349/2002 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court ruled on 18 July 2005. June 2002 in plenary on the proposal of the President of
the Republic to repeal certain provisions of Act No. 6/2002 Coll., on
the courts, judges, lay judges and the State administration of courts and amending
some other laws (the law on the courts and Judges Act), as amended by
amended,
as follows:
1. The provisions of § 50 para. 1 (b). (f)), (b). (g)), para. 3 (a). 4, § 51
paragraph. 1 (b). (f)), (b). (g)), para. 3 (a). 4, § 52 para. 1 (b). (f)),
(a). (g)), para. 3 (a). 4, § 53 para. 1 (b). (e)), para. 3 (a). 4,
§ 71 para. 4, § 72 para. 2 the last sentence, § 82 para. 2 the second sentence of § 94
(a). (d)), section 123 paragraph. 3 (a). 4, section 124 para. 4, § 125 paragraph. 3, § 126
paragraph. 3, § 127 paragraph. 3, § 130 paragraph 1. 2 the word "inclusion of judges", §
paragraph 131. 1 (b). and (b)). (b)), § 132 paragraph. 1 (b). and (b)). (b)), para.
2 the word "judges", and para. 3, § 134-163, 185, § § 187 in words
"lawyers for the members of the Council 3 for the competence of judges and their 3
surrogates and "and section 188 of the Act No. 6/2002 Coll., on courts, judges,
lay judges and the State administration of courts and amending some other acts
(the law on the courts and Judges Act), as amended, shall be deleted;
on the date of publication of the finding in the journal of laws.
2. the provisions of article 15, paragraph 2. 2 the second sentence of § 26 para. 2, the second sentence of section 30
paragraph. 2 the second sentence of § 34 paragraph 1. 2 the second sentence of § 68 para. 1 in the words
"the Ministry or", section 74 para. 3, § 99 paragraph 2. 1 (b). c) in words
"the Ministry or" § 106 paragraph. 1, section 119 paragraph 1. 2 (a). 3, § 120, §
121, section 124 para. 1, para. 2 (a). 3, § 125 paragraph. 1, para. 2 (a).
4, § 126 paragraph. 1, para. 2 (a). 4, § 127 paragraph. 1, para. 2 (a). 4,
section 128 of Act No. 6/2002 Coll., on courts, judges, lay judges and the State
administration of courts and amending some other acts (law on courts, and
the Judges Act) shall be repealed on 1 January 2000. 7.2003.
Justification
(I).
On 1 May 2004. in March 2002, the Constitutional Court received a proposal from the President of the Republic on the
repealing certain provisions of Act No. 6/2002 Coll., on courts, judges,
lay judges and the State administration of courts and amending some other acts
(law on courts and judges), (the "Act"). In the reasons for the first
under their proposal, the President focused on the provisions of § 134
-163 of the Act (and the provision of follow-up), which introduced as new
Institute mandatory periodic reviews of professional competence with the result of
the possible end of a judicial mandate. These provisions are in
direct conflict with art. 1 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"),
According to which the Czech Republic is a democratic State based on law
respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, as it is convinced
among the essential attributes of the rule of law is also the principle
the separation of powers. These provisions also sees as standing in breach of article. 82
paragraph. 1 and 2 and article. 93 of the Constitution. A judge is appointed to its functionality
President of the Republic without a time limit, if it meets the basic
the constitutional and other legal assumptions including professional competence. Further
already a judge cannot appeal against his will, with the exception of the appeal on the
the basis of the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber. Ústavodárce had in mind when
provided an exception to the finality of the judge in the article. paragraph 82. 2, negotiations
at least the same intensity, such as disciplinary transgressions. As such, the
It was only may be considered a serious infringement. This guarantees
the independence of the courts of the Act and the Executive. However, the law allows
to the constitutional position of the judge has been threatened as a result of the additional
reviews of his professional competence, without which it would not be in the
the function named. To prevent the performance of the person that will not be judge
enough to care about your level of expertise, which is reflected in its
the decision-making activities, is a sufficient means of protection of the disciplinary proceedings.
In this context, notes the proposal on the obligation of the judge consistently
educate and deepen its expertise for the proper exercise of function (§
paragraph 82. 2 of the Act), the violation of this obligation may be disciplinary
the offense, for which you can judge his appeal. A breach of this
However, the obligation must be specific, its impact must be reflected in the
the judge's decision-making activities, and its intensity, so you must undermine the confidence
in the independent, impartial and fair adjudication (section 87). In the framework of the
the disciplinary proceedings must also be between such a breach of duty and its
as a result of (confidence) demonstrated a causal link. In addition,
While disciplinary proceedings are a range of penalties graduated according to the
the severity of the misconduct, the evaluation competence knows only itself
a penalty only, and that the loss of function.
By law, the newly introduced management-assessing professional competence of judges-
will lead to a flat rate with all the judges. It is only the start
to determine whether the conditions are to be
noted that the judge is (not) to be eligible. This (not) eligibility
will be evaluated on the basis of abstract, vaguely formulated and with
the judge's decision-making activities unrelated factors (section 136). The law so
presumuje the causal link between a negative evaluation, and
the judge's decision-making activities. In other words, the finding of an unsatisfactory
the ability to organize the activities of the Department and the minimum
the publication, scientific and pedagogical activity is automatically associated with the
the judge's decision-making activities and may lead to termination of the judge. If
based on the concept of the Act, which provides for the Chairman of the courts authority
the State administration of the courts, part of the Executive, is so the State administration
courts has also competence to assess the competence of the judge. The power of
the Executive may initiate proceedings against judges investigating his professional
with the result of the possible end of the Constitution guaranteed time
an unlimited mandate without reason to begin was so far
the judge's decision-making activities. The President further directed reservations
against interference with the principle of separation of powers, which the Constitution assumes. This
the principle is violated, inter alia, the scope of the powers of the Minister
Justice in the area of assessment of professional competence of the judge, that
Furthermore, lists, concluding that such a range gives the Executive power
excessively wide discretion to allow judges to influence decision-making.
In the second part of its proposal, focusing on the provisions governing the
the Law entrusts the performance of State administration of the courts in that range to the Presidents and
Vice-Presidents of courts, who are also the judges, the President of the Republic
They claim their conflict with the article. paragraph 82. 3 of the Constitution, which provides for the
incompatibility of the function of judge with any of the functions in the public administration.
States that, from certain activities and from the manner of appointment and removal
Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the courts suggests that it is a function in the public
manage, and Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the courts is partly become
part of the Executive. You can also have serious concerns about the threat to their
independence in the exercise of their judicial activities, particularly if their
to remain in the Office of President and Vice-President of the Court depends on the decision of the
representatives of the Executive. Points to the provisions of § 106 paragraph. 1
the law, according to which the Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the courts may be
dismissed from their functions, if fails to meet his obligations properly. This
the condition for revocation is expressed very generally and may lead to
the application of arbitrary executive power in the dismissal of leaders able to
the Court. As President of the Republic further argues, is aware that, in the
some European States are exercising State administration of courts Presidents
the courts from among the judges. Our Constitution does not permit the merging of a judge
with the performance of any functions in the public administration and it is for the ústavodárce, whether
combining these features will allow. The Constitution in article. paragraph 82. 3 expressly States
activities that are incompatible with the functions of a judge. At the same time allows,
that law incompatible activities spread further circuit. The law adopted in
section 74 para. 3, however, the circuit of incompatible, the Constitution expressly prohibited
the activities of the bypasses by the features therein exempts from this mode
the ban (even using a legal fiction). In this case, the Constitution
defines the use of the law. However, the legal standard is lower legal force, IE. in
this case law, it cannot eliminate the activities of the legal circuit
the norm of higher legal force-the Constitution. At the end of this section of the proposal then
President of the Republic can think of also the possibility of the temporary assignment of a judge to the
the Ministry, which regards it as incompatible with the principle of the Division of
power and with the Mission of the Office of judge.
The next paragraph of the contested provisions of section 160. 3 of the Act, which provides that
the hearing of the Supreme Court in matters of assessment of professional competence
judges shall not be public, be considered in breach of article 88(3). paragraph 96. 2
Constitution, article. 38 para. 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (hereinafter referred to as
"The Charter") and article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"), which contains the principle of consultation
things. It considers that there are no grounds to break the public policy discussions in the
the trial before the Supreme Court, whose decision is decision
in the case and is final. The decision will have a major impact on life
of the individual. Article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention sets out the conditions for the possible
the exclusion of the public. None of those conditions, however, is not in the contested
the provisions in full. Law restricts public control over the element
the course of the court proceedings in contravention of the Convention.
In the last part of the reasons for the proposal, focusing on the provisions relating to the
Judicial Academy, then President of the Republic with the emphasis on the article again. 1
The Constitution, the principle of separation of powers, as well as on constitutionally guaranteed independence of the
courts and judges (article 81 and article 82, paragraph 1, of the Constitution) expressed the belief
independence from the Executive is to be found not only in the decision-making
the activity of the courts in the strict sense, but also in the overall options can
powerful decision-making activities of judges. The judge shall be the responsibility
for their level of expertise and is obliged to continuously educate and
deepen their expertise for the proper exercise of function (§ 82). It should
However, only be on it, how it reaches. It is hard to be compatible
with the principle of separation of powers and an independent judiciary power to judges
compulsory schooled in the institution, whose composition and teaching content has, directly or
indirectly, in the hands of executive power. The possibility of the Supreme Court to provide these
education in a comparable range is due to the existing personnel,
financial and technical capacities of the Supreme Court "not feasible".
A lifetime of mandatory training of judges so practically under the
the control of the Executive. President of the Republic in the draft gives a clear that
Although considered the right to education, the Ministry of Justice
the judges allowed, and it is therefore appropriate to set up judicial Academy
It was, however, in his view, however, it is not conceivable that the judges were in the
periodic intervals are required to participate in training and just
in fact, exclusively in this institution.
In conclusion, the then President of the Republic concluded that in the State-controlled
the principles of the rule of law, the Division of State power must be based on a system
checks and balances, the adopted legislation, however, this system is interfering with, and it
disproportionate influence of the Executive on judicial power. The task of the Executive in
the intentions of the Constitution is to secure the operation of the judiciary after the material,
staffing of the courts administration, preparation of future judges on the
the performance of their functions and ensure their adequate number. Adopted by the
the law, however, the balance of power does not respect and a measure of the influence of the Executive power on the
According to him, the Court may jeopardise the independence of the judiciary as one of the pillars of
democratic rule of law. Therefore suggests the adoption of the award, which
will the abolished these provisions of the Act on courts and judges: § 15 para. 2
second sentence of § 26 para. 2 the second sentence, § 30 para. 2, the second sentence of section 34
paragraph. 2, the second sentence of § 50 para. 1 (b). (f)), and (b). (g)), para. 3 (a).
4, § 51 para. 1 (b). (f)), and (b). (g)), para. 3 (a). 4, § 52 para. 1
(a). (f)), and (b). (g)), para. 3 (a). 4, § 53 para. 1 (b). (e)), para. 3
(a). 4, § 68 para. 1 the words "the Ministry or", § 71 para. 4, § 72
paragraph. the last sentence of paragraph 2, paragraph 74. 3, § 82 para. 2, the second sentence of § 94
(a). (d)), § 99 paragraph 2. 1 (b). (c)), the words "to the Ministry or", section 106
paragraph. 1, section 119 paragraph 1. 2 (a). 3, § 120, § 121, § 123 paragraph. 3 (a).
4, § 125, 126, 127, § §, §, § 130 paragraph 128. 2 the words "the inclusion of judges", §
paragraph 131. 1 (b). and (b)). (b)), § 132 paragraph. 1 (b). and (b).) (b)),
paragraph. 2 the word "judges", para. 3, § 134-163, paragraph 185, § 187, the words "3
lawyers for the members of the Council for the competence of judges and their 3
surrogates and "and § 188 with the fact that at the same time in relation to the provisions of § 15
paragraph. 2 the second sentence of § 26 para. 2 the second sentence of section 30, paragraph 1. 2 the second sentence, and
§ 34 paragraph 1. 2 the second sentence of proposed suspension of operation, so that the
Parliament has been given sufficient time for the adoption of the new legal
editing.
II.
The Constitutional Court has requested in accordance with the provisions of section 69 of Act No. 182/1993
Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, observations
Parties to the proceedings-of both chambers of the Czech Parliament.
The Chamber of deputies in its observations of 9 October. 4.2001, signed by the
its Chairman, Prof. Ing. Václav Klaus, CSc., after the recap
the contested provisions States that the main objective of judicial reform, which
started by adopting key standards relating to particular
ensure the conditions of realization of the judiciary, is a quick, fair and
uniform justice. The basis for such ideas, however, can only be
high proficiency of judges as the basis for high-quality performance of the judiciary.
Therefore, the lifelong learning programme was adopted by the judges in the Judicial
the Academy, with the competence of the judge will be validated
(duplicate the way i was taken by the prosecutors)
through the Council on the competence of the judges (hereinafter referred to as "the Council").
In terms of the composition of the Council are here represented, firstly, the judges elected
(Alternatively, determine by lot), the judge of the competent court, then the experts
legal practice. Each judge is first evaluated by who has the most
information about his knowledge of the legislation, case-law, etc., thus
the President of the competent court. If the training is evaluated
the eligibility of a judge as unsatisfactory, will take place in the second stage of the proceedings
in the Supreme Court. In no case, however, it is not evaluated the activity of judge
in terms of its substantive decisions, therefore, you cannot talk about
unauthorized interference into its activities and decisions.
A judge may be according to the article. 93 para. 2 of the Constitution appointed citizen who
meets the basic requirements of the Constitution directly, and that integrity and
a university education. Other assumptions and the procedure is
left to the legislation. In accordance with this provision, the Special
the law may provide for additional conditions and the procedure for the examination of the assumptions
necessary for the function of the judge. Among the assumptions in the appointment, however,
definitely does not belong to the judge to exercise the competence assessment
function, since it occurs only after a certain period of time from onset to
judicial function in the competent court.
The law on courts and judges basically took the original layout on State
administration of courts, when the position of the central body of State administration of courts is
The Ministry of Justice, and defining other administrative authorities-President
the competent courts. The task of the State administration of courts is on the one hand,
create the conditions to ensure the proper administration of Justice when the page
organizational, personnel, financial and economic, on the other hand, then
to exercise supervision within the limits of the law over the proper fulfilment of the tasks of the competent
the Court. Performance of State administration, however, in no case shall interfere with the
the independence of the courts. According to the previous edit was to the Minister
given the possibility of Justice to appoint the President and the Vice-President of the courts with
the exception of the President of the Supreme Court. In the Act on courts and judges is
method of appointment maintained that is also obliged
the Minister of Justice to discuss the judicial appointment
the Council of the competent court, whose judge is to be appointed the official in question.
The temporary assignment of a judge to exercise the function to another court or
The Ministry of Justice or Judicial Academy is fundamentally tied to the
the consent of the judge awarded (as under the previous legislation) and
the law is limited by the length of the allocation.
In the article. 38 para. 2 of the Charter are some of the procedural rights of the participant
management, that is. the right to a public hearing, when exceptions to this
the policy can be enabled only by law, which may exclude the public and
completely. A party to proceedings has the right to a hearing was present their
things, and even if it was by law the proceedings declared
non-public. This right may, however, be of the law, or by decision of the
under the law, limited. This principle is also contained in the article. 6 (1). 1
The Convention, according to which the press and public may be excluded for a period of
all or part of the process, when it requires the protection of the private life
the participant, or within the range considered by the Court as absolutely necessary, and in
article. paragraph 96. 2 of the Constitution, which States that the hearing before the Court is fundamentally
the oral and public, but the law may provide for exceptions from this principle. Law
on courts and judges in § 163 also says that they are used in
matters of competence of the judge before the Supreme Court adequately
the provisions of the first and third parts of the code of civil procedure, except where the
This law provides otherwise. It follows that the code of civil procedure and the Institute
the exclusion of the public knows and enjoys it. From this it can be inferred that the provisions
relating to the Chambers of the Supreme Court in matters of assessment
the proficiency of judges cannot be regarded as unconstitutional.
The establishment of the Judicial Academy of the Act on courts and Judges Act aims to
above all, increase the expertise of judges as a guarantee of quality of the judiciary.
Therefore, the lifelong learning programme in the Judicial Academy gives the possibility
all judges to acquire such knowledge and skills in the context of its
profession to fulfill article. 1 of the Constitution, and that confidence in the law. In
the rule of law, a citizen must have a guarantee that the legal way reaches
Justice and the satisfaction of the claims of the law they belong. Therefore,
the judge imposed are still higher requirements for knowledge of the laws and other
legislation, case-law, as well as the capacity of their application in the
the decision-making activities.
Finally, in representation of the Chamber of Deputies stated that the law was
approved by the necessary majority of members of the Chamber of Deputies, has been signed
respective constitutional factors, i.e. as the Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies and
the Prime Minister, as well as by the President of the Republic, was properly
declared, and expressed the opinion that the legislature acted in
the belief that the law is adopted in accordance with the Constitution and our legal
of procedure. It is up to the Constitutional Court to have been filed in connection with the constitutional
complaints of the President and his proposal for the repeal of certain
the provisions of Act No. 6/2002 Coll., to assess the constitutionality of this law and
It has issued the decision.
Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic then in its statement, signed by its
Chairman doc. JUDr. Petr Pithart, States that a draft law on the judiciary
and the Judges Act, which the Chamber of Deputies agreed on 30 November.
October 2001, was on 12. November 2001, be submitted for consideration of the Senate.
The Organizing Committee ordered the Bill on 13 June. November
ústavněprávnímu Committee, which discussed it in the prescribed manner and
resolution No. 68 of 28 June. November recommended a Senate Bill
reject. Then the draft law discussed by the plenary of the Senate on 30 November.
November 2001 on its 11. the meeting of the third term of Office and the resolution
No, the Bill was approved by the 220 as a transferred by the
the Chamber of Deputies.
When discussing the draft of the Act on courts and judges were in the Senate, and it
as in the ústavněprávním Committee, which was as a single Bill
commanded by, so on the plenum, held an extensive debate. Due to the fact that
the law on courts and judges is built primarily on the philosophy of achievement
the higher the quality of the judiciary through higher quality
the skill of the individual judges, the majority of the posts concerned just
the issue of complaints the contested questions of judges and their evaluation
lifelong compulsory education. The topic was contentious from
the perspective of the legal norm of the objective pursued, but-as measured by maximami
the position of the judiciary in a system of separation of powers and the independence of the courts and
judges-due to resources, what it is to be achieved.
While between the Senators there was almost a consensus with reservations
the fact that our judicial system is to move to a qualitatively higher level,
views on the attainment of this objective is. From one side, by the
opponents of the law, there were objections in relation to revaluation of the request
the professionalism of judges and the fear of threats to their independence
through mandatory reviews of professional competence by the President
official appointed by the Court as Justice Minister; reservations are
concerned and the "mandatory in-service training" under the control of the Executive.
Doubts have been raised over the setting of technical prowess
a judge at all. According to some legislators, the emphasis should be on
education of the future judge before then the obligatory catching up of expertise,
eventually. should be a judge selected a person who has already proven itself in the
previous legal practice. Many have also been objections to the exercise of State
administration of courts by persons in a position of dvojjediném-the status of officers,
the executor of the State administration, subject to Central Executive
the authority and stature of an independent judge executing the judiciary.
Opponents of the law have questioned not only the unconstitutionality of certain of its
provisions, but also its overall contribution to the improvement of the situation in the judiciary,
When the judge that "the Act is nothing in our justice system
to worsen or do not improve. "
The arguments that were performed for the benefit of the law, based on the belief
that the method of legal regulation is an appropriate basis for further possible
making a judicial system and by its very nature is a step.
Over concerns about limiting the power of the Court offered a view of the law's advocates
the reverse, based on the fact that the newly established Judicial Council, although
as the Chairman of the advisory bodies, the courts, in the exercise of the judicial administration.
It was seen as a significant move compared to the not yet applicable.
Proponents of the law have also stated that the currently selected model is not a model
in Europe, the unknown, and expressed the belief that the pressure on the judicial
occupation, which the law on courts and judges in some ways develops, it is
a suitable tool for the overall rise in the judiciary, and it is not
called into question the premise that within the Executive power must be used to be able to
the Court. Endorsers of the Bill saw in the system also
the path to the achievement of the legitimate expectations of the standard behavior of judges in
standard situations. On the question of undue interference in the independence of the
the judges assessing their technical prowess came from the floor of the Senate. (I)
the argument that "dependence on insufficient expertise is worse for
the company than anything else ". Proponents of the Bill's critics
the outline presented by the lack of a custom solution and the quandary over this
social theme.
When making its decision, the Senate turned to the arguments put forward to support the
approval of the draft law, as amended by the Chamber of Deputies, and transferred
He did so 37 votes to 14, when the vote was no. 54 present
64 senators.
Based on the adopted decision, and having regard to the discussions in the
bodies of the Chamber, a statement has the following arguments in favor of
the majority will of the Senate:
Article. paragraph 82. 1 of the Constitution provides that judges shall in the exercise of his functions
independent. Nobody may jeopardize their impartiality. To within a constant
the case-law of the European Court of human rights is the independence and
the impartiality of judges and the courts, combined with the necessity of their
the trust. It is not sufficient just to an impartial judge, but to
so the parties even appeared and he inspired confidence in the leadership of the fair
process (P V, Hřebejk j., the Constitution and the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.
Volume I: the Constitution of the Czech Republic, Prague: Prague, Linde and s., 1994.
194). There might not be any doubt that the expertise of the judge, reveal in
the form of prompt and fair trial, is one of the legitimate
the requirements of the company. After all, even in the attic of the Constitutional Court have appeared
the views that the independence of the judge is seen in the file of the assumptions of the
which are the most powerful professional level, and those character traits that
of the judge shall be an integrated personality (PL. ÚS 13/99, pl. ÚS 16/2000).
According to § 82 para. 1 of the law on courts and judges, the judge carries responsibility
for their level of expertise in the performance of their judicial functions. The appellant would
considered sufficient protection for the company before a judge, who will not be
enough to care about your level of expertise, save one of the disciplinary
measures (reprimand, reduction in salary, the appeal of the President of the Senate and
possibility of appeal from judge) in the context of the disciplinary proceedings, and from this
the perspective of his removal from Office of a judge as the only consequence
unsatisfactory evaluation expert the judge appears as unconstitutional. The Senate
However, the opinion that the appeal from the judge would function in the event of its
neodbornosti should not be a "penalty" imposed in the context of the disciplinary proceedings,
However, the reason for his departure from the justice system. Due to the fact that
disciplinary proceedings is by its very nature criminal management, built on the principle of
culpable violation of the obligations of the peace (in addition, the lack of expertise was
in order to practically zero, and the responsibility of the judge), the tormented soul
the legislature to a special procedure, assessment of professional competence,
enshrined in the first part 5 of title III of the law on courts and judges. From
This perspective seems to be having conflict with the article. paragraph 82. 2 of the Constitution
nepřípadným, as the Constitution in this respect leaves a certain freedom.
According to this expression, you cannot also disregard other facts about
the given issues. Reviews of professional competence is rated
a three-stage, with an evaluation body are either exclusively, or
usually the judges themselves. Review of the negative reviews in progress
standard procedures. In the final stage of a special
judicial proceedings before the pětičlenným the Senate of the Supreme Court, which will result in
the Court decision. All of these facts should be sufficient
the guarantee of a fair decision on the competence of the judge.
As regards the incompatibility of functions within the meaning of article 87(1). paragraph 82. 3 of the Constitution,
or unduly influence the Executive on judicial power through
officials engaged in the administration of the courts, cannot see that as
the way the performance of the judicial administration, the appointment of officials by the President
in the case of the Republic President and the Vice-President of the Supreme Court or
the Minister of Justice in other cases have been as satisfying and
constitutionally adopted from the previous Conformal to the applicable legislation. The legislature
never questioned the absolute maximum, clearly separation performance
the judiciary from the State administration of courts at all levels. Contributions as an administrator
posts, IE. features of Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the courts, however, are not of diction
the law offices of administrative law, rather than exhaustively defined cases
some proportion of those persons confers on the performance of administrative activities,
starting from the assumption of perfect knowledge of the personnel and material issues
the Court, which are representatives. The Senate was nevertheless aware of the
the need to increase the efficiency of the mechanism of checks and balances, and, therefore, approved in
the Act on courts and judges without the comments relating to the passage
judicial councils. Virtually no court decision of the President in the exercise of
the State administration Court, under this legislation should not be between 1. April
2002 made without comment the Judicial Council.
Without amendment was approved and the provisions of the law on the courts and
Judges devoted to the Judicial Academy. In this context, it is to be seen
the important role of § 129 para. 3 of the Act on courts and judges, who
allows you to perform to the same extent and with the same effects professional
education and the Supreme Court. If there is an alternative for the judge in
decision making, can hardly be seen as its dependency in the offered options
training in the Judicial Academy. It should be noted, as well as the undisputed fact
the independence of courts and judges is guaranteed only in relation to the performance
the judiciary. From this constitutional premise is then to be drawn, that the State is
directly required to create the preconditions for the exercise of independent judicial system, i.e.
(I) ensure the possibility of their further education and training. In other words: for
the General starting point in addressing the judicial independence is necessary to treat
the differentiation of the independence of legal, within the meaning of the constitutional principle of
the independence of the mental, which has for the first time appointed to secure.
In conclusion, the statement then States that it is entirely up to the Constitutional Court to
to assess the constitutionality of the contested provisions.
III.
The Constitutional Court in proceedings for the annulment of laws and other legal regulations
It assesses the contents of the law according to the aspects contained in the provisions of § 68 para.
2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., that is, from the point of view of their compliance with the constitutional
laws and international treaties under article. 10 of the Constitution (in the sense of
the amendment made by Act No. 48/2002 Coll., with effect from 1. 6.2002 from
for their compliance with the constitutional laws). Before he went to the
meritornímu examination of the application, examine whether or not in the meaning of the cited
the provisions have been complied with the formal conditions of acceptance of the law and
the contested Act No. 6/2002 Coll., on courts, judges, lay judges and the State
administration of courts and amending some other acts (law on courts, and
the Judges Act), was adopted within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and constitutionally
in the prescribed manner.
In this direction of těsnopisecké reports on 35. and 39. the meeting of the
the Chamber of Deputies, 3. the electoral period, found that the Chamber of Deputies Act No.
6/2002 Coll., after proper consultation had approved at its meeting held on 30 November.
10.2001, when 180 members of Parliament present for the design of them voted 172,
one mp voted against the proposal. From the těsnopisecké news from 11.
the meeting of the Chamber, 3. the term, it has been shown that on 30 November. 11.2001
for the proposal, as amended by the Chamber of Deputies voted in favor of a transferred
64 senators present, 37, against the proposal was 14 senators. After the adoption of the
the law No. 6/2002 Coll., signed by the competent constitutional factors and properly
published in the amount of 4 collection of laws, which was circulated on 11 July. 1.
2002. this Act took effect 1. 4.2002. The Constitutional Court therefore
notes that the law No. 6/2002 Coll. has been duly adopted and published within the limits of
The Constitution laid down the competence and constitutionally prescribed manner within the meaning of
the provisions of § 68 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., as amended
regulations, thus is fulfilled the prerequisite to the Constitutional Court to the examination of the
proposal for a substantive deal.
At this point it should also be noted that the applicant at the oral hearing
before the Constitutional Court suggested that it brought on the proposal was assessed as
Act No. 151/2002 Coll., amending certain laws in relation to
the adoption of the code of civil procedure of administration, which the Constitutional Court has accepted. Referred to
the law was amended and some of the contested provisions, on
the amendment did not change anything but only took into account the setting up and
the future existence of the Supreme Administrative Court.
IV.
A proposal from the President of the Republic to repeal certain provisions of law No.
6/2002 Coll., in essence refers to the total of the three essential circuits.
The first group of provisions proposed to cancel the assessment of
professional competence of the judges. Includes first of all the whole part 5 of title III, part
the first law on the courts and Judges Act, governing the provisions of § 134-
163 of the Act to the assessment of professional competence. It lays down the
in particular, the periodicity of the evaluation of the professional qualification, the assessor, the person
aspects of the assessment of professional competence, the way the screening decision
the activities of the judge of the Court of appeal in the special case of a non-conforming
reviews, the composition of the Council for the competence of judges established by the
The Ministry of Justice and the procedure before it in the cases that the Special
the Senate of the Court to review the judge's decision-making activities as non-compliant, and
Finally, the proceedings before the Supreme Court on the application of a party, that
disagrees with the decision of the Council in the matter of professional competence. From section 2
Part 2 of title I of part the first of that law, governing the scope of the
judicial councils, are proposed to repeal the provisions of § 50 para. 1
(a). f) and (g)), para. 3 and 4, § 51 para. 1 (b). f) and (g)), para. 3 and 4, §
52 para. 1 (b). f) and (g)), para. 3 and 4 and § 53 para. 1 (b). (e)), para. 3
and 4 implementing the judicial councils they establish within their jurisdiction and
tasks related to the assessment of the competence of judges. From part 3
Title III of part one of the present law, governing the scope of authorities
the State administration of the courts, are proposed to repeal the provisions of § 123 paragraph.
3 and 4, section 124 para. 4, § 125 paragraph. 3, § 126 paragraph. 3 and § 127 paragraph. 3,
which are laid down in the Ministry of Justice and the Presidents of permission
grade system of courts in the assessment of professional competence
judges. Furthermore, there are also proposed to cancel the provisions of § 71
paragraph. 4 and the last sentence of article 72 paragraph 1. 2 of the Act, which
stores take into account when resolving the judges of the courts of the higher degrees to
evaluation of their professional competence, part of the provisions of § 82 para. 2,
imposing the obligation to submit to the judges of the law laid down by the way
evaluation and assessment of their expertise and knowledge, and
the provisions of § 94 (a). (d)) of the Act, which provides that a judge
expires on the date of the decision, which has been his professional
the inability to perform this function. Finally, under this heading are
proposed to repeal: the provisions on the communication of assessment results
vocational training of the judge of the Judicial Academy and the appropriate people
institutions (article 132, paragraph 3, of the Act on courts and judges), the provisions of
transitional, which shall provide for an assessment of professional competence for
judges appointed to a function before the date of entry into force of this Act
(section 185 of the Act), and the provisions for designing of lawyers and notaries as members
The competence of the Council of judges (in § 187 words "3 lawyers in
members of the Council for the competence of judges and their alternates, and 3 "and section
188 of the Act). The above provisions of the Act on courts and judges are
proposed to cancel for their conflict with the article. 1, art. paragraph 82. 1 and 2, and
article. 93 of the Constitution.
In the context of the next sub-block, relating to the exercise of State administration
the courts are to cancel first proposed from section 4 of part 1 of title I
the first section of the Act on courts and Judges Act, governing the organisation and
the activity of the courts, the provisions of § 15 para. 2, the second sentence of § 26 para. 2 sentence
Second, section 30 paragraph 2. 2 the second sentence and section 34 para. 2 the second sentence, which
provides that the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of individual degrees listed
General courts shall exercise, in addition to decision-making activities also state administration
the competent courts within the limits set by law. In the next to the cancellation
the proposed provision of section 119 paragraph 1. 2 and 3 of the Act, then
expressly provides that the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of various degrees
the general courts are bodies of State administration of courts and participate in
the extent and under the conditions laid down in this law and the Presidents of the Chambers and
the other judges. Follow up the provisions of § 120 and 121 of the law on the courts and
the Judges Act then provides that the exercise of State administration of the courts is exercised
The Ministry of justice either directly or through the Presidents of the
These courts, which are capitalized to the extent provided by law and the
who may delegate this power of Vice-President and, possibly, President
the Senate and the other judge of the competent court. Challenged provisions of § is also
paragraph 74. 3 of the law stipulating that the President and the Vice-President of the Court and
some of the other activities listed here are not considered to function in
the public administration. From part 3, title III, part of the first law on the courts and
the Judges Act, governing the scope of bodies of the State administration of courts, are further
to cancel the proposed provision of section 124, 125, 126 and 127, which specifically
sets out the actions to the Chairmen of the degrees of general courts
exercise of State administration, as well as the follow-up provisions of section 128 of the
the law governing the procedure for Administrative Department of the courts when it detects
culpable infringement of the obligation of the judge in the performance of its functions. Next to the
the cancellation of the proposed provisions of § 106 paragraph. 1 of the law on courts and judges
provides for the possibility to revoke the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Court from his Office
by who to feature his name, if you fail to comply with their obligations properly.
To cancel the addition proposed in are the provisions of § 68 para. 1 cited
of the Act, the words "to the Ministry or" and the same words in § 99 paragraph 2. 1 (b).
(c)) of this law, which is made possible by the allocation of a judge to the Ministry of
Justice and a temporary exemption from the performance of the duties of judge at the
the case of this allocation. For the above provisions of the Act on courts
and judges has a suggestion for it, they are in breach of article. paragraph 82. 3 of the Constitution.
The last thematic heading for cancellation of the proposed provisions of the law on
courts and judges is relates to the statutory marshaling judges to vocational
training in the Judicial Academy. It is here especially on the abolition of the second sentence
the second paragraph of section 82 of the Act on courts and Judges Act, which sets out the
obligation of the judge to take part in vocational training in the Judicial Academy and
to submit to an evaluation and assessment of their expertise and knowledge.
In response to this provision then in part 4, title III, part one
the law on courts and Judges Act, governing the establishment, organization, and
the activities of the Judicial Academy, are proposed for abolition in paragraph
paragraph 130. 2 the words "the inclusion of judges" and then the provisions of § 131
paragraph. 1 (b). a) and b) and § 132 paragraph. 1 (b). a) and b), in paragraph 2. 2 words
"judges" and paragraph 2. 3. These provisions is the obligation of the judge to participate in
vocational training in the Judicial Academy further clarified by indicating
the length of study, the way their communication and valorisation of results of vocational
the training of judges. Submitted the proposal for the following produce legal
the provisions of the claims of their conflict with the article. 1, art. 81 and article. paragraph 82. 1 of the Constitution.
In the.
In the preamble to the Constitution and in article 4(1) thereof. 1, and in the opening statement to the
The Charter, as well as in international agreements within the meaning of article 87(1). 10 of the Constitution,
logs on to the Czech Republic to the proven principles of democratic
the rule of law based on respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen
(cit. Article 1 of the Constitution) and to the democratic values (article 2, paragraph 1,
Of the Charter). In this State, according to the article. 2 (2). 1 of the Constitution, the source of all
State power people, executing it through the authorities can
legislative, Executive and judicial. From this initial finding, can be
inferred that at the very basis of our constitutional system is embedded
the principle of the Division of State power, a principle based on the idea that in the
nature of man enshrined tendency towards the concentration of power and its
the abuse, which has become a guarantee against the will and the misuse of State power and
Basically, i guarantee the freedom and protection of individuals, the principle of which is
the result of the earlier historical, and reflection on thought and
institutional developments, in which the. in the modern era have been involved such
prominent personalities like John Locke and Charles Montesqieu,
institutionally, then up to the present. the British Parliament and the British justice system. It is not
the task of the Constitutional Court, in a situation that can be considered as already
the closer, developing and causes for this principle. But
nevertheless considers it necessary to only briefly noted that in
the foundations themselves of that principle is contained in the empirical
Knowledge embodied the belief that human thought and the social
processes could not be attributed to just never rational nature, for
include evident elements, plus the irrational rationality of thought
She is never fully with the rationality of the negotiations. As already
existing State is a "Government of all the" mere ideological formulas,
often explaining away completely the opposite social status. In a social situation
characterized by both internal and external individuals and entire nedostatkovostí
the company's basic human needs can be met and at the same time
maintained at least a direction to the target, which represents democracy, the only way
balancing the conflicting interests of the individual. However that is not in the realm of
Justice does not seek nor democratic State of maximalistické programs, and is
therefore a notion "of a judicial State"-body of the civil
power is, as has already been stated, the power of the legislature and the Executive,
and therefore, this State power in a democratic system may be functionally
implemented only under the conditions of the functioning of all its institutions-is
on the other hand, required to create the institutional prerequisites for it,
What, as regards the judiciary, valid as specific and unconditional, namely
establishment and Cryopreservation of the real independence of the courts, such as-
stabilization of not only their position, but also the entire democratic system,
in relation to legislation and executive branch-an important státotvorného,
at the same time, however, and the polemického element. Referred to the real independence of the judiciary is
specific and an indispensable attribute of the judiciary, a reasoned and
also required by article 4(1). 4 of the Constitution, according to which the fundamental rights and freedoms
they are under the protection of the judicial power, as well as the article. 81 and 82 of the Constitution, according to the
which the judicial power is exercised by independent courts on behalf of the Republic,
that the judges are independent in the performance of their functions and their impartiality
No person shall threaten. Already established specific feature and content of judicial
power cannot therefore be called into question, and therefore its essential function
they are not in any way compatible with the infiltration of other State authority,
the premise was in the Constitutional Charter of the Czechoslovak Republic
introduced by the Act No. 121/1920 SB. expressed provisions of § 96 para. 1,
According to which the judiciary is in all mills separated from management, in
the current Constitution, then in the article. paragraph 82. 3, according to which the judge is not
compatible with the function of President of the Republic, a member of Parliament, or with
any of the functions of public administration. The principle of the independence of the Court has, therefore, in
this respect, as already mentioned, the unconditional nature of the negative option
ingerence of the Executive. This requirement, however, the impugned legislation
does not meet.
President of the Republic in its proposal primarily attacks the provisions of the Act
relating to periodically support assessment and evaluation
the eligibility of all judges, including the provisions with them
related to finance in a complementary. Specifically, § 134-163 (part 5
Title III-assessment of professional competence of judges) and in connection with
them § 50 para. 1 (b). (f)), and (b). (g)), para. 3 (a). 4, § 51 para. 1
(a). (f)), and (b). (g)), para. 3 (a). 4, § 52 para. 1 (b). (f)), and (b).
(g)), para. 3 (a). 4, § 53 para. 1 (b). (e)), para. 3 (a). 4, § 71
paragraph. 4, § 72 para. 2 in the sentence of the last paragraph, the section 74. 3 in the words "in the Council
and "§ 82 para. 2 in the sentence of the second paragraph 94 (a),. (d)), section 123 paragraph. 3 (a). 4,
section 124 para. 4, § 125 paragraph. 3, § 126 paragraph. 3, § 127 paragraph. 3, § 132 paragraph.
3, § 185, § 187 in the words "members of the Council of 3 lawyers in training
the competence of judges and their alternates, and 3 "and § 188.
For the assessment of the merits test this part of the proposal, it seems necessary to specify
an overview of the individual provisions within the period
Institute evaluation of the proficiency of judges are legally
permission is granted to the individual institutions of the State administration of the courts.
Under the law, expressed in the contested provisions, which
the major part is systematically included in title III, part of the first Act,
marked (which in a given context is not without importance) as State
Courts Administration, monitors the competence of judges, who are required to
submit to the law laid down by the method of evaluation and assessment of their
expertise and knowledge (§ 82 para. 2), Ministry of
Justice (article 123, paragraph 3). To this end, methodically guided by reviews
professional competence of judges and methodically manages audits of their
activities (article 123, paragraph 3). The assessment of professional competence
the judges then creates the appropriate Council [Council for the area of criminal law,
Advice for a range of civil rights and Advice for a range of administrative justice
(article 123 (4))]. The Presidents of the Supreme Court, top, regional and
district courts, as bearers of the function in the State administration of the courts, to which
they are appointed (except for the President and the Vice-President of the Supreme Court)
the Minister of Justice, having the power to appeal is based, in General,
quite vaguely worded because "proper non-compliance" (section 103
paragraph. 1, § 104 paragraph. 1, § 105 para. 1, § 106 paragraph. 1),
listed competencies in relation to the assessment of professional competence
judges (article 124, paragraph 4, section 125 (3), § 126, paragraph 3, section 127 (3)) and
These Presidents, with the exception of the Presidents of the district courts, this ability also
evaluated (§ 135). Point of view, below which is the viewing angle
the judge assessed eligibility, are examined, inter alia, on the basis of the opinion
drawn up by the President of the Court and the relevant reports of the results
the judge prepared by the Judicial Training Academy (§ 136 paragraph.
2), controlled by the Director appointed by the Minister of Justice again. The members of the
the Special Chamber, performing clearance decision-making activity of the judge,
shall be appointed by the President from among the judges of the competent court (section 137 (2)), who (in the
cases of non-compliant rating, or a special judge Senate
If he himself with the message of the Special Chamber, in which the decision-making
the activity of the judge assessed as satisfactory, also served in the proposal do not match),
to the competence of the judge to assess this proposal, the Council
hearing about him and decisive, while the latter is established by the Ministry of
(section 138, section 139, paragraph 1), and the part of its members and alternate members of the Government
agents, lawyers, notaries and experts from the field of criminal, civil and
administrative rights on a proposal from the competent authorities, shall be appointed by the Minister (section 139
paragraph. 8. the Council may act) and to decide, in the presence of at least its 7
members or their alternates and the adoption of the decision requires the consent of
by an absolute majority of the members present or their alternates (§ 141
paragraph. 2), implying that its decision because of the composition of the
that the Council (section 139, paragraph 4, 5 and 6) may be taken only
Members, neither of which is not a judge. In this context, the need to
noted that the mere fact that they have to sit in the designated authority and on the further
the fate of the judges so decide the person from among the lawyers, prosecutors and
notaries, seems highly problematic with regard to their possible
motivation stemming from their position of any party or representative in proceedings before the
by the Court. The proceedings before the Board shall be initiated on the request made by the competent
President of the Court (section 144), which is (in addition to the judge, whose professional
the eligibility of the participant of the proceedings) as well as the Minister of
Justice (article 145, paragraph 1). Does not agree to any of these participants
with the decision of the Council, may submit a proposal to the assessment of professional competence
the judge in the Supreme Court (article 153), is a participant in this way induced
proceedings (article 157), which ends with the decision of the Supreme Court.
Already from the very enumeration of executive authorities
(which are themselves in relations of control and subordination) passes by
the opinion of the Constitutional Court of the Executive to the possibility of disproportionate ingerence can
the Court. Broad and versatile design of the competency of the representatives
power of the Executive in relation to the assessment of the proficiency of judges already
appointed in respect of its accumulation of the separation of powers principle and cannot be
in the light of the above constitutional values. Executive power,
that's in proportion to the power of the Court to only create the preconditions of material and
Organization for its proper functioning, Jim gets the instruments which are:
are eligible, even if only indirectly, the independent decisions of judges
influence. The fact that the final decision about professional competence
It is in the hands of the Senate of the Supreme Court, at the conclusion of unreasonable
options Executive ingerovat in may, the Court cannot, in principle,
nothing change, as well as the fact that the evaluation of the judges shall be expressed
the Act also newly established Judicial Council elected from the ranks of judges in the
each of the courts, since they have only an advisory votes, which
the leaders of the Executive are not obliged to accept. In this
context, it should also be stressed that the Judicial Council under
the overarching authority of the law, which could be a real representative of the
the judiciary and partner of the Ministry of Justice as the Central
Government authority, or alone bore the responsibility for the management and performance
administration of courts, as well as the responsibility for the quality of the judiciary.
The previously mentioned article. 81 of the Constitution provides that the judicial power exercised on behalf of the
the Republic of independent courts. Article. paragraph 82. 1 of the Constitution stipulates that judges
in the exercise of their functions are independent and their impartiality, no person shall
threaten. The independence of the judge, as well as the independence of the judiciary
therefore inherently connected and are in a relationship of mutual cross-compliance, and even with
impartiality of the judge and of the Court. Independence and impartiality are
indispensable attributes of the concept of the Court. His impartiality and independence is
value, which is good for all, since it is one of the guarantees of equality and law
security in a democratic society. Only an impartial court is competent
provide real justice always and all, with one of the
the impartiality of the Court to guarantee the resources is judicial independence.
The principle of judicial independence, the Constitutional Court already dealt with in a number of
its decisions, for example. in the matter of SP. zn. PL. ÚS 13/99 (a collection of awards and
the resolution of the Constitutional Court, St. 15, pp. 191-202), pl. ÚS 18/99 (sv.
19, p. 3-21), pl. ÚS 41/2000 (vol. 9, pp. 493-500), in which
stressed the importance of their guarantees as a fundamental prerequisite for the fulfillment of
the constitutional position of judicial power as a separate specific forms of performance
State power. The purpose of this guarantee is to secure such a position of the judge,
that requires its role in an impartial, fair judicial process
decisions, in which the judge is bound only by its promise of legal
regulations and to their best knowledge and conscience (naturally still
confronted the fundamental values upínajícími to the man and
Justice). Each can also legitimately, in accordance with article 6(1). 6 of the Convention,
the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and of each judge to whom it is
entrusted with the protection of his rights, expect. According to the mentioned standards was also
the requirement of an independent and impartial court established by law "in the
the case-law of the European Court of human rights has developed, for
the condition of independence, it is necessary that the Court could rely upon their
the decision on your own free opinion on the facts and their legal
page, without any obligation to the parties and to the public authorities
and without his decision is subject to review by any other authority, which would
not as an independent in that sense. In this context, can be
international documents also mention the independence of the judiciary and judges
highlighting, such as basic principles of the independence of the judiciary,
adopted by the UNITED NATIONS in 1985, and the position of the Council of Europe to the judiciary, that are
formulated in the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe no. 12 of 1994,
Stressing the need for the independence of the judge in the decision making process to the
the hearing without the presence of any limitations, undue influence,
external impulses, pressures, threats or interference, direct or indirect
from any direction, and for any reason and accentuating in the direction to the
the Executive and the legislature need to create and strengthen the guarantees
the independence of the courts. To those guarantees in our Constitution are in addition to the policy
incompatibility of functions of the absoluteness of time also a judge (article 93
paragraph. 1 of the Constitution), nepřeložitelnost, and also its nonrepudiation, as
It is enshrined in the article. paragraph 82. 2 and 3 of the Constitution. The provisions of paragraph 2 of this
provides that a judge cannot appeal against his will, or translate to another
the Court; the exceptions resulting in particular from disciplinary liability provided for by law.
In this context, it should be noted that a certain space ústavodárce
lawmakers provided in that provision by the use of the term "in particular", is
needs, precisely because it is used in relation to the exception, construed in accordance
with the usual principle of legal relationship rules and exceptions strictly
in a restrictive way. Can be so totally agree with the proposal that the exceptions to the
the rules of the finality of the judges may affect just hearing his
intensity comparable to disciplinary offense expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
For example, such additional law referenced reason for
result in termination of the functions of the judge, namely denouncing the decision for criminal
an offence committed intentionally or condemning the decision to jail sentence
a custodial sentence for an offense committed by negligence, it cannot, however,
have an unsatisfactory evaluation of its technical competence, in addition, as already
top pointed out, under threat of a substantial part of the power of the Executive.
Undoubtedly, it is necessary to agree with the fact that the competence of the judge,
In addition to his moral integrity, is the indisputable prerequisite for the proper
the performance of its functions, and is, therefore, emphasis should be put on it. The
However, it should be clamped in particular to prepare for this occupation. The Act of
the provisions of the peace to its function without time limit must, however, be
made in the belief that the candidate in all directions-in
the principle from the perspective of a substantial part of the aspects referred to for reviews
professional competence of the judges in the provisions of § 136 paragraph. 1 of the law-
will stand. Just in the process preceding the appointment of the judge in his
the function should be concentrated all the bounty of the possible requirements
the judge asked, and therefore the assessment must support
eligibility be subject to the strictest criteria, as already
in the very beginning of the ability to appoint a judge to the person under-by professionally
qualified and such, which are not guarantees further self-education
(possibly even at the cost of changes to existing practice, such that
allow judges to appoint only such person that already
quality of the moral, human and professional the results of its earlier
profession validated). At the moment of the appointment, however, such a person becomes
judge and activates the essential attribute of this function,
in the form of the independence of the judge. Then in the decision-making process not only
itself must be independent and impartial, but should also be as follows
the public objectively perceived. And for that reason, the Constitutional Court shall be deemed to
the mechanism under consideration of the subsequent and repeated reviews of the professional
the eligibility of a judge that may lead to its revocation, for standing in
conflict with constitutional guarantees of judicial independence. It seems so
because such reviews-in addition, methodically controlled authority can
powerful-is exposed to the judge whose competence, and even
support, this feature has already been aprobována by the State exercise. In
continuity with what has just been mentioned, then you cannot pass even possible
the impact of possible appeal for these reasons on legal certainty at all, and
in proportion to those of a judicial decision, which was as follows for the inability
revoked by a judge previously released.
However, it is the objective pursued by the legislation, seeking to achieve
qualitatively higher levels of the judiciary, legitimate, you must
the selected resource to him pointing, so how is constructed in
the contested provisions, considered as the basic constitutional nerespektující
understanding. In addition, it is necessary to take into account that the law in the wake of the it
declared responsibility for the professional level of judges in the exercise of
function (§ 82 par. 1) explicitly between the obligation of judges to them at the same time
also, the obligation imposed by the ranked consistently educate and deepen
its expertise for the proper exercise of function (§ 82 para. 2), as well as
the obligation to carry out this function in accordance with the interest in the proper performance of the
the judiciary, culpable violation of the obligations of a judge is a disciplinary
the offense (§ 87), which shall be borne by the judge, and exercise disciplinary liability (section 86)
may lead to its revocation [§ 88, paragraph 1 (b), (d))]. Can be so
stated that to achieve the status of the judiciary have been
excluded persons an obligation to ensure his professional level
they ignore the law, has the means, and it means, that is-as
an exception to the principle of finality-the Constitution explicitly envisaged.
The Constitutional Court is so convinced that a mechanism
the examination of professional competence of judges, as modified by law,
It is necessary to refuse and be regarded as unconstitutional for reasons of
in breach of the principle of the separation of powers and the related principle of judicial
independence. This, as already stated above, the unconditional nature of,
such a method of negative option ingerence of executive power, as it
represents a disproportionate and disproportionate share of the review
professional competence of the judges. For these reasons, the Constitutional Court upheld the
the proposal of the President and all the provisions of the law on set aside
courts and judges assessment of professional competence is on the way
in the introduction to this section are listed, for their conflict with the article. 1, art. 2
paragraph. 1, art. 81, 13(1). paragraph 82. 1 and 2 and article. 93 of the Constitution, without the need
separately to deal with the constitutionality of the provisions of § assess or 160 of the Act,
as the Institute reviews the proficiency of judges should be repealed with
given the interdependence of the various degrees in which reviews
performs, as a whole, including those parts of the provisions of this
of the Institute.
The principle of separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and judicial
the independence of the Constitutional Court and then even further to what has already been
These concepts have been mentioned, the judge and other parts of the President's
the design of the contested provisions, related to the obligations laid down by
judges periodically undergo training in Judicial Academy (§ 82 para.
2 the second sentence). It is by law established as an organizational component of the State (section
129 para. 1), over whose activities the Ministry of supervision
Justice (§ 130 (4)). It is run by a Director appointed by and odvolávaný
the Minister of Justice, with content, educational activities
marshaling of judges and the Judicial Council shall establish the degree programs of the Academy,
appointed again Minister of Justice (article 130 (2)), which also
a proposal from the Director of the Judicial Academy appoints and dismisses the teachers at the Academy
acting (§ 133). It follows from this that it is again mainly executive power,
as represented by the Minister of Justice which the law gives permission
determine the method of training to all judges, for although the law allows
vocational training also through the Supreme Court (§ 129 para.
3), it is the idea that the Supreme Court in its current
decision-making and other activities could do to an extent, what law
assume for all judges in its appointed time range (section 131 and
132 of the Act). Such a status, arising from legal provisions, as
from the top, where the way of education indicated, including the definition of its content
It remains de facto in the hands of the Executive, cannot be accepted, since it is a
another manifestation of the principle of the separation of powers and the improper influence of a noncompliant
Executive on judicial power. Having regard to the nature of the power cannot be without
further assume that the Executive power during the existence of the law it
permission will be granted sebeomezujícím and languid manner this
permission also exercise. In this context, it should be pointed out once again
that is the job of the judicial branch, through the judicial
independence as provided its proper performance, protect the rights of
citizens, and even before the libovůlí or unauthorized interventions of the State, thus able to
of the Executive. The ability to influence the nature of this protection, albeit in a manner
outwardly-requirement of sound to ensure professional competence
judges, may under the law, designed to lead to State
restriction as follows, on the basis of independence. The system of education, driven
in fact, from the center of power of the Executive, not also to independent and free
the formation of opinion needed and necessary prerequisite of the widest possible openness with
the possibility of the confrontation of different opinions from various sources (the choice of which
should be left to the autonomous decision of the judge alone), including
foreign sources. Such a system also in the context of the law
manner their education and in relation to judges the final
the work (section 132 (2)), which is subject to reviews (whose outcome
It will be so obviously from the nature of things and made conditional on the acceptance in soudcovou
the Academy presented opinions), and it is then when one of the supporting documents
reviews the technical competence of the judge, may cause the perceived
dependence and lead to other undesirable consequences, such as loss of feeling
his responsibility in the process of decision-making itself.
In this context, it should be closer to respond to the observations of the
the Chamber of Deputies, justifying the need for the adoption of the contested act, new reforms
the aim is a quick, fair and uniform of the judiciary, which, however,
It lacks a deeper dive into the issue of unity and uniformity, and betrays
at the same time neujasněnost the nature and function of social phenomena, and institutes
at all. More detailed analysis of any social phenomenon demonstrates the
the presence of the opposing forces acting in it, creating the function
the voltage of both of these relevant elements, voltage, which is
an indispensable condition for social development. In Social Affairs, acting
the principle of polarity creates tension, in addition to a number of other
forms, also between unity and diversity. Out of the said
line the base of democracy, which is also based on the fact
seen as difficult and problematic reality, however at the same time
as the most serious obstacle to the dysfunctional jednokolejnosti. Therefore, even
the "real" unity can be achieved only by střetáváním diverse, to
specific areas of relevant aspects, some of which tend towards
Unity, while others to diversity. The actual source of unity is therefore
should be sought first and foremost in conflict, since only by multiplicity
often significantly diverging opinions and attitudes of each man and
social consciousness of belonging and unity.
Shown in the already quite close connection with the present case, such
consider the requirement of a single justice in the directions for
problematic, both in its aspect unified education and in the
the single aspect of decision-making. Any unity can fulfil
a positive social function only if those who are pointing to it,
They also differ, so more usefully and effectively to
unite. Nothing nepodmiňovaná the unity of the judicial system would in turn lead to
side effects in the terms in which each individual judge was
přikazován to receive further training from the State of a specified source and under
the pressure of the hypertrophy of the unification of every detail being conditions for
a fair assessment of each individual case, the respect of his
uniqueness. Mechanical transposition of the "unified" would lead
not only to the side, but the template itself would endanger the development of legal thought.
In terms of the judiciary can therefore accept the formation of a relatively
the single opinion only in the context of the procedures that they themselves
do not exclude a clash of opinions of various.
To ensure legal certainty and respect for the rights (article 1 of the Constitution) of the corresponding
predictability of decision making is responsible for
future judges, and in finding suitable methods of eligible
to ensure the acquisition of standard procedures in standard situations and
validation of knowledge, not only of legislation, but also judicial case law.
Above all, the task is then to guide the interpretation of the provisions along the lines of
constitutional principles and responsibilities of judges themselves, case-law not only
know, but in a creative way, also reacting to the changing
social reality, to develop it.
It is common ground that the continuous professional training of judges in this
the profession. Referred to postulate, also from
international documents. As previously stated in another context, is
established as a duty to both this Act in section 82 para. 2 and
the law also provides that the judge shall be borne for their level of expertise
liability. This responsibility, and it must be pointed out, however, it is apparent
above all, the very essence of judicial independence with which it is
necessarily need to join, and from which it is the commitment of each
a single judge not only to a fair and impartial decision making,
but also decision-making, contributions to the foreseeable perfect knowledge
legislation and judicial decisions, as this, what is the for attribute
independence of the judiciary and also in the interests of the typical functioning of democratic
the system is necessary, it is just natural joining of this attribute is
judicial responsibilities, resulting also from the article. 90 and 95 of the Constitution and
then in detail, expressed for example. in the article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention, imposing the Court
the obligation corresponding to the right of everyone to his matter was
fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and
impartial tribunal. Responsibility and liability for that commitment, however, must bear the
judicial power alone.
It can be concluded that the establishment of the Judicial Academy of law has its
justification with regard to the function you want to perform in training
judicial hopefuls and other personnel of the courts in relation to the
continuous training of judges, however, it is possible having regard to what
indicated above, understood only as one of the possible, the judge
freely chosen sources. The Constitutional Court therefore for these reasons set aside the
all the provisions of the Act, that the training of judges in the Judicial
the Academy lays down as a duty, as well as the provisions on them substantively
follow-up regarding the extent of this obligation.
The last circuit design of the contested provisions [section 15 paragraph 2, second sentence,
§ 26 para. 2 the second sentence, § 30 para. 2, the second sentence of § 34 paragraph 1. 2 sentence
Second, § 68 para. 1 in the words "the Ministry or", section 74 para. 3, §
paragraph 99. 1 (b). (c)) in the words "the Ministry or" § 106 paragraph. 1, §
paragraph 119. 2 (a). 3, § 120, § 121, § 124 to 128] basically refers to
editing method of regulating the exercise of State administration of the courts. When assessing the
This section of the proposal, the Constitutional Court had to take into account that the proposal
President of the Republic, the Constitutional Court is bound by the Petite, not
challenged by the position of the Ministry of Justice as the central authority
the State administration of courts, as well as exceptions, they have not been contaminated by the
the competence of this body.
In the evaluation of the said provisions is key to the provision of section 74
paragraph. 3 of the Act, which States that for a function in the public administration,
does not consider the President and the Vice-President of the Court, the temporary assignment to the
the Ministry, membership of the Council and the Council for the competence of the State
representatives, membership in the governmental advisory bodies of the Ministry, the Government and in
the bodies of the Chambers of Parliament. For the assessment is determining the content of the article. 82
paragraph. 3 of the Constitution, which says that a judge is not compatible with the
functions of the President of the Republic, a member of Parliament, nor with any of the features
in the public administration; the law provides that other activities is the performance
judicial function is incompatible. The Constitution thus establishes which functions are
judge fundamentally incompatible features, taking his first sentence, should be
understood as a non-exhaustive list, the definition can be made in accordance with the
sentence of the second for a semicolon to extend, but not narrow, as it
is the provision of section 74 para. 3 of the Act. Lawmakers thus authorised to
the extension of that enumeration, but not for its limitations, it is not for
change will ústavodárce the release of law over this content, and
Nonpareil in it so its constitutional basis. Therefore, if provided for by the Constitution as
the highest standard of legal force of a judge with incompatibilities rule
any functions in the public administration, for which the activity is to be
undoubtedly be regarded as a substantial part of the activities listed in
the follow-up provisions, which pursue the Presidents and
Vice-Presidents of courts (indeed, the provisions of section 119 (2) and (3) expressly
for State administration bodies referred to), then you cannot make a different conclusion than
that provision is in breach of article. paragraph 82. 3 of the Constitution and in
connection with him, and all other it based on that position
Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the courts and their activities closer to normují. Here is the
However, it should be stressed that the cancellation of these provisions went
The Constitutional Court of the formal reasons only and that derogations
the provisions of section 74 para. 3 of the law did not mean to make clear that the guidance and
the administration of the courts should be entrusted with a person other than the person from among the judges.
The principle of incompatibility of functions, expressed in the above cited article
The Constitution, then it cannot be violated or that the law permitted the
possibility of judges in the bodies of executive power, where appropriate,
legislative, as it further makes the contested provision of section 74 para. 3
the law. The incompatibilities of functions is one of the additional guarantees
judicial independence. As a constitutional principle must be strictly
comply with, and cannot be circumvented or solution, which contains
the provisions of § 99 paragraph 2. 1 (b). (c)) of the Act, according to which judge for
his tenure at the Ministry of only-explicitly-temporarily releases
performance of their duties. Imanentním feature of this feature is its
of stages. Membership in the advisory bodies of the Ministry, the Government and both
houses of Parliament then surely includes the relevant performance of the tasks of the
different components of State power, and the action of judges in those bodies is
so in breach of the principle of the separation of powers, despite the fact that the personal and
non-judicial ties, including when such activities occur, inevitably
increase the likelihood of a potential conflict of interest, and it does so in the impartiality of the
the form of the impartiality of the judges of the sphere.
The Constitutional Court of the reasons for the conflict with the article. paragraph 82. 3 of the Constitution
set aside the provisions of section 74 para. 3, as well as all the other provisions,
that are based on it, the content or systematically connecting, so
How are top listed. In addition, the need to add that to the repeal of the provisions
§ 106 paragraph. 1 led the Constitutional Court, in addition to the reasons already mentioned, the reason
For more, namely a completely generic and vague-the principle of legal certainty
mismatched-expressing the reasons leading to the dismissal of Presidents and
the Vice-Presidents of the courts. In this context, then, the Constitutional Court considered
necessary to note that the functionality of Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the courts should
be considered a career judge (much as is the case in
the case of the appointment of the President of the Senate), and, therefore, neither the Chairman and
the Vice-President of the Court not be revocable for other than law
In addition, the reason for and the procedure in disciplinary proceedings, i.e.. by a court decision.
Such a design, when the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the courts involved
activities which are by their very nature administrative activities, without, however, from this
because these people were losing the quality status of an independent judge, and
catch just to the position of a civil servant, whose distinctive
the feature is the reporting relationship and the respect of commands for work
parent people, is in a number of developed countries of Europe (eg. Austria
Germany, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy,
Portugal) considered as an integral part of the principle of separation of powers,
stemming from the requirements of the rule of law, and from it derived the principle
the institutional independence of the judiciary, as well as the principle of uninterrupted
the personal performance of the independent judicial mandate. At the same time the Constitutional Court
He adds that the current state when the central authority of State administration of the courts is
The Ministry of Justice and the judiciary itself does not have its own
representative body on his level (which authority could be
authority is well placed to take on the role of the Ministry in matters of personnel
including the supervision of the professional level of the judiciary, possibly in
other areas of management and performance of the administration of Justice), in the opinion of
The Constitutional Court does not exclude the possibility of indirect enough
influence of judicial power by the power of the Executive (e.g. through
the allocation of budgetary resources and the control of their use). From
What has been previously stated, it is clear, however, that the previous contested
part of the Act were abolished from prevailing part with reference to the
non-observance of the principle of separation of powers. Therefore, when this part of the assessment
the design of the contested provisions and the Constitutional Court itself had to this principle
take care. The Constitutional Court to decide how the
should be dealt with the question of the performance of the administration of courts, as this is the task of the power
the legislative. It should, however, in choosing the model of administration of courts consistently
respect the separation of State powers. To lawmakers has been given
sufficient space for the adoption of the new legislation the administration of the courts, the Constitutional Court
He put the enforceability of that part of the award, i.e.. for those provisions which
are listed in point 2 of the operative part of the award, for a period of up to 1. 7.2003.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
in the z.. Haboob in r.
Vice Chairman
Different opinions under section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,
the decision of the plenum have been judges. Turgut Güttler, JUDr. Jiří
Malenovský, JUDr. Vlastimil Sevcik and JUDr. Pavel Param V.