Notice of the Constitutional Court
of 30 March 2004. April 2013
No Org. 23/13 the effects of Constitutional Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 25/12 of
17 May. 4.2013 at claims arising from Decree No 484/2000 Coll., which
the standard rates of remuneration for the representation of the participant
a lawyer or notary public in deciding on the reimbursement of costs in the civil
court proceedings and amending the Decree of the Ministry of Justice, no.
177/1996 Coll., on the remuneration of lawyers and Solicitors for the provision of compensation
legal services (lawyer's tariff), as amended in
the wording of later regulations, and granted by a final decision of the Court to
the time of the publication of the finding in the journal of laws
With regard to the possible interpretation of § 71 paragraph all French. 2 and 4 of law No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, in relation to the effects of constitutional
Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 25/12 of 17 May. 4. The Constitutional Court is the plenary
have decided on the following conclusions.
1. in accordance with the existing case-law of the Constitutional Court [cf. for example.
findings SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/06 of 6. 2.2007 (N 23/44 SbNU 279;
84/2007 Coll.) and SP. zn. IV. TC 1777/07 of 18 January. 12.2007 (N 228/47
SbNU 983) or the opinion of the Assembly, SP. zn. PL. ÚS-St. 36/13 of 23 July. 4.
2013], which in the case of horizontal legal relationship, i.e. legal
relations between individuals, admits the retroactive effects of the derogačních
the findings only very exceptionally, in cases of extreme intense
derogačního reason (in particular conflict with the material at the core of the Constitution),
in the case of claims to outweigh a flat-rate remuneration conferred by Decree No.
484/2000 Coll. the Court issued a final decision before the enforceability of
Constitutional Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 25/12 of 17 May. 4. principle of 2013
legal certainty before the Constitutional Court of the reasons which led to the derogation
the Decree. In these cases therefore does not apply the provisions of § 71 para. 2
sentence with a semicolon to the law on the Constitutional Court and claims arising from these
the decision may be subject to enforcement of a decision or execution. The opposite
interpretation would effectively mean that the Constitutional Court will be
refusal of the right to reimbursement of the costs granted under this
the Decree, which would instead of deleting the protiústavního intervention into the basic
the rights of the parties to the proceedings leading to its further deepening.
2. it does not apply to cases in which the Constitutional Court found the
based on time and properly filed a constitutional complaint in the amount of the flat-rate remuneration
the decision of the General Court of unconstitutionality and set aside.
Plenum of the Constitutional Court, in an attempt to save the legal certainty of legal
subjects covered by repealed legislation turns finding of the Constitutional Court
SP. zn. PL. ÚS 25/12 of 17 May. 4.2013 decided that this communication
received under no. org. 23/13 will be posted in the collection of laws under section 2
paragraph. 1 (b). (b)) of the Act No. 309/1999 Coll., on the collection of laws and the collection of
international treaties, together with the constitutional
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.