405/2002 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court ruled on 13 November. August 2002 in plenary on the proposal of the regional
the Court in Hradec Králové on the cancellation of part of the provisions of § 106 paragraph. 3 of the law
No. 50/1976 Coll., on zoning and the building code (the building Act),
as amended,
as follows:
The words "from 500 EUR" in § 106 paragraph. 3 of Act No. 50/1976 Coll., on the territorial
planning and building code (the building Act), as amended by Act No. 83/1998
Coll., shall be abolished on the date of publication of the finding in the journal of laws.
Justification
(I).
On 22 November. 1. in 2002, the Constitutional Court of the Senate proposal 30 Ca
The regional court in Hradec Králové, of 14 July. 1. the annulment of parts of the 2002
the provisions of § 106 paragraph. 3 of Act No. 50/1976 Coll., on urban planning
building code (the building Act), as amended, (hereinafter the
"construction Act"), for the words "from 500 000". According to the article. 95 para. 2
The Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"), the Court shall, as a General
If there is a conclusion that the law to be applied in solving the case, it is in the
conflict with the constitutional law. In the proposal, signed by the Chairman of the Board, JUDr.
Karl From, States that the decision of the Municipal Council of the city of Pardubice
24 September. 6.1999 No. OSÚ P/147/99/Pd and by decision of the District Office
Pardubice, of 16 December. 7.2001 No. RRR/3330/41/99/Pu was Mrs. H. B.
a fine in the amount of 500 EUR for that as a natural person
operating under special regulations committed an infringement
referred to in § 106 paragraph. 3 (b). (c)), by the building Act in violation of the
with the kolaudačním decision taken two rooms in the basement
the family house as the establishment of the Salon. Against the latter citovanému
the decision brought an appointed to the regional court in Hradec Králové administrative
claim under the title of the second part of the fifth code of civil procedure.
The proposal stresses at the outset that Mrs. h. b. use these spaces
only for the purpose of individual performance craft trades a Hairdresser,
which is confirmed by the observations of the Health Department of 16 June. 3.1999 No.
1446-218/99-707, which was a "place of business" only with
one place to work. These rooms have been approved as
Laundry, drying room and a cellar, but their construction and technical arrangement
Since the completion of the building was fully sufficient for the operation of the
trades, because in those areas, as designated in the proceedings before the Court
It said the water supply was extended in length of about 1 m and no further
construction work are avoided. If section 106 paragraph. 3 (b). (c)) for the building
the Act expressly obliges the competent authority to impose a fine of 500 000 CZK
to 1 000 000 Czk to a legal person or a natural person operating under the
Special regulations, which uses construction without final building approval
or interfere with it or it will allow another person, then it is clear that
the construction authority cannot impose a fine of less than 500 000 €, and, therefore,
account the degree of risk to the public interest in the use of the construction works in accordance with the
kolaudačním decision, which may be quite different. In many cases,
When the change does not require any special equipment or building interventions, it is
in the opinion of the Court of a violation of the public interest a minimum rate. The Court, therefore,
attacks of a leveling fines regardless of how the infringement,
its consequences or delinquent property benefits. At the same time points out, even on the
the fact that the amount of the fine does not allow to take into account the wealth
delinquent, or whether it is at all capable of such fine
pay. For example, in this case, Mrs. h. b. had to saved
fine work for 14 years. Against it is therefore a fine established liquidation
in a way, as the administrative authority would, in principle, it could prepare all
assets, including the House in which it does business.
The District Court further States that this administrative sanction is not comparable or
penalties under the criminal law, the ones that can be Additionally
choose between several penalties. Given that individuals are
exposed to the risk of such punishment, which, by their nature and the degree of
the severity of the include in terms of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention") to "criminal matters", it should be on the matter
apply article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention, according to which everyone has the right to
the matter has been dealt with fairly. This requirement was not
met with regard to the current legislation, as it had not been taken into account
the individual circumstances of the case. Given these facts
designed by a regional court to cancel part of the header of that provision.
II.
The Constitutional Court found that made the proposal meets all the legal process
requirements and prerequisites, and nothing to prevent discussion and decision of the case
the same. Therefore, pursuant to section 69 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, in
as amended, has called on the parties to the proceedings-the Chamber
the House and Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic to this proposal
They expressed.
The Chamber of deputies by its President in the observations,
the provisions of § 106 paragraph. 3 the building Act was amended by Act
No. 83/1998 Coll. Draft of this law, which it has submitted to the Government of the Czech
Republic, the Chamber of Deputies was pending in the second election
period as parliamentary print no. 261. As is apparent from the explanatory memorandum to § 105
and 106 to the building Act, the aim of the relevant legislation should be
the substantial increase in the fines, when it supported the recommendation
some cities that have experience with the "building nekázní". In the course of
discussions in the Chamber of Deputies not to alter the proposed adjustments.
According to the Chamber of Deputies, when discussing the said amendment was based on the
from the fact that the law is in accordance with the Constitution, the constitutional order and the
the international treaties. In conclusion, the Chamber of Deputies notes
the remedies that the proposal should read "from 500 EUR", so that the text of the law was even after
cancellation of part of the legislated and formulačně correct.
The Senate is to design content of the regional court in Hradec Králové, expressed
through its President, and expressed doubt as to whether the
the event actually occurred in the administration of the procedure set out in violation of the article.
6 (1). 1 of the Convention. The infringement must be regarded as
administrative offence that is penalized by a fine within a specified range, and to the
save it occurs in the administrative proceedings in the competent administrative
authority. In the present case, it is clear from the administrative authority takes account of the
the individual circumstances of the case, as the order the lowest possible fine.
The use of the buildings without the approval of the decision or in contradiction with it
Building Act considers it a serious breach of discipline construction, and rank is
Therefore, to a group of the highest rates of fines. The Senate also points out that the
If the Constitutional Court upheld the proposal, then the deletion of the threshold
the fines in section 106 paragraph. 3 the building Act was breached system binding and
struck by the apparent inequality with the provisions of paragraph 2 of the same section,
where the lower limit of the fine for factual matters remain listed here
preserved. As well as for offences against citizens ' building law
contained in section 105 to the building Act, there is a system of differentiation of the amount of the
the fines by determining their lower limit. The Chamber further notes that
the amendments to the building code, whose aim was to consolidate discipline at
building and use of the buildings, was in the interest of this goal narrowed the space for
administrative discretion, but not to eliminate it completely.
The Constitutional Court also requested the opinion of the Ministry for regional development.
This Government Department in a letter of 28 June. 2.2002 No. 2502/2002-51
the design of the regional court in Hradec Králové, expressed disapproval. On the one hand it has
for that, the Building Authority has the space that, when fixing the amount of the fine could
consider the degree of risk to the public interest or the severity of the violation,
Alternatively, the consequences associated with it, and, in his opinion, article. 6
paragraph. 1 of the Convention does not apply to the case at all, because it cannot be
assess whether provided for the lower limit of the fine is "fair" or
"unfair" in relation to the infringement. The provisions of § 106
paragraph. 3 the building Act could be in breach of article. 6 (1). 1
The Convention, if the legitimacy of such a review would prevent the "criminal
the allegations "by an independent court. A review of the case in full jurisdiction, however,
does not prevent the contested provision, but not yet valid legislation of the administrative
the judiciary. For these reasons, the Constitutional Court did not have the design of the regional
the Court in Hradec Králové.
From the Department of regional development's Constitutional Court for information requested
also information on the number and the amount of the fines imposed in accordance with the building Act on
the basis of each of the constituent elements. The Ministry said that these
collectively, the data does not monitor, and has sent at least the Municipality hl. m.
Prague as a body of appeal for 26, respectively (from 1. 7.2002) 22
districts. One of them showed that in 2001 it was in appeal
management discussed a total of 67 34 offences and administrative offences according to the
the building Act, 12 of which constitute a violation of the contested
provisions. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court sent similar information on the penalties
saved in the city of Liberec, which for the year 2001 were legal
persons and natural persons operating under special rules
been fined in 15 cases. None of them has not been saved
for an administrative offence under the contested provisions, and in 10 cases
imposed on natural persons, the penalty for the offense.
The Constitutional Court in order to determine income levels of legal and physical
people-entrepreneurs for a period of one year, requested the cooperation
The Ministry of finance. In its communication, it said that of the total number of
221 237 legal entities that submit an income tax return, should in
2000, the total annual income (see section 20, paragraph 2, of Act No. 563/1991 Coll., on the
accounting, in the version in force until 31 December 2006. 12.2001) to $ 50,000 total 43
619 people, to a total of 100 000 CZK 50 090 persons, to 500 000 CZK in total 75 636
people and to 1 000 000 Czk in total 91 539 people; from a total of 964 723
natural persons-entrepreneurs in the same year, receiving up to 50 000 Eur
a total of 185 368 people, to a total of 100 000 CZK 304 753 people, to 250 000 CZK
a total of 519 757 people, to a total of 500 000 CZK 670 814 people and to 1 000 000
CZK total 793 187 people (given intervals starting from $ 0).
III.
The Constitutional Court in accordance with § 68 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll.
as amended, examined whether the Act for which the applicant
argues the unconstitutionality of its provisions, was accepted and published in the limits of the
The Constitution laid down the competence and constitutionally prescribed way. In this
regardless of těsnopisecké messages from 20. a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies held
on 13 November. 2. the 1998 and the resolution No. 256 dated June 13. 2. the 1998 shows that the
The Chamber of deputies by a majority of 151 for and none against (out of a total
the number of 171 MPs) approved the draft law mentioned
(print no. 261). From the těsnopisecké news of the meeting 2. meeting
The Senate held on 18 July 2005. 3. in 1998 the Constitutional Court further found that the Senate
# 23 by order of 18 April. 3. the 1998 mostly 55 votes (out of a total number of
70 senators present) when 7 votes against, the Bill also
has approved. It is clear that the law was enacted and issued a constitutionally
in the prescribed manner and within the limits of the Constitution set out competences
observing the quorums set out in article. paragraph 39. 1 and 2 of the Constitution.
Substantive examination of the application and after considering all the circumstances, concluded the constitutional
the Court decision, that the contested provisions of the Act should be repealed.
At the outset, the Constitutional Court considers necessary to note that in this case
It is not, as is usual, challenged the rule of conduct to which
It is the obligation of the legal entities take the construction only in accordance with
kolaudačním decision, but it is exclusively about the constitutionality of the resources
(sanctions) that the legislature has chosen to ensure such behaviour from
by the mailing rules. However, even here it will be the assessment of the
the constitutional conformity standards setting out the legal obligation, even if it is a
the so-called. the obligation of the secondary. The Constitutional Court is fully aware of the weight
the arguments that are found in the comments of the parties, in particular
The Senate, where appropriate, in the opinion of the Ministry for regional development, to the
the scope of the relevant issue of falls, which in principle as to the
the fact that the infringement, i.e.. the use of the construction without approval
decision or in conflict with him, showing for the public interest
considerable social hazard, especially in view of the General
failure to comply with the relevant building regulations (called the construction of discipline).
Whereas the arrangements should be administrative sanctions, in a given
a case of fines, specified in a manner proportional to the body resulting from the situation, not only
so, in order to increase the upper limit of the amount of the fine, but at the same time was
established and its bottom line. The legislature by enshrining minimum amount
the fines into the law largely follows a legitimate aim, as far
more pronounced way than would be the case only when the determination of the upper
rate allows you to distinguish the seriousness or the hazards of which types of
the infringements. Side-effect of this step is that it
limits the scope for administrative discretion of the competent State authorities, which has
its positive effects for example. in that, to a certain extent aligns the amount of
imposed penalties, or limits the scope for arbitrary or corruption
influenced by the meetings of the administrative offices, the it may seem prima facie
as a means of protection against any discrimination on the
the second, however, a greater or lesser extent, paušalizuje the severity of the infringement
the negotiations, leading to a restriction on the ability of the administrative authority to take into account
the particular circumstances of the case, the person of the offender and his circumstances, as
in its proposal, also lists the regional court in Hradec Králové.
First, the Constitutional Court forced to fully identify with the view that this
the case of the nature of things cannot turn out article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention. The subject of the
adjustment of the provision is the guarantee of a fair, smooth and
public management. If the talk in this regard on the right to
a fair trial, or of its content, this means "equality of arms"
participants of legal proceedings, the right to personal participation and hearings,
the right to compliance with certain rules in the area of procurement and reviews
evidence, etc. Here, however, is not about assessing the constitutional conformity
the rules of a procedural nature, IE. whether certain procedural rules meet
the said policy, but about the assessment of the regulation of the law, that the process of
as such has nothing to do. In other words, the content of the
constitutionally guaranteed rights cannot be the right of individuals to be able to
the legislative "fair" editing a particular legal relationship, and thus
or "fair" amount of the fine. The fine must therefore be fair-from
the perspective of this constitutionally guaranteed right-to understand the fine imposed in the
accordance with the law, in proceedings respecting the principles of fair
process.
Due to the fact that the Constitutional Court is bound by the design, but not Petite
the legal qualification in the proposal contained, dealt with further by whether
the contested provision does not breach other than cited in the proposal
rights and freedoms according to the constitutional law or international treaties.
It is apparent from the preamble to the Constitution of the intention of citizens of the United States come from
the principles of the rule of law. The provisions of article. 1 of the Constitution, then the Czech Republic
expressly referred to as the democratic rule of law based on respect for
rights and freedoms of man and citizen. Respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual is
also, undoubtedly, one of the principles of the rule of law, as has the
the mind of the preamble to the Constitution, from which it can be inferred from one of the fundamental
the rules of functioning of the State power, which is the principle of proportionality
(proportionality), and prohibition of abuse of rights, as inferred in many of their
findings of the Constitutional Court. This policy is based on the premise that the interference with the
fundamental rights or freedoms, even though it's their constitutional modification
It is not expected, may occur in the event of a collision or in their mutual
event of a collision with any other constitutionally protected value, which does not have the nature
the basic rights and freedoms (public good)-cf. constitutional
of the Court of 9 June. 10.1996, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 15/96, collection of findings and resolutions
The Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as "the decision"), volume 6, finding no. 99;
promulgated under no. 280/1996 Coll., however, Always is in these cases need to be
consider the purpose of the (target), such an intervention in respect of used resources
While the measure for this assessment is the principle of proportionality
(the proportionality in the broader sense), which can also be called a ban
more interference in rights and freedoms. This general principle involves three
principles of assessment criteria, respectively, to the admissibility of the intervention. The first of the
one is the principle of the eligibility of the fulfillment of the purpose (or appropriate),
According to which the measure must be able to reach at all
the intended objective of protecting other fundamental rights or
public good. Second, this is a principle, according to which the need for
It is allowed to use only the most environmentally-friendly-in relation to the
fundamental rights and freedoms-of more possible resources. The third
the principle is the principle of proportionality (in the strict sense), according to which the injury
the basic law must not be disproportionate in relation to the intended destination,
i.e.. measures restricting fundamental human rights and freedoms shall not, with respect to
on the conflict of basic rights and freedom with the public interest, their
negative consequences extend beyond the positives, which represents the public
interest in these measures (cf. the finding of the Constitutional Court of 13 July. 5.
1997, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 25/97, ECR, Volume 11, finding no. 53;
promulgated under no. 159/1998 Coll.). At this point, based on the consideration of the
empirical, system, context and value arguments (see
the finding of the Constitutional Court of 9 June. 10.1996, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 15/96,
published as indicated above; According to this finding empirical
the argument can be understood the seriousness of the phenomenon, which de facto is associated with
the protection of a fundamental right; the system argument means
considering the meaning and classification of the basic rights and freedoms in the
the system of fundamental rights and freedoms. The context argument can be used to understand
other negative effects of the restriction of one of the basic rights as a result of
Another prioritization; an argument represents the value considering the positive
in a collision of fundamental rights is located relative to the accepted
the hierarchy of values).
In accordance with these conclusions, in particular the Constitutional Court examined whether the referred
intervention in the legal sphere of the individual can also be considered as an interference with the
constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms, and concluded that the fine-for
certain circumstances-can represent in the first place the intervention into the basic
rights according to art. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter. The fine as a constitutionally permissible
deprivation of property-unlike the taxes and fees-explicitly in the article. 11
Of the Charter are not; However, the situation is somewhat different in the case of modifications
protection of property rights under art. 1 of the additional protocol to the Convention on
the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the additional
the Protocol "), according to which States may enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, and
to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. From this can be
inferred that the fines, as well as taxes and fees fall within the sphere of
legal regulation of article. 11 of the Charter, or article. 1 of the additional protocol and
the permissible in principle constitute interference with an individual's title, which
However, it is true, provided that legal principles are respected
the State, as reported above (see also article 4, paragraph 4, of the Charter). To do this,
It should be noted that the fine can be considered as interference with constitutional law
dimensions, it will interfere with an individual's financial circumstances with considerable
intensity. This factor is the Constitutional Court will deal with in the context of
application principle of proportionality (see below).
The Constitutional Court in this connection would like to point out that, by analogy with the
in relation to the article. 1 of the additional protocol referred to in: Frowein, j., Peukert,
W.: Europäische konvention Menschenrechts-, EMRK-Kommentar, 2. Edition,
E. p. Engel Verlag, Kehl, 1996, p. 824 et seq.; pursuant to the said
the authors of the storage of financial penalties is the law of each State, which, however,
does not mean that the statement respecting the ownership in the field of financial
find here the application of fines; on the contrary, it is possible to examine whether they have been
stored in contravention of the principle of the prohibition of abuse of rights or of proportionality.
When it comes to taxes, which form together with one set of cases fines (see
above), the German Federal Constitutional Court is in many cases explicitly marked
for the violation of property rights (Eigentumsverletzung); see Isensee, j.,
Kirchhof, p.: Handbuch des Staatsrecht, Band VI, c. f. Müller,
Heidelberg, 1989, p. 1072.
After finding that in the present case, it can be a hit to the constitutionally
of the guaranteed rights and freedoms, Constitutional Court examined whether the interference can be
regarded as an intervention in accordance with the principle of proportionality. As has already been
above, the purpose of the legislation was to prevent violations
building regulations. It should be noted that the escalation of repression, for
You can also increase the minimum amount of the fine may be considered to
a certain extent, a tool that is capable to achieve the intended
and at the same time the legitimate objective, as the risk of a possible recourse to the strict
reduces the "feasibility" of the infringement. For this reason,
The Constitutional Court does not rule out that the intervention was not qualified to fill the
its target. However, as regards the additional criterion, which is the principle
the need for Constitutional Court cannot consider that the intervention of this
the principle of not entirely responsible. You should be aware that the General
non-observance of the specific legislation on the part of individuals may have
for a cause (apart from cases of completely non-functional modifications) inadequate
penalties when infringements "shall pay" even at the risk of their
Save, and/or lack of activity of the public authorities, to the
competence to monitor compliance with the law and impose sanctions. In the first
the case is the obvious need to increase penalties (specifically the rates of fines)
the second is a matter of State, namely, the Executive, to take measures to
the competent authority shall fulfil its functions. If the legislature has come to the conclusion that
the current amount of the fines is insufficient, it is fully in the purview of
take the appropriate measures. On the other hand, it is necessary to distinguish between
the top and the bottom level of the fine. If insufficient amount,
can it-regardless of the fact, as the administrative authorities are working-
mean that the right to basically become unenforceable. In contrast, the
No, or "low" minimum limit to the fine itself this condition not
cause if it does not connect the inefficient performance of State
management in the field of prevention and repression. With specific regard to
the question of repression can be in improving the functioning of the Government, for example.
the increase in inspection activity, the adoption of the internal instructions on saving
the fines, to achieve at least the same result can be achieved
by increasing the lower limit of the fines.
If it is not, therefore, such a measure is necessary, and due to the fact that it is not
excluded that the fine represented an interference with the constitutionally guaranteed rights and
freedoms, in particular the right of ownership, the Constitutional Court also had to
consider whether such action is indeed in this particular
case. The assessment of this question very closely related to the principle of
the adequacy of the Constitutional Court, as suggested above, not every determination
the fine represents an interference with the fundamental rights and freedoms, but only those
that extends to property relations with great intensity, and
the degree of the injury resulting from this compels is just one of the aspects of
the principle of proportionality.
It should be noted that the determination of the lower rates of fines by the legislature
limits the administrative discretion of the competent authority, which as a result
may refer to an obstacle for taking into account not only the severity of the factual
a specific infringement, but also to the economic situation
the responsible entity. This can cause in a particular case or for
groups of cases, fine-even if stored in a minimum amount of-seems
extremely "unjust". Due to relativity of the concept should be
the thing looked at from the perspective of the constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms and from this
perspective, it is then necessary to establish rules at the legislature, which must
determination of the lower limit of the fine. The basic criterion of
which it should be, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court, is called.
the substance of the criteria according to which it is true that not every deprivation of property on the
the basis of the fines. fees and taxes, determined by the intervention of the proprietary
rights, but only those which property relations of the body fundamentally
amended, i.e.. changing its overall ownership position "marred" the same nature
asset. Specifically, in the case of fines laid down legal and natural
persons doing business under the specific legislation should be based on
that such an intervention is excluded property, as a result of which would be
"destroyed" property base for other business activities. In other
words, the unacceptable are such fines to liquidation
character. It should be noted that the fine in the liquidation amount represents the
in principle, the "hardest" case of the matrimonial property regime, which, moreover,
at the same time may lead to the infringement of article 81(1). 26 paragraph 2. 1 of the Charter; While it is not
impossible to relate the conclusion of significant intensity of intervention in the title
rights to such cases in which a fine enough to exceed possible
revenue, that business activity essentially becomes "aimless" (IE.
pointing only to pay the fine imposed after a significant period of time). U
natural persons as entrepreneurs then – because it is not separated
their private property and assets intended for business (neposuzováno after
the accountant)-then in such cases, there is a risk of serious effects not only
to a person of delinquent, but also to other members of his household. Due to the
the fact that more than 20% of the physical, as well as 19% of legal persons should
the total annual income of up to $ 50,000 and almost 70% of the natural and more than 34
% of legal persons income to 500 USD, there is no doubt that the fine
stored in the amount of 500 EUR can not only in the case, which the judge County
the Court in Hradec Králové, but in a number of cases have actually
winding-up (about 19% of all companies has an annual income of less than
1/10 is the lowest amount of the fine). Therefore, you can-in accordance with the above
citations-that the lower limit of the determination in question fine
represents so much intense intervention into the financial circumstances of the individual,
at the same time it is hit to his right of ownership.
The intervention does not correspond to the principle of the (criterion) the need for, and therefore it is not
another test on the basis of the principle of proportionality in a strict sense is necessary.
However, the Constitutional Court dealt with this question and came to the conclusion
that the measure is disproportionate to the intended objective, namely the protection of the
the public interest. In particular, it must be presumed that the injury to the
the basic law, that with this intervention may be associated, it is significant,
Since the intervention is threatened by the very economic survival of high
the number of subjects, with the protection of property rights in the system of basic
rights and freedoms certainly belongs to the most important. Although the Constitutional Court
does not deny the existence of the negative phenomenon (i.e. non-compliance
building regulations) in General, on the other hand the information of the Ministry of
for regional development does not indicate substantial violations of building
legislation, on the one hand, the Constitutional Court does not consider that the infringement
particularly in the cases, as they were described by the regional court in Hradec Králové,
represented a major problem severe enough, in the light of the
would such a fundamental intervention into fundamental rights and freedoms was justifiable.
The Constitutional Court is given the situation of the principle cannot identify with such a
the approach, which is essentially based on the escalation of repression by the State
against individuals. For example, as stated in. Knapp (theory of law, Prague,
1995, c. h. Beck, p. 36 and 37), "the centuries-old experience shows, especially in the
criminal law, first, that the infringement to cause proportionally
zpřísňováním penalties, and, further, that the penalties (especially strict penalties) lead to
the creation of the said deregulátorů, and antiprávních systems,
developing ways to avoid the impending penalty. "
The Constitutional Court no choice but to conclude that the fine can be compatible
with the article. 11 of the Charter and article. 1 of the additional protocol, where it permits-
at least to some extent-to take into account the material situation of the delinquent
(cf. Peukert, lit. from the top, p. 826). In addition, it should be
take into account the other dimension of the phenomenon under consideration. The determination of the fine in the present
margin means that, in principle, the same amount of the fine will be penalized
entities whose economic situation is completely different, and thus completely
different impacts will also be fine imposed; While for certain entities may
the maximum amount of the fine in relation to its management of a negligible,
for others, the lowest possible penalty can mean their destruction,
How to demonstrate and the above information. According to the article. 1 of the Charter are the people
free and equal in dignity and in rights. In this case, although the
from a formal point of view, the contested provision treats from all the stakeholders
as well, but fundamentally distinguish their material prevents the
situation. Certainly not every de facto inequality constitutes interference with the fundamental
rights and freedoms; as stated by the Constitutional Court in its finding of 7 November. 6. the 1995
SP. zn. PL. ÚS 4/95 (ECR, volume 3, finding no. 29; announced
under no. 169/1995 Coll.), "inequality in social relations, in order to
touch the fundamental human rights, must reach the intensity
challenging in some ways already the very essence of equality. This is
as a rule, going on, if it is in breach of the equality and violation of
Another fundamental right, for example. the right to own property under art. 11
Of the Charter, one of the political rights according to art. 17 et seq. Of the Charter and
Similarly, ". Due to the fact that there are, in principle, this is the inequality
social, it is necessary to examine whether the intervention of considerable intensity,
Since any determination of the lower limit of the fine can represent a certain
inequality, not every means inequality in ústavněprávním
the meaning of. However, as regards the intensity and the proportionality of the
intervention, the Constitutional Court has already dealt with and the above conclusions-even if
the matter is being examined from a different view-applies here as well.
Because of these reasons, the Constitutional Court has considered that the contested
provision is incompatible with the principles of the rule of law according to art. 1 of the Constitution
and represents a contradiction with article. 1 and article. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter and article. 1
Of the additional protocol. Therefore, the Constitutional Court had no choice but is under section 70
paragraph. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., as amended, to rescind.
The Constitutional Court admits that the cancellation of part of the provision can
be, as points out in its observations, the Senate compromised system binding and
the inequality was instituted with the provisions of § 106 paragraph. 2 the building Act, in
which case the lower limit of the fine is retained, but the constitutional
the Court is not entitled to the cancellation of the cited provision, since it is bound
Petite design (except for the correction of a technical nature, of how
It was in this case). However, this does not preclude the legislature in
in light of this finding, to assess the constitutionality of the cited provisions and
eventually he made appropriate steps to change it.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
in the z.. Haboob in r.
Vice Chairman