On The Proposal That Repeal Section 243C Par 2 Of Act 99/1963 Coll.

Original Language Title: On The Proposal To Repeal § 243C Par. 2 Act 99/1963 Coll.

Read the untranslated law here: https://www.global-regulation.com/law/czech-republic/508080/on-the-proposal-to-repeal--243c-par.-2-act-99-1963-coll.html

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.
153/2004 Sb.


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


as follows:

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as amended, is repealed on the date of publication of this award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

sufficient justification.

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)

justify it.

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

its decision.

The President of the Constitutional Court:

in the z.. Holländer in r.

Vice-Chairman of the

Related Laws