutional order and the legal
order of the Czech Republic, and it is therefore on the Constitutional Court to design group
Senators to repeal this law, examine and issued the relevant
decision.
The Senate is also expressed by its Chairman. He, too, after he handed
condensed overview of the objections raised by a group of Senators has made
recap of the critical vote in the Chamber of Deputies and pointed out the
that "constitutionally prescribed way the Senate pass laws specify
discussed "and unlike the opposite opinion of the Chamber of Deputies
He came to the conviction that "the resolution approved by the House of Parliament
the draft law, is final and such a design can return only ways
the Constitution ", which means that the matter under consideration" if Parliament wants to
change their will expressed in the legislative process, it cannot do so
differently than the way the amendment adopted by the law "; Senate "came
the majority concluded that the shortcomings of the Bills approved in the
The Chamber of deputies in the legislative process can be addressed either in the
bodies of the Chamber or the start of a new legislative procedure, but not
by modifying the already perfect resolution of the Chamber of Deputies ", yet" the assessment of the
whether a law was adopted by the constitutionally prescribed way, however, it is completely
on the Constitutional Court ".
Due to the nature of the case also has been requested the opinion of the Minister (section 48 para.
2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll.); in its submission, the Commission expressed the belief that the
the procedure, in relation to the problematic amendment
proposal of a Deputy that Pilipa essentially meant a de facto
the cancellation of the existing legislation, the provisions of section 183b of paragraph 1. 3 (b).
and in addition to) and the design of the Economic Committee was clearly a duplicate,
"was not fulfilled the obligations arising from the provisions of § 72 para. 4 of the law
No. 90/1995 Coll., on rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies ", according to which" the prior
the vote is repeated the exact wording of the proposal, unless the members of the
passed the written copy of the Constitution in any way "option
revocation of the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies a draft law (Prohibition)
It does not regulate and its rules of Procedure lays down that each Member may
When you vote or immediately after dispute over or
the result of the vote an objection, which the Chamber of Deputies shall decide, without
the debate, and if it passes, the vote shall be repeated, it is not
the provisions of the exhaustive, and therefore, has the Government considered that "any other
the case of the repetition of the vote is not the rules of procedure, and that having excluded '
to all of the circumstances in which a group of Senators challenged the procedure in
The Chamber of Deputies is "no need to tolerate even a relatively
revocation of the resolution of the problem, if it occurred primarily in the interest
clarity and comprehensibility of the legal provisions, and in order to create options
members of the predestined his will occur ". With regard to these
in the circumstances, the Government considers the proposal for the abolition of all the law
amending the provisions of the "inadequate", thus there was a
considerable problems for example. in the field of capital market and would
"the process of antithetic privatization trend-mj. would
disadvantages of bodies involved in the privatization ... and lead
no doubt to a large reduction in the revenue of the State from privatization
each of the companies ". Moreover, the Government stated in conclusion, "legislation
takeover bid "(i.e., the provision of section 183b of the contested Law) was to
the commercial code included on the basis of a revised proposal for a 13th
Directive of the European communities, which does not permit such offers
bland exceptions, so the validity of that provision is limited to the "date of entry
the Treaty of accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union enters into force ".
In conclusion, his Government recommended that the representation of the design group of the Senators on
the cancellation of the law under consideration. on the cancellation of his amended
regulations was rejected.
II.
Of the written materials (Council publications and records stenografických
over 39. and 42. a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies), the constitutional
the Court at its request, the Office submitted to the Chamber of Deputies, it is
the petition, that the
1. as regards the progress of the 39. a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies:
and the law under consideration has been discussed) on the initiative of a group of MPs and as
Assembly print # 824 was commanded by the committees to discuss the economic and
ústavněprávnímu and aggressively at the same time the Committee also discussed
the budget; According to the plaintiffs, the law was a "technical amendment
the core consisted of the removal of legislatively-technical errors ",
(b)) to the original Bill was how in those committees as well as in
detailed debate during the second reading in the plenary of the Chamber of Deputies
discussed a series of amendments (document No prints 824/2-5), from
Some were adopted by a vote of the Assembly, the Chamber of Deputies,
Some have been rejected,
c) during the third reading raised the objection of party member Ivan Pilip, the alleged
"nehlasovatelnosti" the amendment adopted in second reading
[it was a modification of the wording of section 183b, paragraph 3 (a))], that was like a
"acceptance of technical changes to the" accepted and the vote (under number 531,
177 present 97 for, 12 against) was his amendment brought forward
earlier in the second reading adopted,
(d)) the resolution, which the Chamber of Deputies "agreed with the House
# 824 in printing the texts of amendments ", was under number 1828
received the necessary majority (in the voting sequence number 532, of 177
present 159 for, 2 against); When you vote or immediately after it
None of the members of the object to the result of a vote has not objected during or
(article 76, paragraphs 5 and 6 of law No. 90/1995 Sb.);
2. as regards the progress of 40. a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies held on 15 December.
November 2001, from stenografického the record shows that the
and the meeting of the Chamber of Deputies) was convened by its Chairman
the provisions of § 51 para. 4 of the rules of procedure, to request 41 members, and
her hearing was subordinate to the legislative process in the state mode
legislative emergency (section 99 of Act No. 90/1995 Coll.), which was proclaimed on
period from 14. 21. November 2001; the Chamber of Deputies vote on it after
the debate has decided (under the No. 4 from 161 present for, 48 against 110), that
It takes in the course of this meeting (article 99, paragraph 4, of Act No. 90/1995),
(b)) as the second point of the program was to discuss the classified draft parliamentary group
Club social democracy on the revocation of the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies No.
of 31 October 1828. October 2001,
(c) the appellants ' representative) the proposal was justified-in summary-by
the vote on the "nehlasovatelném" amendment Deputy Pilipa
(section 183b) were "within the framework of the approval process for individual
amendments violated rules of conduct the Chamber of Deputies ",
on the one hand-with regard to all the circumstances in which to vote on
This proposal has been the Chamber of deputies in its actions so
iritována, that "it is clear that clearly didn't know about which design
the vote ", and
d) after a debate, the Chamber of Deputies vote
AA) (under number 11, from the present 84 108 for, 16 against)
revokovala its decision of 31 October 1828. October 2001, which expressed the
consent to the draft Group of MPs on the issue of the law under consideration,
BB) (under number 15, 110 of those present for no one, against 98)
Amendment members Pilipa (section 183b) has not accepted and then
CC) (under serial number 16, of 105 present 92 for, 4 against)
adopted (under the number 1859) resolution "agreed with the proposal
a group of MPs on the issue of the law amending the law No. 513 of the year
1991 Coll., the commercial code, as amended by later regulations, etc., according to the
print no. 824 of the House, in the version approved amendments ", and
DD) in the newly adopted texts referred the Bill to the next
measures of the Senate; because that is, in substance, the silence to him after the expiry of
the prescribed time limits (article 97, paragraph 2, of Act No. 90/1995 Coll.) has submitted to
the President of the Chamber of Deputies for signature by the President of the Republic (article 98 para.
1 of law No. 90/1995 Sb.).
Therefore, you can summarize and conclude that the law under consideration in the legislative process
in the Chamber of Deputies passed the three stages; the first was (after discussion
amendments adopted) resolution No. 1828 of 31 July. October 2001, in
the second was on 15. November 2001 not be revoked and then (after previously
the adopted amendment of a Deputy in the new vote was Pilipa
rejected) was once again as a whole resolution No. 1859 of 15 July. November
2001 approved and in this new version (for the deletion of the text of amendment
the design of a Deputy to § Pilipa 183b) was referred to the Senate and later
President of the Republic for signature; published in collection of laws in
the amount of 180 under no. 501 with the date of dispatch of the 31. December 2001.
III.
Significantly the majority opinion of the Chamber of Deputies has considered that any
The Chamber of Deputies with the law in the final vote of the day
October 31, 2001 agreed, the legislative process by yet
He was not finished as the Chamber of Deputies approved the law was not
to the date of the 42. the meeting referred to the Senate, neither has been submitted
President of the Republic for signature, and because "for the discussion of the proposal on
revocation of the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies, which was with the Bill
ratified "(more accurately for the approval resolution nezměnitelnost)
It is not constitutionally or lower legal force law (Law No.
90/1995 Sb.) establish a binding deadline, is the path to the revocation of the approval
resolutions and open to reconsideration of the law ".
By contrast, the appellants, the principle of "relative dovolávajíce
guaranteeing (once validly received) of the Act "with a link to the article. 6 in
conjunction with article. paragraph 39. 1 and 2, article. paragraph 47. 1 and 3 and article. 50 para. 2
The Constitution, which they attacked the procedural steps for the Chamber of Deputies for the
unconstitutional.
For those completely contradictory opinions on the plenary session of the Constitutional Court was,
in order to assess and determine if the
and) can be from the existing constitutional order or of the field of the common
the law (Act No. 90/1995 Coll.) to derive a time or material, beyond the boundary
which the Chamber of Deputies adopted a decision after the final
(the final) vote was with the Bill ratified, cannot be
change, or revocation of the approval of the resolution can be used after in the legislative
the process continue and previously approved the law again to discuss and
the new (corrected) version of the take, and
(b)) if such a boundary, which is for the protection of constitutionality of her
the meaning and the implications of its crossing are fleeing, in other words,
whether the project under Act No. 501/2001 Coll., amending the commercial code,
in the wording of later regulations, etc., was adopted by the constitutionally prescribed
way.
Of a defined topic decidendi are convinced the constitutional
the Court has already ruled out for their nature, all the aforementioned claims
The Chamber of Deputies seeking to clarify the circumstances in which the
the purchase was under consideration, or the reasons that the Chamber
the Chamber led, as concerns the argument in terms of the assessment of the merits
indecisive. Moreover, as the expression of the Chamber of Deputies, so the argument
the Government are focused exclusively on issues relating to rules of procedure
The Chamber of Deputies, and because in both cases completely neglect
conditions of acceptance the laws constitutionally prescribed procedure (section 68, paragraph 2,
Act No. 182/1993 Coll., as amended), it is the opinion of the
no practical importance.
The intentions of the legislator, if they are not expressed in the appropriate form and extent
in the legislation (the Act) as themes zákonodárcova negotiations, on
its contents and validity (efficiency) have no effect and in connection with
(separately) cannot be assessed accurately, it cannot be
drawn excuse under article 5(3) the reasons for violation of procedural rules
(policy), if, in the course of the legislative process, and this
regardless of whether the defects of the law identified ex post brought about
the result of the legislature when the vote or its lack of knowledge of
Materie, with discussion of the Bill has been associated.
These circumstances were party to the attention of the Constitutional Court, as well
as they were consciously foregone issues associated with hardened accidentally members
the reasons for any such error, omluvitelnosti and the like, or hardened
the illogical nature of amendment (MPS Pilipa to the provision of section 183b)
that was in the original vote by the full Chamber of Deputies adopted and that
become a prima facie reason for revocation of the final resolution on the
approval of the negotiated law, after which he was in a new vote this
the amendment is rejected and the final, and the newly approved text
the Bill was dropped.
IV.
The procedure in the legislative process, modified by the law on the rules of procedure
The Chamber of Deputies (Act No. 90/1995 Coll.) is not built on
the principle of the infallibility of the legislators, however, from a variety of (theoretically) possible
variants of the repeated voting mechanisms and reasons for them at the same time
applicable law determines conditions for them so that each members
the right to vote or immediately after it, that is, after
Chairperson announced the result of the vote in the prescribed manner and
reported that the proposal had been accepted (article 76, paragraph 1, of Act No. 90/1995),
argued against the course of voting or against its result
(ditto, paragraph 5), and only if it is applied by the opposition as a Chamber of
The Chamber of Deputies adopted, you can (without revocation of the previous vote)
the repeat vote, but not to the draft law, a new discussion
return.
Repeated voting, whether on a proposed amendment or on the
the resolution, which gives its assent to the proposal of the law as a whole, it is
so limited to two conditions, namely the immediately raised an objection:
Member of the Chamber of Deputies, and the positive decision about her, and Moreover, for the
their nature can be applied only to defects (errors) when you own
the voting Act, that is, in essence, to vote or to identify
its outcome, but not to the merits of the present proposal (substantive
inaccuracies); to remove them are constitutionally intended other
mechanisms (article 47, paragraph 2, article 47, paragraph 1 and 3, and article 50, paragraph 2,
Constitutional Act No. 1/1993 Coll., Constitution of the Czech Republic), whose
through the Chamber of Deputies, however, already under the changed
process conditions, she may have previously approved the draft law
return and him-in connection with the reservations of the Senate or with his
amendments or with reservations the President-again
to act and vote on them again to decide. In this case, it is
However, a procedure that was launched not from his own decision of the
House of Commons, but it is a procedure that is a result of the disagreement, the procedural
Another participant in the legislative process with the draft of the law the way it was
The Chamber of Deputies adopted, and as its constitutionally defined power
The Chamber of Deputies for repeated voting (for reconsideration in
what the intentions of the opposition). In relation to the agreed
the Bill, however, is its own power to the Chamber of Deputies, as
It is apparent from its rules of procedure and, indeed, the very nature of the legislative
process as a process of decision making at all, the adoption of the resolution, the exhausted
which Bill agreed, i.e.-procedurally-nenapadeným
the announcement of the result of a vote by the Chairperson of the meeting.
The legislative process at the stage in which the plenary of the Chamber of Deputies
a proposal for a resolution, which is to be with Bill vote
ratified as a whole (article 95, paragraph 3, al. 2 of the Act No. 90/1995
SB.), it is no longer just the conclusion of the decision-making process, in which the Member
does not already have other options than to vote either for or against (or
not to vote at all), because during previous stages of this process should
given enough time and enough opportunity for the application of its proposals
(the expression of their political attitudes) that its vote at all, and
in particular, in this final stage, it was an expression of (the result of) his own
the political decision in which the then this decision, as the resulting
all (the compromise) is based on the will of the majority, expressed the free
the vote (article 6 al. 1 of Constitutional Act No. 1/1993 Coll.).
On the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies a draft law pronouncing the consent is
therefore be regarded as containing a decision (in the process
operative part of the final phase), which was the legislative process in the Chamber of Deputies
the House ended; the requirement of the Act, to (Chamber of Deputies)
the approved Bill was sent to the President of the Chamber of deputies of the Senate
without undue delay (§ 97 para. 1 of the law No. 90/1995 Coll.), does not have a
factual, nor the time continuity with its own decision-making process,
The Chamber of Deputies and as a hint of a technical nature, which has
face administrative delays between (completed) legislative process
in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate decision makers (§ 97 para. 2 to 4
Act No. 90/1995 Coll.) does not on its own decision making process of the
the House of no effect, the less they could recover.
For reasons like this, the Constitutional Court has come to the landings, the belief that the
sub question III. and) should be answered in the affirmative: getting out
the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, as well as from the area of the common law
(Act No. 90/1995 Sb.) and it may be inferred from the nature of things that nenapadené
announcement of the results of the vote on the resolution, which the Chamber of Deputies
expressed with the proposal of the act as a whole, material and time
boundary, beyond which no longer revocation of this order and then a new discussion
the Bill, to which the revocation applies, are not acceptable, and that-outside
the reasons already landed-also because in this new draft
the period of the law have not been fulfilled the conditions of the ordinary legislative
the process more accurately and more fully expressed, this process in the constitutional
kautelách met at all.
In the.
If the Chamber of Deputies, in the circumstances mentioned previously, moreover,
After a long period of time and to a different meeting, proceeded to purchase their resolution
(dated 31 October 2001, no. 1828), which with the draft law under consideration
agreed, and in this way the newly opened legislative process has already
previously approved the Bill again discussed and eventually adopted it in
another has left its wording, the legislative process, which cannot be
procedural aspects of its purity.
The Constitutional Court in its findings concerning control of decision-making
public authorities repeatedly explained the principles for which-among other things
from the points of view of characters rule of law-is respect for the procedural
(procedural) rules required; briefly noted: stable
the decision-making practice of the Constitutional Court inferred that only in the process-
healthy process (constitutionally souladném proceedings) may be made to the legal and
constitutionally souladnému result (the decision), and therefore the process clean
the decision-making process (control), it is necessary to pay close attention and
to provide it with strong protection.
If referred to the principles relating to the constitutionality of the proceedings before the
public authorities and their decision issued (in it to
the procedure laid down in article 21(2). paragraph 36. 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and
freedoms), is not any rational reason to depart from these principles in
questions concerning the control of the legislative process and adopted acts (laws,
standards), since, even if the decision-making process in legislative activities to
pretty different from the decision-making process in proceedings before other bodies
public authority-and in this sense it can be understood as a decision-making process
sui generis-guiding principles for decision-making, which reaches the end
the result, in both cases are identical; In addition, you cannot lose
consideration of the consequences resulting from the legislative acts are for your
overall social impact will certainly more significant than is the case in cases
individual (bad) decisions of other public authorities. He performs
therefore-in the legislative process-stability of the request to the fore,
persuasiveness and the necessity of the legal acts on which the rule of law, and
correlation also lives in it lies; such acts, and also
achieve the necessary authority legislatures, however, cannot rearm otherwise
than the respect for the rules (principles of legislative activity), which
Indeed, the Chamber of Deputies as a major recipient of legislative power for the
This law has set itself on its business.
Taking into account, as well as of the reasons which in the preamble to the
the award has already been unloaded, a requirement of the rules, pointing to
the President of the Chamber of deputies that the Bill, with which
The Chamber of Deputies agreed, was immediately sent to the Senate (section
paragraph 97. 1 of law No. 90/1995 Coll.), or whether and to what extent was in the present
things, in terms of the protection of constitutionality (article 83 the Constitutional Act
No. 1/1993 Coll.) in the matter of the undecided, as well as in front of him does not hold water
Neither the reasons for the Chamber of Deputies, which hardened the admissibility of its revocation
tired. However-unlike previous constitutions (the Czechoslovak
State)-not the content of the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies a constitutionally defined,
There is no rational reason to doubt that the basic principles of conduct
legislatures, and also the principles of trade both Chambers between them
(and the Government) and on the outside at all, they cannot step off the constitutional framework.
Similarly, the claim that in the present case it was greatly complicated
the draft law and that at the end of the legislative process (third reading) was
The Chamber of Deputies is so iritována, that "clearly did not know about the
which design voting ", is under the procedural aspects of the purity of the decision-making
the process without any meaning.
The complexity of the fabric, which the Chamber of Deputies, the frequency of
or the diversity of the amendments and other proposals that are in progress
the debates against a bill being presented, alone or in
connection with ex post to correct a mistake and to prevent serious economic
damage "cannot justify violations of constitutionally protected steps in
legislative process and policy has already landed.
Has already been mention of the fact that in a parliamentary democracy the political decision
are based on the will of the majority expressed free vote; conditions,
that technique to the Constitution express provide constitutional
the legitimacy and the legality of the decision taken and that the relevant majority in
during the legislative process, however, they create a diverse and almost
always mount not only to subject matter that is the subject of negotiations and
subsequent decision, but are themselves in the formation of, in particular, the majority of the ad hoc
also influenced by the time or circumstances that arise from it. As follows
established by the majority required for a decision (approval of the draft law)
relevant are (can be) but variable, and it often enough that
in the above context in their majority the relevance over time can
(could) get lost and become a minority, but that has been exposed to
the risk of reversal of the previously adopted decision. Protection resulting
majorities, more precisely, their previously adopted decision, therefore, it is necessary
not only in terms of the stability of the legal acts, but it is as a result of
formal consensus in a given time (the compromise political will) is also one of the
guarantees the constitutionality, which excludes from the decision making arbitrary decisions, for which it
Naturally there is no place, to put it in other words: the fact that the approved
the Bill has not yet been referred to the President of the Chamber of Deputies
Senate, shall not constitute grounds to the Chamber of Deputies has already completed
the decision-making process on the Bill has resumed and it came back to the new
meritornímu decision making. Therefore, the moment when the decision making process in the
the stage of the legislative process by adopting the decision irreversibly over, is
not only for the legality of the decision taken, but also for his constancy
so significant, that the border is constitutionally insurmountable, and
as such, its essence has the potential risk of prevent
usurpace power, which the Chamber of Deputies. The opposite of a majority
the view of the Chamber of Deputies is wrong also, because in legal State
"State power serves all citizens and can be exercised only in cases, in
the limits and in the manner provided for by law. " (article 2, paragraph 3, the Constitutional Act
No. 1/1993 Coll.); not every parliamentary authority, but will only
that law, whether it was already the law constitutional or plain (about her
the rules of procedure), respecting and of its limits is based on, can become law.
The Constitutional Court therefore came to the conclusion that also the second question
situated at the front of the sub III. (b)) should be answered in the affirmative: stepping out of the
guaranteeing borders adopted a decision (resolution with
the present law was ratified) and the principles of a previously landed
is a violation of the constitutionality of the legislative process; the law under consideration.
501/2001 Coll., amending Act No. 513/1991 Coll., the commercial code,
in the wording of later regulations, etc., was not, therefore, the Chamber of Deputies
adopted by the constitutionally prescribed way.
This conclusion itself already makes redundant the review of constitutionality
the various provisions of the Act under consideration, on which, as the
in the alternative, the appellants sought as unconstitutional point out, and, therefore,
no need for them as the spirit of the deal.
Vi.
In its considerations the Constitutional Court misconstrued the opinion of the Government, which, though
is not a party to this proceeding has a demand for it, according to the observations of the
for major problems, such as possible. in the field of capital market, and also
for misconduct in the management of a critical meeting of the Chamber of Deputies, which was
the law under consideration for the first time admitted, "it would be necessary to tolerate even a relatively
problematic, in particular the purchase occurred to it in order to create
members of the options affect conscious its will. " However it is necessary to
warning Governments to take with all the solemnity and there is no doubt,
that amendment to the commercial code of the desired changes, brings a number of these
reality, however, cannot prevail over the constitutionality of the fundamental postulátem,
namely, that the laws have been received in a manner to Parliament legislative councils
constitutionally prescribed (article 1, article 2, paragraph 3, article 45 the Constitutional Act No.
1/1993 Coll., as amended).
Because the contentious issue of the provision of section 183b of paragraph 1. 3 (b). and)
the period of the Act against which the appellants ' substantive reservations about heading
in particular, cannot be separated from other materials, because
the Chamber of deputies by order of 15 October. November 2001 (No. 1859)
revokováno previous its resolution of 31 March 2004. October 2001 (1828),
in which this law has been approved as a whole, could do was Act No. 501/2001
Coll., amending Act No. 513/1991 Coll., the commercial code, as amended by
amended, etc., as accepted not constitutionally prescribed
manner and taking into account the circumstances of the předestřeným the Government
to date, both from the jingles of this finding is evident (section 70 (1) of law No.
182/1993 Coll.).
Dismissive of the operative part of the parties to the application for annulment of the provision of section 183b of paragraph 1. 3 (b).
a) of Act No. 513/1991 Coll., the commercial code, as amended
regulations, is supported by the fact that the same proposal formally and substantively
was filed to the Constitutional Court on 13 November. in December 2001, is being discussed
separately under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/01, and is thus justified by the obstacle
lis pendens (article 35, paragraph 2, of Act No. 182/1993 Coll.).
The President of the Constitutional Court:
in the z.. Haboob in r.
Vice Chairman
