219/2014 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic of
The Constitutional Court ruled under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 52/13 on 9 April. September 2014 in plenary
consisting of the President of the Court, Pavel Rychetského and judges Louis David,
Jaroslav Fenyka, Jan Filip, Ivana Janů (Judge-Rapporteur), Vladimir
The crust, Vladimir Sládečka, Radovan Suchánka, Catherine Šimáčkové, and
Vojtěch Šimíčka, in the matter of the design of the Prague municipal court to declare
unconstitutionality of the provisions of § 140 para. 4 (b). f) of Act No. 435/2004
Coll., on employment, in the version in force from 1 January. 1.2012, in the words of
"but at least in the amount of Czk 250 000", with the participation of the Chamber of Deputies
Parliament of the Czech Republic and Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic as
Parties to the proceedings, and the regional court in Hradec Králové as secondary
party to the proceedings,
as follows:
I. the provisions of § 140 para. 4 (b). f) of Act No. 435/2004 Coll., on
employment, as amended by Act No 367/2007 Coll. and Act No. 1/2009 Coll.,
in the words "at least in the amount of 250 000 €" that is, in the version prior to its
the amendment, made by Act No. 136/2014 Coll., is in breach of article. 1,
article. 4 (4). 4, art. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms and article. 1
The additional protocol to the Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms.
II. The provisions of § 140 para. 4 (b). f) of Act No. 435/2004 Coll., on
employment, as amended by Act No 367/2007 Coll. and Act No. 1/2009 Coll.,
in the words "at least in the amount of Czk 250 000", is lifted on the day of its publication
the finding in the journal of laws.
Justification
(I).
1. the municipal court in Prague, the proposal of 4 October 2005. 11.2013, that the constitutional
the Court received on 7 December. 11.2013, according to the article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the United
Republic and section 64 para. 3 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, in
as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the "law on the Constitutional Court") sought
cancellation of part of the provisions of § 140 para. 4 (b). f) of Act No. 435/2004 Coll.
on employment, as amended by Act No 367/2007 Coll. and Act No. 1/2012
Coll., in the words "at least in the amount of Czk 250 000".
2. a factual circumstances of the case the appellant argued that the decision of the
The regional labour inspectorate for the South Moravian region and the Zlín region from
27 June 2002. 2. no j. 327/9/13/14.3-RZ was according to the contested
the provisions imposed a fine of 300,000,-CZK companies KUBE-PLUS,
v. o. s. for the administrative offence under § 10 (Note: properly § 140).
1 (b). (c)) of the Employment Act, which the company should commit
the fact that she admitted the performance of illegal work, since 19 November 2002. 9.2012
enable the specified construction to carry out ancillary construction work two
foreigners of Ukrainian nationality on the basis of a written work
the Treaty, however, in conflict with the issued permit employment, specifically with
the place of performance of the work specified in this permit.
3. the company-PLUS, on KUBE. o. s., appealed against that decision
the appeal, which was decided by a decision of the State Office of inspection
work from day 1. 7.2013, no. 1728/1.30/13/14.3, so that the appeal had been
rejected and the decision of the first instance is confirmed. Against this decision
the company lodged a KUBE-PLUS, v. o. s., on July 5. 9. an action to 2013
The municipal court in Prague. The procedure for this lawsuit is underway in that Court
under SP. zn. 10 Ad 20/2013, however, the Court concluded that the
the statutory provision is in conflict with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic,
Therefore, the proceedings and handed to the Constitutional Court for annulment of the proposal
legal regulation.
4. The provisions of § 140 para. 4 (b). (f)) of the Employment Act, as amended by
Act No 367/2007 Coll. and Act No. 1/2009 Coll., according to which, in a given
the case of the fine is imposed, is worded as follows:
"For an administrative offence shall be fined up to 10 000 000 CZK in the case of the administrative
offence pursuant to paragraph 1. (c)), and (e)), but at least in the amount of $ 250 000.
5. in the preamble to the appellant in particular, said that the text will become
part of the law on the basis of the amendments to the law on employment made
Act No 367/2007 Coll., with the disputed text Act came into
the legislative process on the basis of the revised draft law in the Parliament
the Chamber of Deputies. As a result, the explanatory memorandum to the Act No 367/2007 Coll.
the reasons for the introduction of the lower limit of the fine does not speak. Due to the fact that
the introduction of the lower limit was linked with an increase in the upper limit of
for the imposition of fines, according to the applicant, that the reason for the introduction of
the lower limit of fines was the belief of the legislature of
so far the sanction.
6. the municipal court in Prague during the preliminary assessment of the case was based on
the conclusions expressed in the Constitutional Court of 13 July. 8.2002 in case
SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/02 (N 105/27 SbNU 177; 405/2002 Coll.) on the proposal for
The regional court in Hradec Králové on the cancellation of the words "from 500 EUR" in §
paragraph 106. 3 of Act No. 50/1976 Coll., on zoning and the building code
(the building Act), as amended.
7. In that finding the Constitutional Court held that the anchoring of the minimum
the amount of the fine to the Bill in principle, pursues a legitimate aim, as far
more pronounced way than would be the case only when the determination of the upper
border rates allows you to distinguish the seriousness or danger which
the types of infringements. Side-effect of this step but is that
limited room for administrative discretion of the competent State authorities, which
It has its positive effects for example. in that, to a certain extent unifies
the amount of the penalties to be imposed, or limits the scope for arbitrary or
corruption affected the conduct of the administrative authorities. This may seem like a
a means of protection against any discrimination, on the other hand
However, a greater or lesser extent, paušalizuje the severity of the infringement,
which leads to the restriction of the administrative authority to take into account the specific
circumstances of the case, the person of the offender and his circumstances.
8. The Constitutional Court therefore concluded, that the fine may, under certain
circumstances constitute interference, in particular, the fundamental right under article. 11
paragraph. 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. The fine can be regarded as intervention
with constitutional dimensions, and that's where it will interfere with property
the ratios of the individual with great intensity. Therefore, the Constitutional Court assessed the purpose
intervention in relation to the resources used, with a yardstick for this
the assessment of the proportionality principle. The escalation of repression represented by
by increasing the upper limit of the penalty may fulfill the intended target and due to the
sufficient space for taking into account the circumstances of a particular case
allows you to meet even the condition of the proportionality of the interference. The setting and increase
the lower boundary of the sanctions to minimize this space does not permit a naturally
always apply the appropriate intervention, since it may have in relation to bodies,
to whom is the penalties in the form of fines imposed, sometimes the character of winding-up
[see also the finding of the Constitutional Court, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 12/03 of 10 June 1999. 3.2004
(N 37/32 SbNU 367; 300/2004 Sb.)].
9. Also in this case the lower limit is fixed fines for other
administrative offence, the amount of CZK 250,000. In the case that is
subject to assessment in the management maintained by the municipal court in Prague under the sp.
Zn. 10 Ad 20/2013, has not been imposed on the same lower limit
the legal margin, but in the amount of 300 000 €, while the law allows
the imposition of fines of up to 10 miles. And this is still a fine
practically just above the minimum margins the statutory rate. From
of the decision of the administrative authorities of both degree shows that
in terms of the amount of the fine in the light of the breadth of the law
the range and up to the present. The State labour inspection authority expressly pointed out to the
that "the degree of severity of the infringement type expresses the
the legislator with the amount of the fine, the range within which the administrative
offence to punish ".
10. From the description of the offence, in which the administrative authorities of the administrative offence, the FRO
According to the applicant, it follows that, in any case, it's not about hearing
reporting within this type of administrative offences a high degree
social hazard, or rather the contrary. To an administrative offence should
occur so that the two employees in the course of one calendar day
worked outside the place, which was stated in their permits to
employment. The appellant stated that he does not want to prejudge now whether the assessment
This acts as an administrative offense was actually correct, however, it is
obvious, that even if that were so, it would be a relatively small meeting
the degree of social danger ": it was only about two staff members
only on one day and it was a foreigner who had valid permits to
employment, "only" with a different place of work; in doing so, it was a performance
work on the basis of a properly concluded contract of employment.
11. For comparison, the appellant pointed to two other cases in the administrative
the offence consisting in allowing the performance of illegal work, which are
met in its decision-making practice: the case where the illegal work
a total of 197 allowed foreigners who have worked entirely without permission,
work without a contract of employment, to the administrative tort occurred over a period of
eleven months and this was completely intentional, deliberate and systematic
violations of the law, for which he was fined in the result in
EUR 1.5 million. CZK. According to the applicant, that's just such a
the cases could encourage the legislature to tighten penalties for allowing the
the performance of illegal work. Under the same statutory provisions, however, fall well
cases considerably less serious and not just about illegal
employment of foreigners distorting the labour market significantly, but the cases
having the character of a rather administrative negligent misconduct on
the side of the employer. Such is also the second example from practice:
the case of a cooperative has committed administrative offense severity
comparable with the present case now-it was also a performance of the work in
contrary to the employment permits issued, and the discrepancy was
a different place of work, and to the illegal work occurred in one
foreigners in two calendar days. In the absence of the bottom border
fines in the then effective wording of the Employment Act was for this
administrative offence fine in the amount of $ 50,000.
12. the applicant therefore concluded that the level of sanctions in the present
the case does not reflect the actual amount of the degree of social danger
the circumstances of the administrative offense. For a company with only twelve
employees can really pay několikasettisícové sanctions
featuring significant existential issues, if not such a fine
directly to the liquidation, which illustrates the fact that custom
the capital is affected in the present case only 70 000 CZK. The Administrative Court is
Although entitled to the amount of the fine imposed for the administrative offence to reduce (if it would
the applicant in the course of the procedure suggested), but even in this case, it is bound
the lower the limit laid down by the legislator. In terms of the impact on the applicant's
in doing so, the Court is convinced that the reduction of the fine imposed on the amount of
250 000 $ on the statutory minimum, will be for the plaintiff still
featuring a very hefty penalty, approaching or reaching the winding-up
above, and in view of the social danger of his conduct and penalty
unreasonable.
13. in the light of the above, the claimant-municipal court
in Prague, convinced that § 140 para. 4 (b). f) of Act No. 435/2004 Coll., on
employment, as amended by Act No 367/2007 Coll. and Act No. 1/2009 Coll.,
in his conflict with the contested part of the article. 11 (1) 1 and article. 4 (4). 4
The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. Therefore, he proposed to the Constitutional Court, this
provisions set aside.
II.
14. In the representation of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is
recap of the application for revocation under the statutory provisions
stated that the Government's draft law, which was made after the legislature
the process has been declared in the collection of laws under no. 367/2011 Coll., was sent to
Members such as printing 373 27 June. May 2011. As regards the provisions on
the amount of the penalty for an administrative offence specified in § 140 para. 1 (b). (c)) of the
employment, keep it in the current version, IE. without the determination of the
the lower limit of the penalties and in a different level than that at a later time by the Chamber
the House approved.
15. the first reading took place on 373 print 8. June 2011, printing
commanded by the Committee for social policy, which, after hearing a broken
adopted on 30 November. August 2011 resolutions, in which it recommended to the Chamber of Deputies
the House approved the Bill as amended by the amendments adopted by
proposals. Among these amendments was also a proposal for a new text
the provisions of § 140 para. 4 (b). (f)).
16.373 went through both General and Print a detailed debate on the second reading of the day
September 1, 2011. In a detailed debate several amendments were addressed
the proposals, however, the contested provisions of the no touch. The proposal for the
the rejection of the draft law submitted Member Dana Srinivasan and Marta
Semelová. In the third reading held on 9 April. September 2011 was not a proposal for the
the rejection of the draft law, the Chamber of Deputies received. For amendment
the proposals of the Committee for social policy, which was a proposal for a new
the texts of the provisions of § 140 para. 4 (b). (f)), voted from 143
members of the 85 for, 30 against, and the proposals have been accepted. In the final vote on the
the draft law, as amended by the amendments to the vote of the
registered members of the 143 84 for, 58 against.
17. refer the Chamber of Deputies on 19 December. September 2011 Bill
The Senate, which on 13 November. October 2011 discussed and dismissed. The Chamber
the Chamber of Deputies on the draft of the Senate acted again denied in the days 3. and 6.
November 2011, when she remained in its original draft law, when from
registered 179 votes for and 108 against 69. The President of the
States law signed on 22 November. November 2011 and the law was approved by the
in the collection of laws promulgated on 6. December 2011.
18. Representation of the Chamber of Deputies is closed by stating that the proposal
the law was adopted after the completion of the legislative process and properly is to
The Constitutional Court, in the context of the examination of the draft municipal court
Prague assessed its constitutionality and issued the appropriate decision.
19. the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic submitted to the proposal not to
would not comment.
III.
20. Another proposal, this time from 27 June. 11.2013, delivered to the constitutional
of the Court of 12 July 2005. 12.2013, the regional court in Hradec Králové, sought the annulment
an identical provision. According to the law on the Constitutional Court is a proposal to
opening the proceedings inadmissible if the Constitutional Court already in the same case
This is; He handed it to the legitimate claimant, is entitled to participate in meetings
about the previously submitted proposal as intervener. The Constitutional Court therefore, this
draft resolution SP. zn. PL. ÚS 58/13 of 15 April. 4.2014 (available on the
http://nalus.usoud.cz) refused.
21. as the draftsman of the regional court in Hradec Králové, in accordance with
the provisions of § 35 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,
right to participate in the proceedings on the application in the matter of SP. zn. PL. ÚS 52/13 as
the intervener, the Constitutional Court took into account the relevant part of his
no constitutional argument: the subject of the proceedings conducted by the regional court
in Hradec Králové under SP. zn. 30 Ad 15/2012 was an action against the decision of the
administrative authority pursuant to section 65 et seq.. Act No. 150/2002 Coll., the civil procedure
administrative. Doing business as a natural person, the applicant sought the Court of
review the decision of the State Labour Inspection Office, established in Opava,
which was rejected his appeal and confirmed the decision issued by the
Regional labour for Hradec Králové and Pardubice
region, based in Hradec Králové. This decision of the administrative authority
of first instance recognized the plaintiff guilty of committing an administrative offense on
Department of employment pursuant to the provisions of § 140 para. 1 (b). (c)) of the
employment and put him under the provisions of § 140 para. 4 (b). (f)) of the same
the law, a fine of EUR 250 000. The plaintiff he ran against, inter alia, the amount of
the fine and said it is not in its possibilities to pay the fine imposed, and that the
It would mean an immediate end to all its business activities.
In support of its claim, inter alia, put photocopies of tax returns
income tax natural persons for the years 2010 and 2011.
22. it is apparent from the above that, during the administrative procedure, in
that decision was issued, both the administrative authorities pursuant to act
the Employment Act, as amended by the amendments made by law No.
367/2011 Coll., which was effective from 1. 1.2012 changed so far
the amount of the fines in the penalties illegal work, with the
the performance of illegal work according to the provisions of § 140 para. 1 (b). (c)), and (e))
the Employment Act was like the lowest possible sanctions laid down a fine
in the amount of $ 250 000.
23. The regional court in Hradec Králové is of the opinion that part of the provisions of section
paragraph 140. 4 (b). (f)) of the Employment Act (specifically, the part at the end of
This provision-sounding: "at least in the amount of CZK 250,000") is in
contrary to the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, and in particular with art. 11
The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, as it does not respect the principle that the
imposition of a fine, albeit at a minimum level, not for delinquent
the winding-up. This is such an interference with the property rights of the individual,
which, due to their intensity is a violation of the said article and
at the same time constitutes an infringement of article. 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, as
causes major bodies in the field of social inequality. The administrative authority
not according to the above legislation, save for committing
the administrative offense of employment pursuant to the provisions of § 140 para. 1
(a). (c)), or (e)) of the Employment Act a fine of less than 250,000,-CZK
However, at least to a certain extent take into account assets and the personal circumstances
the lock-up.
24. in this context, the Court also pointed out in the previous
settled case-law of the Constitutional Court concerning the prohibition of winding-up
fines, on the award of 13 April. 8.2002, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/02 and from
on 9 April. 3.2004, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/02 and pointed out that the cited
the plenary finds Senate continues the case-law of the Constitutional Court [e.g.,
the award of 13 April. 12.2004, SP. zn. I. ÚS 416/04 (N 190/35 SbNU 485)]
that confirms the opinion that constitutionally it is necessary to avoid
excessive fines.
25. The regional court therefore summed up that the penalties must be proportionate, not only in
relation to the objective and subjective page another administrative offense (k
the severity of the administrative offense, the manner of its perpetration, its consequences, and
circumstances in which it was committed), but also in relation to the person of the offender
and his circumstances. Determination of lower rates of fines by the legislature while
the administrative discretion of the competent authority limits, which may in turn
mean an obstacle to the consideration of not only the severity of the specific factual
the infringement, but also the economic situation of the delinquent. In the light of
cited case law of the Constitutional Court is yet to be concluded, that
the administrative authority committed by neústavního interference with the right of ownership
delinquent if he saves the winding-up fine because it frustrates
the very essence of its property. The administrative authorities must, therefore, in determining the
the amount of the fine, always take into account the personal and commensurately delinquent,
in order to avoid the imposition of penalties, i.e. the winding-up. the fine, which would be
eligible he in itself bring on insolvency or force him
exit the business. bring on the situation in the
as a result of such fines has become essentially the only purpose of his
business activities for a long time the repayment of this fine with real
risk of being alone, or even his family (in the case of active physical
person) on the basis of this fine fall into the existential problems. However, to
could the administrative authority to meet its obligations, and not to impose such winding-up
fine, must be able to evaluate delinquent assets. With
the light of the above, the Regional Court proposed building the passage of the law on
Cancel employment.
IV.
26. The Constitutional Court, in accordance with the provisions of § 68 para. 2 of law No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48/2002 Coll.
first dealt with the question of whether the Act for which it is raised
the unconstitutionality of the provisions was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution
The United States provided for competencies and constitutionally prescribed way.
How the Constitutional Court from the relevant Council prints, data on
during the voting and representation of the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament
the Republic has become so expected, constitutionally be a harmonious way
27. in the course of proceedings before the Constitutional Court was on 22. 7.2014 in the collection
the laws promulgated Act No. 136/2014 Coll., amending Act No. 435/2004
Coll., on employment, as subsequently amended, Act No. 582/1991
Coll. on the Organization and implementation of social security, as amended by
amended, and Act No. 251/2005 Coll., on labour inspection, in
as amended. Point 50 article. The first section of this Act, and
took place with effect from 1. 1.2015 to amend the contested provisions, and
so that the amount of CZK 250,000.0 is replaced by the amount of CZK 50000.0 (
closer to the sub 36).
28. The explanatory memorandum to this point: "on the basis of checks carried out
and subsequently kept by administrative procedures, it is possible to conclude that the current
the minimum amount of the fine ($ 250,000) in many cases, exceeds
preventive function including aspect aimed at discouraging
illegal employment. The minimum amount of the fine, so in these
cases, in fact, winding-up and becomes so exceeds the legislature's intention.
For maintaining the aim of pursuing preventive, but also the deterrent effect
seems like a useful change the minimum amount of the penalty.
Setting new minimum penalties in addition to the above objectives,
meet the fact that illegal employment must not be
employers pay. These aspects of the meets the minimum limit
of about $ 50,000. Sanctions, so established, it leaves sufficient space
in the context of administrative considerations, held in the administrative procedure provide for the amount of
sanctions with regard to the specific circumstances, in particular the number of
illegally employed, up to the limit of the maximum margin, i.e. 10 mil.
€. "
29. On 22 November. August 2014 responded to the situation as well as the appellant and
altered its original proposal. petit He stated that, as they have to
When reviewing the decision of an administrative authority to be based on facts and
legal status, which was at the time the decision of the administrative authority (section 75
paragraph. 1 the administrative judicial procedure) is not change the statutory arrangements for managing
before him led by resolute. He suggested, therefore, in the event that the Constitutional Court
comes to the conclusion that it is not possible to comply with the initial proposal, conceding
a design change and that the procedure was continued as an application for a
the award, which will be concluded that the contested provision was in the
the text of the front of your amendments in breach of article. 11 (1) 1 and article. 4 (4). 4
The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms.
In the.
30. The Constitutional Court, after examining the merits of the case found that the proposal is
reasonable grounds.
31. the Findings of 9 June. 3.2004, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/02, the Constitutional Court rejected the
the proposal of the Group of members at the cancellation of part of section 11 (1) 3 of Act No. 129/2000
Coll., on regions (regional establishment), as amended, that
established criteria for the amount of the fine for an administrative offense. The said award to
opposition to discrimination based on property stressed that he does not understand the equality
as an absolute, but rather as a relative (and ancillary in relation to the
other fundamental rights and freedoms). With the concept of relative equality closely
is related to the concept of proportionality of the interference with the fundamental rights. Out of character
the fine as a proprietary sanctions necessarily follows, that is to be
country-specific and proportionate, and must reflect the matrimonial property regime
the punished. The same amount of the fine imposed majetnému will appear to be
ridiculous and ineffective, while in the case of a poor prosecution may act
drakonicky and ruinously. There is therefore no breach of the principle of the relative
equality, if two persons in different situations will be fined
at different levels, even if the only difference in their situation should be just
different financial circumstances. The examination criterion of matrimonial property regimes
delinquent when considering the amount of the fine imposed on it is necessary and
complementary-but not because of heavy fines would be
unenforceable, but due to the risk of winding-up the effect of unreasonably
high fines. Fine as a penalty must be differentiated to
effectively acted as a punishment and as a deterrence (individual and
General prevention).
32. The Constitutional Court, therefore, in that the award has not only rejected the view that the
taking into account the financial circumstances and their reflection in the total amount of the
the fine was discriminatory (vice versa is found in accordance with the principle of
the relative equality), but even considers the mainstreaming of these ratios for
required and necessary to achieve the purpose of the punishment.
33. Even a closer case, coming on now explored thing is find
of 13 October. 8.2002, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/02 (on which the applicant also
correctly pointed out), in which the Constitutional Court annulled the part of the provision of section 106
paragraph. 3 of Act No. 50/1976 Coll., on zoning and the building code
(the building Act), as amended by Act No. 82/1998 Coll., which stipulates
lower limit of fines for other administrative offence under the building Act in
the amount of 500.000,-KC. In that case, it was examined whether the
the legislature adopted the solution was a legitimate intervention into fundamental rights,
specifically, the right to own property. It was noted that not every
deprivation of property on the basis of the fine or fees and taxes, based
interference with property rights, but only those which property relations
the entity concerned substantially changes, by changing its overall
equity position "by frustrating nature of property". For doing business
people, the Constitutional Court has ruled out intervention, the effect of which would be "destroyed
property base for other business activities ".
34. Inadmissible are therefore under the said finding such a fine,
have a "winding-up character, which means even those cases in which the
fine enough to exceed possible revenue from a business, that business
essentially becomes aimless (i.e. pointing only to pay
the fine imposed after a significant period of time). It was stressed as well as the risk of
the winding-up of the fine, of the impacts on the surrounding area, pachatelovo
in particular, the entrepreneurial natural persons, whereas that is not
separate their private property and assets to the business. In a given
the case reached the Constitutional Court concluded that the lower limit under consideration
the fine is in breach of article. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms and
article. 1 of the additional protocol to the Convention on the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms, because "the gravity of the infringement, paušalizuje
which leads to the restriction of the administrative authority to take into account the specific
circumstances of the case, the person of the offender and his circumstances ". In that
the award was considered the adjustment is found to be in breach of article 88(3). 4 (4). 4
The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms and with the constitutional principle of equality under article.
1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, consisting in the de facto unequal
the impact of the completely identical penalties to separate offenders: "in this case
While the contested provisions formally treats all
bodies as well, but fundamentally prevents distinguish their
the material situation. " It was clear, therefore, that the resulting de facto
social inequality is of such intensity that it constitutes interference with the fundamental
rights and freedoms and is therefore health inequalities ústavněprávním the meaning of.
35. In the opinion of the Constitutional Court it is therefore clear that the conclusions,
arising from its previous findings, mutatis mutandis, as well as on now
the case under consideration. Because it is redundant to repeat the same thing just a little
in other words, refers to the Constitutional Court has already spoken on your conclusions and
summarizes that the adopted legislation which, as has been explained above, namely
has already been changed, but is still in force, preventing proper
individualization of a particular case, since the lower limit of the fine is
set at a level that limits the crucial administrative authorities
take into account the specific circumstances of the various cases, as well as to persons
offenders and their wealth. In these matrimonial property regimes
in some cases, may intervene with great intensity, and it is therefore
about the apparently exaggerated the amount of the lower limit of the fine, which reaches
constitutional dimension. Referred to illustrate specific cases described above and
(the applicant and the intervener), even if the Constitutional Court
the issue in question in the proceedings on the application for annulment of the Act or its
individual provisions shall be assessed in the abstract, and not specifically; It
will then be the task of the general courts. From the above it is clear that
decision of the administrative authorities could not be assessed as a result of legal
adjustments in the amount of nezanedbatelném cases, fair, and thus the
constitutionally Conformal.
36. these reasons, moreover, accepted in principle by the legislature, and when the
the statutory provisions of the Act was contested (see above cited
reporting message). In this context, the Constitutional Court considered
necessary with regard to the principle of minimizing interference with the decision-making
the legislator stressed that the subject of the present proceedings was
the constitutionality of the lower limit of the minimum amount of the fine determined for decision making
the applicant and the intervener in the proceedings of the present proceedings (see
the closer the points 1-3 and 21-23), from which came their proposal within the meaning of
article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the United States. Has not been performed
abstract review of the constitutionality of the provisions of § 140 para. 4 (b). (f)) of the Act
on employment, in the version in force from 1 January. 1.2015, i.e., the general constitutional
the admissibility of the otherwise defined the lower boundary of the fines, but only
the constitutionality of the lower limit of fines of $ 250,000. The Constitutional Court therefore in
This procedure is not authorised in any way to pronounce on the question whether,
and if so, in what amount, in the case of the administrative offense should be
the lower limit of fines laid down by law. From the enforceability of the award in
entry into force of the said amendments to the Employment Act, respectively. other
editing the text of § 140 para. 4 (b). (f)) of the Employment Act, so will not be
the lower limit to the fine laid down at all. The then legislature, after
the cancellation of the words "at least" in the relevant provisions of its text
stylistically modified. Having regard to the framework of the so-called. specific checks
the constitutionality of that is tied to a "link" with the decisional activities
the appellant and the intervener the proceedings, it has not been possible in this proceeding
anticipate the conclusion regarding the determination of the specific amount of these
courts (moderation with regard to their right) or reach, whether by
legal status by the end of 2014 or from 1. 1.2015, since the assessment of the
the particular circumstances of the case, the imposition of fines to the Constitutional Court in a proceeding
According to § 64 para. 3 of the law on the Constitutional Court.
37. The Constitutional Court therefore upheld the claimant and uttered that (in the meantime
the revised provisions of section 140) para. 4 (b). f) of Act No. 435/2004 Coll.
on employment, as amended by Act No 367/2007 Coll. and Act No. 1/2012
Coll., in the words "at least in the amount of Czk 250 000", is in breach of article.
1, art. 4 (4). 4, art. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms and article.
1 of the additional protocol to the Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms.
The President of the Constitutional Court
JUDr. Rychetský, v.r.
