In The Matter Of An Application For Annulment Of The Act No. 501/2001 Sb.

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zrušení zákona č. 501/2001 Sb.

Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=53986&nr=476~2F2002~20Sb.&ft=txt

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