2/2000 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court on behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court decided on 23 December 2005. November 1999 in the plenary on the draft Ing. P. N.
on the cancellation of part of the provisions of § 248 paragraph. 2 (a). e) the code of civil
the order of the words "including the decision of the police to speeding tickets"
as follows:
The provisions of § 248 paragraph. 2 (a). e) of Act No 99/1963 Coll., the civil
the rules of court, as amended by Act No. 519/1991 Coll., in the words "including
the decision to by the fines "shall be deleted on the date of publication of this
the finding in the journal of laws.
Justification
The appellant filed a constitutional complaint against the decision of the municipal court in
Prague from 31 March. March 1998, SP. zn. 28 Ca 317/97, which was
stopped proceedings for his actions against the decisions of the President
The Supreme Audit Office (hereinafter referred to as "SAO") of 20 November 2003. May 1997 No.
j. 1199/95-140/3-RK. This decision was rejected by navrhovatelův
the breakdown against the decision of the SAO of 12 December December 1995 No. 95/22-SK/46
and was confirmed by the imposition of a fine in the amount of $ 50,000, according to § 28 para. 1
Act No. 166/1993 Coll. on the Supreme Audit Office. This provision
provides:
"(1) a natural person who culpably caused the controlled person
has failed to fulfil an obligation pursuant to § 24 of this Act, the Office may impose a fine on
up to $ 50,000.
(2) a fine can be imposed repeatedly, unless the obligation is fulfilled or in the
time to check the newly laid.
(3) a fine may be imposed within one month from the date of the infringement.
(4) the fine are the Czech Republic's State budget revenue.
(5) Penalties enforced by the authority. ".
The appellant claims that the resolution of the municipal court in Prague has been infringed
his right to judicial protection, including the lawfulness of the decision of the
of a public authority, as he is constitutionally guarantees the article. paragraph 36. 1 and 2
The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms ("the Charter") and article. 6 (1). 1
Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention").
This violation has occurred, in his opinion in connection with the application of section
paragraph 248. 2 (a). e) of the code of civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CCP").
The provisions of § 248 paragraph. 2 (a). e) CCP, as amended by Act No. 519/1991
Coll. lays down that in the administrative judiciary the courts also nepřezkoumávají:
"the decision of the administrative authorities preliminary, procedural or riot nature
including decisions on fines by the police ".
This provision is based on his claim in the words "including the decision about
by the fines "in breach of article. paragraph 36. 1 and 2 of the Charter and article. 6
paragraph. 1 of the Convention.
The appellant took this § 64 para. 1 (b). (d)) of law No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, and along with constitutional complaints filed
on the cancellation of part of the provisions of § 248 paragraph. 2 (a). e) CCP in words
"by including the decisions on penalties". Whereas (II). the Senate
The Constitutional Court assessed the fulfilment of the conditions pursuant to section 74 of the Act on the constitutional
the Court. The constitutional complaint was made in good time, authorised by the applicant,
that was duly represented, the proposal is not inadmissible, and the Constitutional Court is to
its jurisdiction. The proposal has not been found to be neither manifestly
unjustified.
Because the alleged interference with the fundamental rights took place under direct application
the provisions, which is the subject of the proposal, II. Chamber of the Constitutional Court
to the conclusion that the conditions of § 78 para. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll.
Therefore, the proceedings on constitutional complaints resolution of 21. October 1998 No.
II. TC 254/98-24 broke off and the proposal to repeal parts of the
the provisions of the CCP plenary session of the Constitutional Court to forward the decision referred to in
article. 87 para. 1 (b). and the Constitution of the United States) (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution").
(I).
The appellant submits that the proceedings before the municipal court in Prague sought
annulment of the decision of the SAO, which he won were imposed a fine of EUR
$ 50,000, when, in his opinion, the SAO has required compliance with
the obligation, which is not saved by the law. Also formally was not a procedure
The SAO without faults. However, the city court in Prague ruled that the proceedings in this
things stopped, while its decision was motivated by a reference to Section 248 paragraph.
2 (a). e) CCP, according to which the courts in the administrative judiciary
nepřezkoumávají decisions of administrative authorities preliminary, procedural or
riot police including decisions concerning the nature of the penalties.
In accordance with the provisions of the CCP navrhovatelova view, in the words of
"by including the decisions on fines" in contradiction with the constitutional
the legislation excludes from judicial review of a variety of different nature of the decision.
Can be fined $ 200 according to the code of administrative procedure, but also about
the fine pursuant to § 71 para. 2 of Act No. 455/1991 Coll., on trades
business (Trade Act), in the amount of $ 10,000, a similar penalty
According to § 62 para. 2 Act No. 199/1994 Coll., on the award of public
contracts, or even a fine up to $ 500 000, pursuant to section 11 of Act No.
136/1994 Coll., on colouring and marking of certain hydrocarbon fuels and
lubricants and on measures related to it. All fines imposed by the Executive
the authority can save them repeatedly, and all are explicitly as riot
the fine. This is an extremely serious interference into the sphere of rights
individuals that may cause and economic liquidation as follows
the affected entity. Therefore, it should be with regard to the article. paragraph 36. 1 and 2
Of the Charter and article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention be understood to exclude the right of the legislature
the ability to review a decision of a public authority very restrictively.
It follows from article. 4 (4). 4 of the Charter, according to which it must be when you use
the provisions on limits of fundamental rights and freedoms investigated their essence and
the meaning of.
According to the navrhovatelova of the legal opinion is therefore unconstitutional lump
the exclusion of judicial review of all the so called. by the fines without their
the next resolution. On the one hand the legislature's effort to prevent understands
disproportionately high idea of the courts in these matters, on the other hand, however, a number of
such fines can per person, very tragic hunt down delinquent. It is sufficient to
While the cancellation of the words "including decisions on fines by the police", as the
then the Court itself will be able to assess whether a fine is the nature of the decision
nature exclusively riot (e.g. fines under the administrative code), or if
given the circumstances, the intensity, the amount of the penalty extends also to the rights of the
substantive in nature. Now this Court does not have discretion and control must
to stop without a review of the merits of the case.
In this context, also pointed to the Act No. 36/1876., which in
paragraph 3 contained a significantly narrower exclusion of administrative review, so
legislation until 1952 to provide citizens with a substantially higher standard
legal protection than the Edit today.
II.
On the challenge of the judge-rapporteur on the draft expressed the participants in the proceedings. For
The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic expressed its Chairwoman of Wishwanath
B, which stated that Act No. 519/1991 Coll., which was the subject
provision of poliovirus "to the CCP, was accepted on 18. a meeting of the Federal
Assembly on 5. November 1991, when in the House of the people for him
voted 87 of 92 MPs and in the Chamber of the Nations in the Czech
part of the 55 members of Parliament and in the Slovak part of the 52 parliamentarians from 107.
Senate amendment to CCP in this section. It is a matter of the constitutional
Court to examine the constitutionality of the contested design provisions of the CCP
For the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom expressed its
Chairman: Prof. Ing. Václav Klaus, PhD., which stated that law No.
519/1991 Coll. was adopted by the necessary majority of MPs and was properly
declared. From the substantive point of view reminded of the content of the explanatory memorandum to this
law, from which it follows that the jurisdiction of the courts in the administrative judiciary is
established the so-called. General clauses. Circle the things that should be
excluded from the review, it is defined in Section 248, CCP
the exceptions are worded generally and therefore apply to all
the decision, regardless of what the legislation is based. Their
the interpretation should be restrictive, since they are the nature of the exceptions to the General
clause. A decision on the fines by the police is the Institute that has
serve to eg. the inspection authority had an effective tool to
in order to fulfil the obligations to which the law and the Constitution are directly intended.
It is not excluded that decisions about the riot to a fine hit constitutionally
of the guaranteed rights and freedoms. But this is not the subject of the complaint, since the
the complainant is challenging the unconstitutionality of eliminating the review of such a decision
the Court, not the unconstitutionality of disciplinary offence as such. This
stěžovatelův the President of the Chamber of Deputies does not share the opinion.
III.
The Constitutional Court first proceeded to the examination of formalities
submitted by the proposal. The petition was filed, authorized the complainant under the conditions
referred to in section 74 of law No. 182/1993 Coll. as the conditions of admissibility
pursuant to section 66 paragraph 1. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll. have been met in the present case.
The proposal was found to be permissible and Constitutional Court could follow
the directives section 68 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll.
IV.
With regard to the constitutionality of § 248 paragraph. 2 (a). e) CCP in the words "including
a decision on the fines by the police ", the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that
This provision is not in conformity with article. paragraph 36. 1 and 2 of the Charter, article. 6
paragraph. and article 1 of the Convention. 14. 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and
political rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Covenant") in conjunction with article. 1 of the Charter and article.
1 and 4, of the Constitution.
In this case, the Constitutional Court performs abstract control of constitutionality without
regardless of that, the stimulus for its implementation was a constitutional complaint.
If the design has complied with the requirements of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., is to be with him
treated the same as with the suggestions of other legitimate claimants pursuant to section
64 para. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll. on the evaluation, therefore, is not fine in
the specific case of the applicant (article 28, paragraph 1, of Act No. 166/1993 Coll.)
but reviews of the concept of "fine" order "is used generally in Section 248
paragraph. 2 (a). e) CCP in its full meaning, IE. even there, where the
specifically about the "riot" does a fine however, if this fine has
"pořádkový" character. While the appellant argues that this concept
"riot" is used by all by the abovementioned provisions, just in case
used against him § 28 para. 1 of Act No. 166/1993 Coll., however, it
does not match the reality. The case was the Constitutional Court assessed as follows.
This concept uses a series of legislation in the field of civil, criminal
and the administrative procedural law and legislation governing the status and
the scope of the control and inspection authorities. These decisions are designed
as civilněprocesní, the statutes of criminal procedure or sanctions, i.e., správněprocesní
the measures to help ensure the smooth operation of a specific control and
the synergy of its participants in the case that they would not be willing to take on the management of
participate in the manner prescribed by the law (to appear, present
the required documents, issue the things important for management, etc.), or
the progress of the otherwise difficult or even obstruct. Therefore, it is possible to store
repeatedly, until an adequate management of secured (does not apply
the principle of ne bis in idem).
Sanctions in the form of a fine imposed by the administrative authorities as
riot actions while it was originally designed more as an
warning on the obligation to respect the rules laid down and does not rise
the degree of repression or prevention in the sense of criminal law and
správnětrestních offences. As an example of § 45 para. 1 administrative
the order, according to which a person who makes it more difficult to control, in particular by
without compelling reasons to attend to a call to the administrative authority, suspended over the
the previous admonitions, unreasonably rejects the testimony,
the presentation of the Charter or to perform an inspection, the administrative authority may impose
fined up to 200 CZK; for soldiers in active service and for
members of the public of the armed forces shall surrender the thing due to under
disciplinary regulations. In recent years, however, it is evident the tendency to
increasing the amounts which are in the form "by the fines" are stored.
A similar nature as the fine in administrative proceedings have
riot measures in the control and inspection activities. And here is their
Mission to ensure proper progress of the control actions that would normally
was impracticable without synergy, controlled. In addition, there are
in comparison with the procedural law measures some peculiarities
related to the nature of the control activity itself. As regards control
the activities of the inspectors in the implementation of the SAO, the checks referred to in section 21 of Act
No 166/1993 Coll. are entitled to:
and to the objects) to enter plants, land and other
the premises of persons are linked to the subject of the controls;
(b) the controlled persons) to require that within the time limits
submit the original documents and other documents, records, data on
storage media devices of computer technology, their statements and
the source code of the programs, product samples or other goods;
(c)) to review classified information, show the certificate
for the classification of those facts, issued pursuant to
a special law;
(d) require the controlled persons) provide truthful and complete,
oral and written information about the survey and related
the facts;
e) ensure, where justified, the documents; their acceptance must
the controlled person in writing to confirm and leave her a copy of the accepted
documents;
(f)) require that the person submitting the controlled within a specified period a written
a report on the deficiencies;
g) use telecommunications equipment in cases of persons
when their use is necessary for security checks.
According to § 24 para. 1 of Act No. 166/1993 Coll. are controlled by persons
required to provide the assistance referred to above permission
controlling (§ 21 of Act No. 166/1993 Coll.). Individuals do not have the
the obligation pursuant to article 21 (b). (d)) of the Act No. 166/1993 Coll., if its
by complying with the danger of a resumption of a criminal prosecution themselves or persons
loved ones. If you do not provide this assistance, they may, under section 28 of the SAO
paragraph. 1 to 3, of Act No. 166/1993 Coll. Save within one month from the date of
failure to comply with the obligations of a fine up to $ 50,000, even repeatedly,
If the obligation has not been fulfilled even within the newly laid controlling.
Similar rules provides for control of procedure pursuant to Act No. 553/1991 Coll. on
State control, as amended. Summary of measures
that is expressly marked as "riot" fine, however, cannot
exceed 200 000.
In the present case, the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that, even if in law No.
166/1993 Coll., this fine is not explicitly marked as riot, characters
fine in terms of disciplinary measures of the administrative authority
fills. It follows from its nature, objectives and purpose. Sao
control activities is equipped with vrchnostenskými privileges to
controlled entities (cf. § 21 of Act No. 166/1993 Coll.). When
check proceed legally modified the manner in which he is entitled to
require the fulfilment of statutory obligations on the part of
controlled entities. If the auditee, which has
an obligation to do so, this obligation and makes it more difficult or frustrating
audit, compliance may be enforced by enforcement measures in
the most varied form, including fines. The fine pursuant to § 28 para. 1 of law No.
166/1993 Coll. has, undoubtedly, the nature of the measure, which is in section 19
Act No. 553/1991 Coll. marked as riot fine.
However, the Constitutional Court emphasises that, in the case neposuzoval, whether in
the case, which gave rise to the proceedings, he could have done, and that control of the SAO
Therefore, such an obligation on the part of the responsible entity in its own right.
The stimulus was the only question the constitutionality of denial of Justice
(denegatio iustitiae) in the form of terminating the proceedings before the municipal court in
Prague because of the lockout, the review by the administrative authorities of the measures
by including the decisions on fines. It will be up to public court
to assess this particular problem. In the minimization of the Constitutional Court
interference with the competence of general courts (administrative justice) to this
the issue did not consider it necessary to enter. As well as the Constitutional Court
in General, the neposuzoval, the extent to which such measures are still in each
the legislation actually "law-fines" and the extent to which indirectly
penalties for breaches of the substantive law, since it was also the subject of
control.
It can be concluded that the fine pursuant to § 28 para. 1 of law No 166/1993.
comparable with other fines that are explicitly as "riot"
marked, and therefore falls under section 248 paragraph 1 shutout. 2 (a). (e))
CCP, the Constitutional Court could consider as a further question, whether in the
the case of the fine it is a decision that they are eligible
interfere with fundamental rights or freedoms. In such a case would be
their exclusion from judicial review by means of administrative justice in the
contrary to the article. paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter, which provides that decisions on
the fundamental rights and freedoms under the Charter shall be excluded from
jurisdiction of the courts. For the same reason would also § 248 paragraph. 2 (a). (e))
CCP in breach of article. 4 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the fine imposed in the administrative
management and control activities are by their nature generally, eligible
interfere with fundamental rights and freedoms with regard to the legal entity,
their amount and the possibility of repeated saves. May be issued
on a discretionary basis, so it is not excluded or discriminatory effect
their store to various entities. If, in our legal system
provides for the possibility of the administrative authority save repeatedly fined in
of up to 500 000 € (section 11 of Act No. 133/1994 Coll.), it is a significant intervention of the
to the status of a legal entity.
On the question of which specific constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights are
the contested provision infringed the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion, without
considered it necessary to examine all the constitutional aspects of this issue that the
It's all about equality in rights violations against the public authority referred to in article.
1 of the Charter, in conjunction with the violation of the right to a fair trial under article.
6 (1). 1 of the Convention.
Article. 1 of the Charter guarantees equality in rights against the public authority. In the case of
the police action in civil process (§ 53 and 54 CCP) and criminal
proceedings (section 66 criminal procedure) is guaranteed judicial review of such
measures a higher court instances. In the administrative decision at issue
the person does not have this option. Already this in itself, if they have not been
serious grounds for exclusion, the Court would result in unconstitutionality
such adjustments. In this case, the Constitutional Court of such serious reasons
did not detect. On the contrary, by comparing the extent of a possible intervention by the so-called. known to the
the measure came to the conclusion that the správněprocesní sanctions are in many cases
far more serious character than is the case in civil or
criminal proceedings, having regard to the potential of these measures. The reason for the
for exceptional inequality in the rights of the participants in the administrative (i control
process) and participants of the judicial process in this area, therefore, was not
found.
On the Constitutional Court to determine whether there is at least one specific constitutionally
guaranteed right that is contested by modifying the violated. Without looking for
all possible violations, found a violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights to
the Court of protection. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention, which ensures to everyone:
"the right to keep his affair was a fair, publicly and in
a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by
by law, the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of the
the legitimacy of any criminal charge against him. The judgment must
be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded either after
for the whole or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order
or national security in a democratic society, or when it
require the interests of minors or the protection of the private life of the parties
or, to the extent considered necessary by the Court for completely, if,
owing to special circumstances, public control might be detrimental to the
the interests of Justice ".
The appellant himself did not substantiate its claim in no way closer, only stated that the
all fines imposed by the Executive authority, may save them repeatedly and all
they are specifically marked as fine and this is an extremely
serious interference with the sphere of the rights of individuals, which may cause
economic liquidation as follows the affected entity. The Constitutional Court of the
This navrhovatelovou argument could not identify, but according to your
the case law is bound to the Petite design, not its reasoning.
In particular, the Constitutional Court is of the opinion that article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention
doesn't work on administrative decisions and administrative decisions as such, but
guarantees judicial review of such decisions in the case that can be
for their part, under the concept of "civil rights or obligations (civil rights and
duties, les droits et obligations de caractere civil) ", that they understand
European authorities considerably widely. However, the imposition of fine is
správněprocesní of sanctions used to enforce certain procedural
obligations, and thus act as the Lords ' nature, even if it has material
nature, touching on the ownership and other rights associated with it, such as
for example. operation of a business (as the appellant argues), but
and all other rights that are somehow connected with the need to possess
asset.
In the present case, however, as regards civil liability within the meaning of civil
(understood as public, in English referred to the concept of
"civic"), not civil (civil) of the obligations to ensure
ability of State power necessary in the conditions of democratic
the company. Here it is not a private law relationship in the above sense
According to the article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention or pursuant to art. 90, the first sentence of the Constitution. It comes
about authoritarian relationship, which is intended to ensure that the State and the public
management at all able to perform their function. In this respect, the Constitutional Court
app's objections.
Therefore, the Constitutional Court dealt with other areas of the application requirements
the fairness of the process expressed in the article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention the term
"the legitimacy of any criminal charge" (the determination of any
criminal charge, toute accusation en commencement pénale).
Fine in administrative proceedings are penalties for unlawful behavior.
As mentioned above, does not arise from civil rights and obligations (civil
rights and duties, les droits et obligations de caractere civil) in
the meaning of the civil law in any widely-understood. Their mission is to
affect those who violate their obligations in relation to public law. From
the perspective of the case-law of the European institutions is that in the article. 6 (1). 1
The Convention is cast turnover, "about the legitimacy of any criminal charge" on
everything is transposed into national law as a criminal accusation. In addition to the
It was, however, the term is related to the allegations of infringement and
the negotiations, which national law did not deem it to be criminal. In our
conditions could go eg. about prison sentences in the military, unless
in this respect, made a reservation when you access to the Convention made in relation to its
articles 5 and 6, a reservation to the effect that this provision does not preclude
storage of disciplinary punishment prison pursuant to section 17 of Act No. 76/1959 Coll., on
some of the service conditions of soldiers. In other words, it is for the
national rules, what designates as a criminal offence and what will be automatically
Article mode. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial). The State, however,
on the contrary, cannot arbitrarily something as a crime and threatening to designate an
penalties more severe than in a comparable area of criminal law.
Also the turnover of "criminal charge" is the case-law of the European Court
human rights understood more broadly than simply criminal charges of an offence
According to the national criminal code such as. in § 160 paragraph. 1
the criminal procedure code. A bad translation of the term "offence" in the article. 5 (3). 1
(a). (c)) of the Convention already had when making a decision of the Constitutional Court
notified (a collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic,
SV. 1, s. 144). Therefore, you cannot rely solely on the formal character (measures
under the criminal law), but also of the characteristics of material, which are in
such measures, an assessment of whether it is a repair, compensation
(typical for remedies of the inspection and surveillance), but imposing a penalty,
that acts as a deterrent (to the responsible body to repeat the same unlawful
the negotiations) and repressive (that has been affected by what he did). Important is the
also the severity of the sanction, which may not be in the case of tort
the hearing only in the deprivation of liberty, but for example. even in the lapse, the
the amount is comparable with other penalties, where the right to a fair trial
sure is.
The Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that riot of the fine in the legal order of the Czech
the Republic a penalty for tort proceedings provided for in article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention
they represent. Are laid down by law and intended as a preventive and
at the same time punitive measures of public authority. Their amount (up to 500 000
CZK repeatedly) it is therefore necessary to compare the nature of the offences for which
It can also impose a financial penalty. Such crimes knows our
the criminal code related to the problems of the tens and the management of certain
legal processes and controls (such as the near nature e.g. section 124a to 124 c, §
125, 129, 145a, 148a, 169b, 171, 175, 176, 255, 257 bis of the Penal Code).
Pursuant to § 53 of the criminal code is a financial penalty in the obligation
pay the State from 2 to 5 million. The right to a fair trial
in their case, is guaranteed.
In the case of such crimes is in the form of a monetary penalty
punishment (often less than riot fine) in article mode. 6 (1). 1
Convention, there is no good reason why it would not be in the case of
any fines that are often never require fault (not
However, in the case of § 28 para. 1 of Act No. 166/1993 Coll.). The same also applies to the
offences for which you can save as a sanction, which is fine according to § 83
provincial offences Act reviewable by a court, if it exceeds the amount 2
000. Just by the way the Constitutional Court notes that any sanctions for
the offense is in a mode article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention (cf. In the case of Lauko.
Slovakia. The European Court of Human Rights 4/1998/907/1119 of 2. 9. the 1998 and
In the case of Kadubec. Slovakia. The European Court of Human Rights
5/1998/908/1120 of 2. 9.1998), even if the penalty does not reach above. It
applies regardless of the fact that the punishment for the offense cannot be determined
imprisonment and the penalty is not kept in a special register. Such a procedure
Therefore, it does not meet the requirement of proportionality of the intervention of a public authority as a
components of the concept of the rule of law according to art. 1 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court thus concluded that the provisions of § 248 paragraph. 2 (a). (e))
of the row in the words "including the decision about any fines" is not in the
accordance with article 6(1). 6 (1). 1 of the Convention in conjunction with article. 1 and 4, of the Constitution, article. 1,
article. paragraph 36. 1 and 2 of the Charter.
Denial of legal protection in matters of review of the decision of the public authorities
the Administration is possible if the law so provides. But it is not possible in the
the case that this is a decision relating to the fundamental rights and
According to the Charter of freedoms, the Constitution and the international conventions referred to in article. 10 of the Constitution.
Any other procedure is in breach of article. paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter and article. 4
Of the Constitution. Every natural and legal person has a constitutionally in the Czech Republic
guaranteed the right to a fair trial under article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention.
In the case of a decision on the fines, however, this right of law § 248 paragraph.
2 (a). e) of s. l. does not guarantee, as is the right to have it taken away
review the decision of a public authority independent and impartial
by the Court. This requirement does not warrant the grant of rights to another protection in
form of appeal to a higher administrative instance in the present case, in the form of
degradation to the President of the SAO. The President, however, does not meet the requirements of article of the SAO.
paragraph 36. 1 of the Charter, article. 6 (1). and article 1 of the Convention. 14. 1 Pact, even if the
the difference from the administrative authorities is not directly appointed by the Government or higher
administrative authority. In the case in question cannot satisfy the particular requirement
an impartial authority when, as such, can never be understood
the complainant. Even the constitutional definition of the SAO, as an independent authority (article 97
The Constitution) does not guarantee the fulfillment of article. Article 81 of the Constitution. paragraph 36. 1 of the Charter and article.
6 (1). 1 of the Convention, as it relates to the control activities of the SCC in relation to
management authorities, rather than saving the police fines where the SAO
does not flow as an independent tribunal, but as an administrative office.
At the same time, this procedure does not guarantee equality of rights as concerned
bodies, constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms referred to in article. 1 of the Charter. It is also in the
contrary to the principle of proportionality of the intervention of a public authority, as is clear from
article. 1 of the Constitution, which requires that public authorities in the Czech Republic
She has performed according to the rules of law. These rules include
also, the principle of proportionality of the interference rule rational zdůvodnitelnosti
(the prohibition of arbitrariness) and prohibition of excessive use of otherwise rational
the chosen instruments of regulation. Because already at this point was from above
the reasons given is found to be a violation of the constitutional rules, Constitutional Court
already other reasons did, since it was not from the perspective of possible
future legal adjustments needed, when the only solution is to repeal this
Section § 248 paragraph. 2 (a). e) of s. r. and enabling judicial control
the decision on fines issued by police in the field of administrative law and
control activities.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
