Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=57692&nr=153~2F2004~20Sb.&ft=txt
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic
The Constitutional Court decided on 11 July. February 2004 in plenary on the draft minors J.
and p. b., represented the mother of m. b., on abolition of the provisions of section 243c paragraph.
2 of the Act No. 99/1963 Coll., the civil procedure code, as amended
The provisions of section 243c paragraph. 2 of the Act No. 99/1963 Coll., the code of civil procedure,
as amended, is repealed on the date of publication of this award
in the collection of laws.
The proposal sent to the Constitutional Court the day 2.9.2002 (SP. zn. IV.-582/02)
complainants-minors J. B., and p. b., represented the mother of m. b., legally
represented by JUDr. A. j., claimed that the Constitutional Court annul the resolution
The Supreme Court of 19.6.2002, no. 33 Odo 360/2002-127, the judgment of the
The regional court in Prague of 22.1.2002. No. 28 What 11/2002-111 and
the judgment of the District Court in Příbram of 17.10.2001 No. 11 C
Together with the constitutional complaint, the complainants have submitted a proposal to repeal
the provisions of section 243c paragraph. 2 of the Act No. 99/1963 Coll., the code of civil procedure, in
as amended, ("o.s.ř.").
The Fourth Chamber of the Constitutional Court after finding that application of the contested
one of the provisions of the facts that are the subject of the constitutional
complaints, IE. that the conditions laid down in section 74 of the Act No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as
the "law") proceedings on constitutional complaints and said the proposal to repeal section 243c
paragraph. 2 o.s.ř. forward to the plenary of the Constitutional Court.
Proponents consider the provisions of section 243c paragraph. 2, o.s.ř., enabling
The Supreme Court decision on the appeal specified in it at all
neodůvodňovat, contradictory with the right of each to a fair trial,
in particular, with article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"). This Convention is, in their opinion the Treaty
According to the article. 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"), thus
immediately binding and takes precedence over the law. In support of its
the opinion then argue decisions of the European Court of human rights,
in particular, the attention of the judgment in the case of 21.1.1999 García Ruiz v.
Spain, which clearly says that "according to settled case-law of the Court,
reflecting the principle related to the proper operation of Justice, the Court of
the decision must be sufficient to state the grounds on which they are
established. ". Furthermore, the appellants point out that the scope of this obligation are
may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be assessed in the light of the
the circumstances of each case (see Ruiz Torija and Hiro Balani against
Spain, 1994, St. and another against France, 1998). Finally,
then refer to the conclusions of the European Court of human rights that, although
article. 6 (1). 1 courts committed to justify their decisions, this
the obligation cannot be read to require a detailed response to each
argument (see Van Hurk against Netherlands, 1994). The Court of appeal in
in principle, the appeal may be limited to taking over the justification for the
the Sub-District Court (see Helle against Finland, 1997).
The appellants believe that in both cases the modified racing
the contested provision of section 243c paragraph. 2 o.s.ř., when can the Supreme Court
dispense with the justification, it is not a mere procedural decision in a case
(e.g. rejection due to late submissions, or the submission of unauthorized
a person), but dovolací the Court must resolve a preliminary question concerning the
Merita things and come to the conclusion that it is not a question of fundamental
legal importance. that the appeal is manifestly unfounded. It must, therefore,
deal with things from the point of view of substantive law. If then is one of the main
the tasks of the Supreme Court, that their interpretations of the law in individual
He worked on the cases of unification of the case-law of the lower courts, then this
the role is to be according to the plaintiffs, even if only briefly, but
a clear link, eg. the Supreme Court decision in a similar case.
However, it is difficult to talk about filling this role in the case, when the dovolatelé or
know why it's not a question of major legal significance. Why is the
appeal manifestly unfounded. The appellants therefore conclude that
the law allows the Court decision at neodůvodnit, although the Convention is based
in the article. 6 (1). 1 the right of each participant in the court proceedings on the sufficient
statement of the grounds on which the decision is based, this directly violates the
the right to a fair trial. No reasoning can never be
In the comments, which the Constitutional Court has taken under section 69 of the Act, indicated both
Chamber of the Parliament of the Czech Republic the following:
The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in particular stated that you cannot take
qualified opinion submitted to the design without the expression of a wider reflection on the
the tasks of the judiciary, as well as the limits of her constitutionally guaranteed
human rights and freedoms. As a result of the dissatisfaction of the Czech society
with the work of the judiciary and the adverse view of the results of the
Of the European communities occurred in 2000 to one of the steps in the direction of the
remedy this negative social phenomenon, and that the adoption of law No.
30/2000 Coll., the act as a whole represented not only a significant intervention in the
Czech Civil editing process, but at the same time was conceived and presented
as an important contribution to the reform of the Czech judiciary at all.
The declared objective of Act No. 30/2000 Coll. was mj. delete unnecessary
delay from the activity of the courts. On the basis of this fact, you can even reverse
to generalize the legislature's efforts to give the courts the legal means and their
way is to force this behavior, which showed all
the characters of "fair trial" in relation to the parties to the dispute. A legislative instrument
the reference plan is considered and the incorporation of the contested
the provisions of section 243c paragraph. 2 of the code of civil procedure, and cannot be
ignore that the effect is significant, both for the Court (removal of excess
formalism), and for the parties to the proceedings (a shortening of the length of the process).
Under the Constitution, the courts in a democratic legal State, based on the
separation of powers called primarily to the law laid down by the way
provide protection of subjective rights. If the ústavodárce defined
The Supreme Court of Justice as the supreme body of the General, with his
the law "imposed" to ensure the legality and unity of decision-making, it is clear
If your task to live up to the Supreme Court, must have its activities and
appropriate legal means. In the decision-making process within the district
in the matter of the appeal of the Institute is in such a way. The appeal is from the nature
things to review means of extraordinary, that allows to perform the Supreme
the Court of the above tasks, but only provided that it will not be
means bezbřehým, i.e.. just another in the series. Therefore, the code of civil procedure
provides for mj. a number of formal and material conditions of its admissibility
[e.g. in section 237, paragraph 1 (b), (c)), and similarly in section 238 and 238a of the civil
Code of civil procedure is the material condition of admissibility of the conclusion dovolacího
the Court that the case itself is legally significant importance, and section
243b paragraph. 1 of the code of civil procedure, that it is not a thing at first glance
unfounded]. From the above it is therefore concluded that the claim
the provisions of section 243c paragraph. 2 of the code of civil procedure, which is largely
established to strengthen the principle of the effectiveness or efficiency of civil
process, is of the view that the legislative provisions, formally
performs the specified policy to "as a result, rather than the provisions of primarily
a protective ".
In the opinion of the Senate cannot be promoters in přisvědčit, in the
as a result of the application of section 243c paragraph. 2 o.s.ř. was reduced their constitutionally
guaranteed protection of the right to a fair trial by the Supreme Court in the
the law defined cases of inadmissibility of the appeal [non-
pursuant to section 237, paragraph. 1 (a). (c)), mutatis mutandis, to section 238 and 238a, same section 243b
paragraph. 1 o.s.ř.] may waive the justification of its decision odmítavého.
Decisions made pursuant to section 243c paragraph. 2 o.s.ř., IE. such that in
justification does not contain detailed reasons for refusal in itself
yet do not imply that the matter has not been properly discussed and properly
zargumentována. The Supreme Court in accordance with the law laid down by the
the tasks laid down by law and always make a preliminary conclusion on the
whether the thing, or the Court of appeal decision after legal page
of fundamental importance, and therefore relevant for the decision-making activity of courts at all, and
not just only for a particular case (indeed, the law itself in section 237 (3)
o.s.ř. "justifies" when the thing, the decision of the Court of Appeal respectively.
not be considered as legal as essential). Such a decision, however, is
consumed his next procedure. The Court shall proceed in a similar manner, and
in the case of an appeal, although permissible, but apparently gratuitous. If
The Supreme Court considers the appeal, without stating the rejects
justification, stating in a written copy of the resolution, why so proceeded.
The appellant is in any case learns the reason of inadmissibility
appellate review. The issue can only be added that the Supreme Court as
dovolací or from the perspective of the court hearing of the case law of the Court of an extraordinary
the law on courts and judges is bound and internal control
mechanisms against possible adverse opinion fragmentation, for example.
decision-making in the major divisions of colleges.
The Senate also reminded that the petitioners invoke article. 6 of the Convention, cite
However, the article. 10 of the Constitution in an invalid version. Through the "new"
the text of the article. 10 of the Constitution in relation to the international law of the Czech Republic
signed up to the principle of monism, with so-called moderate. application priority
international treaties, if there is an international treaty that provides for the
anything other than the law. For this reason, you can reply nepřípadnost
the use of the legal basis of the above Convention for annulment
the relevant provisions of the o.s.ř., since the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms
(hereinafter referred to as "the Charter"), fifth in their head completely covers the issues
the right to a fair trial. At the end of your expression then the Senate said,
that when discussing the amendment had cited doubts about the conformity
the contested provisions of the o.s.ř. as with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic
According to the article. paragraph 112. 1 of the Constitution, as with the then expressis verbis constitutionally
recognised categories of international treaties on human rights and fundamental
freedoms referred to in article. 10 of the Constitution.
The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in its comments
First, as is reminded of article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention is interpreted, in particular,
in the case law of the European Court of human rights. It must be pointed out that the
(and are) respected the peculiarities of the judiciary in each of the Contracting
States, and are therefore not prescribed the means by which it is to be "the right to
"the Court realized, or ways of organization of the judiciary. According to its
opinion, the requirements of the article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention correspond to our national
Law article. 36 and 38 of the Charter, in accordance with article 6(1). paragraph 36. 4 of the Charter of
details, inter alia, the code of civil procedure. The complainant
the affected section, paragraph 243c. 2 o.s.ř. was incorporated by Act No. 30/2000 Coll.
The text of the amendment has been accepted in accordance with article. 10 of the Constitution, and taking into account the
article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention, including the case-law of the European Court, which is to
This provision applies. The main objective of the activity of the courts was
delete, unnecessary delays (article 38, paragraph 2, of the Charter), so that the courts of the
decisions on the rights and obligations in a reasonable time (article 6, paragraph 1,
Of the Convention). In this context, the Chamber of Deputies, however, drew attention to the fact that
the appellants argue that the Convention is a Treaty referred to in article. 10 of the Constitution, therefore,
"immediately binding and takes precedence over the law". The text of the cited article.
10 of the Constitution, however, is invalid, since it was amended constitutional Act No.
395/2001 Coll., with effect from 1.6.2002.
The Chamber also stated that if the Court, pursuant to section dovolací, paragraph 243c. 2
comes to the conclusion that the contested decision is not legally essential
the importance, or the appeal is pursuant to section 237, paragraph. 1 (a). (c)) or by
like the use of this provision in section 238 and 238a permissible, then such
leave to appeal refused. Because the reason why the appeal was rejected,
It is apparent, not a resolution on the rejection of the appeal include a justification; to
justification resolution dovolací, the Court shall, if it is needed
for the unification of the decision-making activity of courts. For the same reasons may not
not be sufficient grounds for the resolution, which was rejected by the appeal section
243b paragraph. 1.
In conclusion the observations stated that the law was approved by the required majority
members of the Chamber of Deputies the day 12.1.2000, was signed by the competent
constitutional factors, and was duly announced. In this state of affairs is
The House of Commons believes that the Act is adopted in accordance with the
The Constitution and our legal system.
The Constitutional Court also asked for an opinion on the proposal delivered by the Ministry of
of Justice and the Supreme Court (article 48, paragraph 2, and article 49, paragraph 1, of the Act).
The Ministry of Justice expressed the view that the contested provisions of the
represents an exception from the General justification adjustment resolution, by which the Court of
decides on the merits of the case, within the meaning of section, paragraph 169. 4, § 157 paragraph respectively. 2 and
4 o.s.ř. this exception has its justification in the fact that in the case of the resolution
on the refusal of leave to appeal under section 243c paragraph. 2 o.s.ř. may have reasons
such a resolution only formal character. The Court would be in a recital in the
principle, only reiterated the relevant provisions of the Act, which give for
the rejection of the appeal entirely explicit criteria-either it is not a
the decision, which has the same legal things of fundamental importance,
or is the appeal manifestly unfounded. The admissibility of the appeal as
the extraordinary appeal in cases under section 237, paragraph. 1 (a).
(c)) o.s.ř. or refusal as obviously unjustified under section 243b
paragraph. 1 o.s.ř. depends on the discretion of the Court. This consideration, however, is very closely
bounded by. If the contested decision of the Court of appeal is correct, in
accordance with the case law and otherwise flawless, is not even given a sufficient
the substantive basis for the justification of the extent, as it assumes in particular
the provisions of § 157 paragraph. 2 o.s.ř.
The Ministry also reminded that appellate review is an extraordinary legal
a resource that is permissible only when it lays down the law (is not based
on the principle of universality, as is the case for the appeal) and its purpose is,
In addition to the decisions of individual things, Act on the unification
the case-law. If the dovolací the Court that an appeal is not permitted
pursuant to section 237, paragraph. 1 (a). (c)) o.s.ř., because the contested decision does not
legal legal importance, or that the appeal is manifestly
unreasonable within the meaning of section 243b of paragraph 1. 1 o.s.ř., assumes that the
the decision of the Court of appeal is correct and that even in terms of its
justification does not dovolací the Court reason to supply anything. That such their
resolution on the rejection of the appeal does not, cannot be in contradiction with the
the right to a fair trial, because a possible justification for the resolution
dovolacího Court could only point to the correct conclusions of the Court of
the Board of appeal. It is therefore not at all such a process of economic resolutions
justify, as the Court of appeals correctly resolved the dispute and grounds
dovolacího the Court may not be in this situation or for the benefit of parties,
or for the purpose of unification of case law. For these reasons, it is the Ministry of
Justice believes that the content of the section 243c paragraph. 2 o.s.ř., that
does not require the Court to justify its resolution cannot be considered
violations of the right to a fair trial within the meaning of article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion dated 28.3.2003 appealed in part on
expression, which was lodged in the framework of the constitutional complaint, the Chair of the
the Chamber, which ruled on the appeal in the particular case in which it is
considered that the contested provision is contrary to the law of the o.s.ř.
the participant to a fair trial within the meaning of article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention.
The contested provisions of the o.s.ř. that in specific cases the resolution of
does not justify the rejection of the dovoláni, it was in the code of civil procedure
enshrined in the interest of the acceleration and the shortening of the dovolacího proceedings in the Supreme
of the Court. It is necessary to see that these proceedings are proceedings of the extraordinary
the appeal, so in no way impair the principle of dvouinstančnosti
of the judicial process (the Supreme Court in this case is the third
instances) with the European Union, or the majority of its States to fully
sufficient treats two judicial instance. It cannot be considered that the contested
the provisions of the constitutional law of the participant interferes with due process,
Since it meets the requirement to accelerate and rationalisation of the court proceedings in the
those cases where unnecessary on the grounds of the decision on the weighted
the appeal (more or less a small nature) moving the Supreme Court capacity
the unification of court practice and to make decisions about matters of fundamental importance.
The argument of the complainants, referring to a specific case-law
The European Court of human rights applies to the Court of appeal, not the
the Court of dovolací.
In conclusion, in the opinion of the Supreme Court stated that the views expressed
are in accordance with rationalization of the trends in the civil lawsuits
proceedings in Germany and the other States of the European Union.
After examining the arguments submitted by the applicant and after consideration of the above
given the observations and opinions of the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion about the
submitted the proposal merits tests are applied. Arose from the following considerations.
You can přisvědčit the opposition of both chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, as well as
The Ministry of Justice, the plaintiffs ' argument that sidesteps
the fact that with effect from 1.6.2002 was the release of the constitutional law
No. 395/2001 Coll. to the anchoring of the application the priority of international treaties in the
the legal order of the Czech Republic, which implies the nepřípadnost their voucher
the original text of the article. 10 of the Constitution. Similarly, you can přisvědčit even the Supreme
the Court, that the particular precedents of the European Court of human rights,
that the appellants point out, relate more to the requirements
justification of the decision of the nalézacích or the courts of appeal. Referred to
argumentative misconduct itself, however, does not render the proposal made by nedůvodným.
From the representation of both chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, as well as from professional
opinions of the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court, it is clear that the
the main goal of inserting the contested provisions of the amendments to the o.s.ř.
carried out by Act No. 30/2000 Coll. is considered the Elimination of unnecessary
delays in the activities of the courts, in particular to facilitate the position of the Supreme Court,
Therefore, compliance with the requirements of the article. paragraph 38. 2 of the Charter, or article. 6 (1). 1
The Convention, as regards the decisions of the courts in a proportionate and reasonable period of time.
Such a goal is undoubtedly a legitimate means to achieve
However, you should not get into a collision with the right of a participant of the proceedings on the
a fair, equal, and the license of the negative treatment.
The requirements that need to be put on the decisions of general courts, expressed
The Constitutional Court has already in many of its decisions. Primarily stated that
the independence of the General Court decisions in the constitutional and
legal procesněprávním and substantive framework. Procedural framework
are primarily the principles of proper and fair process, as
result from the article. 36 et seq.. Of the Charter, as well as from the article. 1 of the Constitution. One of the
These principles, representing part of the right to due process, as well as
the concept of the rule of law (article 36, paragraph 1, of the Charter, article 1, of the Constitution) and
negative arbitrage in deciding, is the duty of the courts rulings
justify (find SP. zn. III. TC 84/94, collection of findings and resolution
The Constitutional Court, volume 3, finding no. 34, p. 257). In finding SP. zn.
III. the TC 176/96 (a collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, volume 6,
finding no. 89, p. 151), the Constitutional Court has expressed the opinion that if it is to be
met one of the purposes of the Court's jurisdiction, namely, the requirement of "education to
the conservation law ... to respect for the rights of fellow citizens "(§ 1 of the code of
Code of civil procedure), it is absolutely essential that the decisions of the ordinary courts not only
match the law in the merit of things and was issued with full respect for
procedural standards, but also to justify the decision issued in relation
to match the criteria of the aforementioned purpose, the provision of section 157, paragraph. 2
in fine. 3 of the code of civil procedure, since the only factually correct
(the law completely corresponding) decision and properly, IE. by law
required by way of reasoned decisions, meet-as
inseparable part of the "fixed route"-constitutional criteria arising
of the Charter (article 38, paragraph 1). Similarly, as in the present case the area, even in the
the area of poorly reasoned legal arguments and the landings occur
similar consequences leading to the incompleteness and in particular to the nepřesvědčivosti
the decision, which, however, is at odds not only with the purpose of
management, but also with the principles of a fair trial (article 36, paragraph 1,
Of the Charter), as the Constitutional Court means to them.
For the thing at hand is significant i find SP. zn. III. TC 206/98 (collection
the findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, Volume 11, finding no 80, p. 231, and
et seq.), in which the Constitutional Court stated that the part of the constitutional framework
the independence of the courts is their obligation to ensure equality in the rights arising
from the article. 1 of the Charter. Equality in rights in relation to the general courts of Constitution
Thus, among other things, the right to the same decisions in the same matters, and
at the same time eliminates the discretionary power in the application of the law.
On the other hand, however, the Constitutional Court in its case-law,
that the right to appeal is not constitutionally guaranteed, and this extraordinary appeal
resource, which the law gives to the participants of the civil and criminal proceedings to
There, beyond the constitutionally guaranteed procedural privileges
(resolution SP. zn. III. TC 298/02, collection of findings and resolutions of the constitutional
the Court, Volume 26, usn. No. 18, p. 381).
However, that does not imply a claim of constitutional order on filing an appeal,
or else, the so-called. the emergency appeal, the constitutional
the Court considered the key assessment questions whether the legislature chosen procedure
eliminates the possible arbitrariness enough in application of the law, which
undoubtedly belongs to the characters of the rule of law. In other words, whether the
the fact that a procedural Institute goes beyond the constitutional
requirements, is in itself a sufficient reason to conclude that the
of the decision of such a resource, it is not necessary to ask the criteria
the existing case-law stemming from the Constitutional Court, respectively, that this
It is not necessary to apply criteria or adequately. The next question, on
the Constitutional Court had to answer was whether the limitation of the rights of
dovolatele learn (in certain cases), the reasons for the highest
the Court rejected his proposal, it is proportionate to, or whether they
This goal can serve.
The explanatory memorandum to the provisions of section 243c paragraph. 2 o.s.ř. States that because
the cause for which the Supreme Court rejects the appeal, it is apparent, is not
the need for decisions. In the same spirit came and representation
both chambers of the Czech Parliament and the opinion of the Ministry of
of Justice and the Supreme Court. According to the beliefs of the Constitutional Court is
However, this argument unconvincing, since "zjevnost" is de
facto expressed only by reference to the text of the relevant provisions of the o.s.ř.,
which is actually a kind of argument in circle. Dovolatel, therefore, know,
albeit briefly, why the Supreme Court question submitted in the appeal,
not a question of major legal significance, or why the submitted
appeal as manifestly unfounded. In this respect, it is therefore
the Supreme Court decision nepřezkoumatelné, which might compete
in the situation, if the Supreme Court was actually the last authority
of the type that could deal with things. With regard to the status of
The Constitutional Court, as well as the European Court of human rights, however, the absence of
justification makes it impossible to assess, albeit rudimentary,
the reasons for the decision and, in the case of referral to such authorities as well
invokes the duty of the Supreme Court of its decision (additionally)
Within the meaning of the case-law of the European Court of human rights is a matter for each
State, as the court system and adjust the relationships between its various
the degree. If the so-called. extraordinary remedies were not admitted
not at all, no doubt, such an adjustment from this point of view and from the perspective of
the Constitution did. On the other hand, if they are such means
admitted, it should be under the rule of their editing, in principle, the same
for all types of legal proceedings, or to vary only if they are
reasonable grounds for it. A comparison of the requirements, which must include:
the decision on appeal in civil and criminal proceedings, the formalities, respectively.
which requires the administrative court rules on decision on complaint
However, the resulting substantial differences, the rationality of the Constitutional Court
It is not obvious.
If it is rejected by the Supreme Court of appeal in the criminal proceedings, he
the law, to briefly stated reason for refusal, with reference to the circumstances of the
relating to the Court because of refusal (article 265i, paragraph 2, tr.).
Comment to the criminal procedure code then talks about that characteristic-
brevity-necessarily affect it, what reason led to the rejection of the appeal.
More extensive justification of the request, the reasons given in the commentary,
in section 265i paragraph. 1 (a). (b)), (c)), and in particular the f), therefore, has to be answered,
why a certain question is not legally significant importance. From
compared with the requirements of the decision of the appellate review in civil
management follows, therefore, that the things of the same nature can, in principle, the highest
the Court may decide, from the point of view of the requirements for justification of their decision
quite differently. From the comparison of the following different requirements on the grounds
dovolacích decision with the requirements of the decision of the Supreme Administrative
the Court of cassation complaints shows that the administrative court rules in section 55, paragraph. 4
allows only the neodůvodnit resolution, which management does not end, and which
Nobody does not impose an obligation. Judgment without justification does not know the law (§
54.) Whereas, pursuant to the provisions of section 120 of the regulations of the administrative
the proceedings on the complaint of Cassation shall apply mutatis mutandis the provisions of
the third title I administrative judicial procedure, it can be concluded that the decision of the
the cassation complaint the Supreme Administrative Court must always be justified.
From the above it is clear that in the various proceedings before the courts of the same
the State, in a situation of process-if not the same as, then very similar (a participant in the
control is sought the cancellation of the final court decision due
incorrect legal evaluation, or is claimed to be the highest authority of the
system of courts said the issue, which the appellant considered
the question of the fundamental and neřešenou), cannot be party to the proceedings
treated differently without obvious reasonable grounds for such a procedure.
The argument that the denial of leave to appeal in civil court proceedings without
reasons contributing to the decisions of the courts within a reasonable period of time (which is the goal
no doubt legitimate), also according to the beliefs of the Constitutional Court
does not hold water. Restrictions on the right of the participant dovolacího proceedings in civil cases
Learn why the Supreme Court ruled, as decided, can
stated goal to serve only minimally (if at all). Putting
brief reasons, that the Supreme Court decision against its negative
(e.g. the table of judgments of this Court, that the matter addressed and for which the change
or deviating from them did not Court the reason), the Supreme Court cannot
encumber in a significant way, and therefore not significantly affect the overall length of the
the court proceedings; limitation of the rights of the participant dovolacího management is therefore considered
be clearly unreasonable the aim pursued. In this context, can be
recall the view expressed in the decision of the European Court of human
rights in things Delcourt (1970 and 11, section 25), according to which in a democratic
the company enjoys the right to proper functioning of the justice system so severe that
It is not possible to sacrifice the suitability. Justice must not only be
exercised, but also must be visible, that is being performed.
For the above reasons, the Constitutional Court decided the plenary about the repeal of section
243c paragraph. 2 o.s.ř. for its contradiction with the principles of the rule of law (article 1
The Constitution), as well as with the principle of equality (article 1 of the Charter), as
These principles, the Constitutional Court interpreted in its current
the case-law, and did not find the reasons for the postponement of the enforcement of this
The President of the Constitutional Court:
in the z.. Holländer in r.
Vice-Chairman of the
Search Translated Laws of Czech Republic