52/2001 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court ruled on 17. January 2001 in plenary on the draft PhDr. In. H.
repeal of § 83 para. 1 of Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended by
amended,
as follows:
The provisions of § 83 para. 1 of Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended by
amended, is repealed on 28 March 2007. February 2002.
Justification
The applicant on 4 July 2003. 2. the 2000 filed a constitutional complaint against the
the decision about the offence of the police of the Czech Republic-transport
the Inspectorate of the municipal Directorate in Brno from 6 May. 10.1999, SP. zn.
MRBM-1216/DI-BC-99, which has been in the management decided to carry
of the offence and the complainant was imposed a fine of $ 2 000 and
obligation to pay the costs in the amount of $ 500, according to section 22
paragraph. 2 of Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended
regulations. The constitutional complaint was directed against the decision of the Police of the Czech Republic
the Transport Inspectorate of Administration of South Moravia in Brno from 7 September.
12.1999 sp. Zn. PJM-890/DS-odv-99, which was rejected
navrhovatelovo an appeal against the decision to the offense. With regard to § 83
paragraph. 1 of Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended
regulations, the applicant together with the constitutional complaint for annulment
This provision.
The provisions of § 83 para. 1 of Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended by
amended, makes it impossible to review referred to the decision of the Court,
as it is a misdemeanor under section 22(2), qualified. 1 (b).
(d)) of the provincial offences Act, as amended, for that cannot be
impose a fine of more than $ 200 or a ban. The provisions of § 83
paragraph. 1 of Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended
regulations, as follows:
section 83
Review of the decision on the misdemeanor Court
(1) the Court does not review the decision about the offence, for which cannot be saved
a penalty higher than $ 200 or the prohibition of activities; This does not apply if the
say the confiscation or the prevents things whose value exceeds the
the amount of $ 200.
The applicant considers that the contested decision has been infringed his right to
to a fair trial enshrined in article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention on the protection of
human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention") published under the
No. 209/1992 Coll. and binding pursuant to art. 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to
"the Constitution"), which requires, in order to ensure at least one
instance, which is either a court or another independent and according to the law
designated authority and which shall consider the matter in full jurisdiction and will therefore be
find also on matters of fact. Due to the fact that the Convention has
precedence over the law, the plaintiff took advantage of the options he § 64 para. 1
(a). d) Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, (hereinafter referred to as "the law of
The Constitutional Court ") and, together with the constitutional complaints submitted the proposal to repeal section
83 para. 1 of Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended
regulations. Whereas (II). Chamber of the Constitutional Court assessed the fulfilment of
the conditions pursuant to section 74 of the Act on the Constitutional Court. The constitutional complaint has been
made in good time, authorised by the applicant, duly represented, the proposal
It is not illegal, and the Constitutional Court was to its jurisdiction.
Because the alleged interference with the fundamental rights took place under direct application
the provisions, which is the subject of the proposal, II. Chamber of the Constitutional Court
to the conclusion that the conditions of § 78 para. 1 of the law on the constitutional
the Court. Therefore, the proceedings on constitutional complaints by resolution of 29 January 2004. 2.2000 No.
j. II. TC 71/2000-9 broke and the proposal to repeal § 83 para. 1 of law No.
200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended, forwarded
the plenum of the Constitutional Court for a decision under art. 87 para. 1 (b). and) of the Constitution
.
(I).
Within these decisions the applicant was fined $ 100 for
the alleged traffic violation, according to police, when the allegation of the day 1. 6. in 1999
5.34 pm. as the driver of a personal motor vehicle factory marks
Renault Espace was driving down the street in Brno, where the maximum speed is enabled
60 km/h, at a speed of 80 km/h. This speed has been measured according to the
police authorities, the measuring device Size 7 m-., in fact, that the
the conclusion of the administrative body of navrhovatelově was built solely on guilt
one police officer, who claims that his statement proved
navrhovatelův offence against the safety and continuity of the road
operation, the applicant considers that there is a violation of the basic principles of administrative procedure
contained in § 3 (1). 4 of law No. 71/1967 Coll., on administrative proceedings
(administrative code), which provides that decisions of administrative authorities must
be based on the reliably determined the State of affairs and policies that control is
should lead to strengthening citizens ' confidence in the correctness of the decision,
to ensure that the decisions taken was convincing and led citizens and organizations to
voluntary compliance with their obligations.
The appellant also pointed to the fact that, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court
expressed in its findings published under no. 2/2000 Coll., which was
repealed the provisions of § 248 paragraph. 2 (a). e) of Act No 99/1963 Coll.,
Code of civil procedure, as amended, is the issue of section 83
Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended, for the
You can impose a fine to a maximum of 2 000,-in article mode. 6 (1). 1
Convention, even in the case that the fine does not reach that level. In the opinion of
The Constitutional Court expressed in this award even in the opinion of the applicant would
the possibility of review of the decision of the police authorities, which are
the decisions of an independent court has strengthened the legal security and reported
would conflict the provisions of § 83 para. 1 of Act No. 200/1990 Coll., on
provincial offences Act, as amended, in accordance with article 6(1). 6 of the Convention, with the
article. paragraph 36. 1 and 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (hereinafter referred to as
"The Charter") and article 6(2). 14. 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and
political rights, published under no. 120/1976 Coll., in conjunction with the
article. 1 of the Charter and article. 1 and 4Ústavy.
II.
The Constitutional Court first considered the formal requirements of a submitted proposal.
The petition was filed by the applicant, authorized under the conditions specified in § 74
the law on the Constitutional Court. As the conditions of admissibility referred to in section 66 paragraph 1.
1 of the law on the Constitutional Court have been fulfilled in the present case. The proposal was
found to be permissible and the plenary of the Constitutional Court may follow the
directives § 68 law on the Constitutional Court.
The resolution of the Constitutional Court of 11 May 1999. 4.2000, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 12/2000 was
the District Court rejected in louny on the repeal of § 83 para. 1 of the law
No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended, with the
on the grounds that the claimant has under the provisions of § 35 para. 2 of the law on
The Constitutional Court the right to participate in the negotiations on the previously submitted proposal as
the intervener.
For the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom as a participant
control to the design-time expressed its President Prof. Ing. Václav Klaus,
CSC., having said that, when considering the design plays an essential role
the finding of the Constitutional Court No 2/2000 Coll. that is in its submission
the plaintiff also refers. This finding was on the date of its publication in the
canceled part of the provisions of § 248 paragraph. 2 (a). e) of Act No 99/1963 Coll.,
Code of civil procedure, as amended, which was reduced
the range of decisions of administrative authorities, within the framework of the administrative
Justice nepřezkoumávají. At the end of the preamble to the Constitutional Court dealt with the
and the question of the possibility by the fines compared with cash
penalties saved pursuant to § 53 of the criminal code, and which are
article. 6 of the Convention, and came to the conclusion that there is no valid reason why this
not be, even if by the fines and violations, and even those with
where the penalty does not reach set out above under § 83 para. 1 of law No.
200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended, because
any penalties for the offense is in the scheme of the Convention. The explanatory memorandum to the Act
the provincial offences Act states that it is proposed to review the administrative
the decision about the offence by the Court, but not all, but only those that
have a severe economic impact on the offender, provided that this
the person has made use of before the proper remedy under administrative
of the order. The introduction of this Institute is referred to in the explanatory memorandum is desirable in
to ensure legality in the decision-making and in the unification of the procedure
independent administrative authorities national authority. The law on Offences Act was
approved the necessary majority of the members of the legislature on 17. 5. in 1990,
He was signed by the respective constitutional factors and properly declared. For this
the State of things cannot be other than to express the opinion that the legislature acted in
the belief that the law is adopted in accordance with the Constitution, the constitutional order
and the rule of law. It is up to the Constitutional Court, in the context of the examination of the
the proposal to assess the constitutionality of this law and issued the appropriate decision.
The District Court in louny as intervener in its observations
the constitutional complaint stated that according to the settled judicial practice of the European
Court of human rights, the concept of criminal charge under art. 6 (1). 1
the first sentence of the Convention refers to the allegations of infringement, the
the penalty is a national law, defined as a preventive and
also the repressive measures of public authority and for having committed the
sanctions, which significantly interferes with civil rights
the responsible body, and this intervention may not consist only in
deprivation of liberty, but also the payment of a fine. According to the following
set criteria has in our legal system, the nature of the criminal charge
even the accusation of any offence, the merits of which is contained
in the Act on Offences Act or another Act, and regardless of the amount of the penalty,
what may be a person accused of an offence. This view stems from the
the definition of the offence, as well as the nature and type of sanctions that
You can save for the offense (§ 2 (1) of section 11 of the Act, the provincial offences Act).
The contested provisions of the provincial offences Act is inconsistent with article. paragraph 36.
1 and 2 of the Charter and article. 1, 4, of the Constitution. Denial of judicial review for
specified offences also causes inequality in the rights of persons,
that are recognized guilty of the infraction, and this inequality does not
a democratic legal State, no legitimate justification. This occurs even
violation of the provisions of article. 1 of the Charter. Additionally, you may encounter a situation where
person is one decision guilty of committing several
offences, some of which are subject to judicial review and the decision to
they may therefore be repealed by the Court, and other, less severe, are of
judicial review of a decision on them shall be excluded and shall remain unaffected,
which causes the daunting problems. In the opinion of the District Court in
Louny is § 83 para. 1 of Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended by
amended, in contradiction with the constitutional laws and international
the Treaty pursuant to article. 10 of the Constitution, and therefore proposed its abolition.
III.
The Constitutional Court in proceedings for the annulment of laws and other legal regulations
It assesses the contents of the Act or other legislation according to the aspects
contained in § 68 para. 2 of the Act on the Constitutional Court, i.e.. in terms of the
their compliance with constitutional laws and international treaties under article.
10 of the Constitution.
With regard to the constitutionality of the provisions of § 83 paragraph content. 1 of Act No. 200/1990
Coll. on offences, as amended, the Constitutional Court decided to
conclusion without considered necessary to examine all the constitutional aspects of the
This problem that it's all about equality in rights violations against
the public authority referred to in article. 1 of the Charter in connection with the violation of the right to
a fair trial according to art. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention and the contested provisions
is not in compliance, or with art. paragraph 36. 1 and 2 of the Charter due to violations of the rights of
on the judicial and other legal protection, and the same is in breach of article. 1 and 4
The Constitution, and the draft should therefore be upheld.
Articles 1 and 4 of the Constitution:
1. the Czech Republic is a sovereign, unified and democratic legal State
based on respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen.
4. The fundamental rights and freedoms are protected by the judiciary.
Article 1 of the Charter reads as follows:
People are free and equal in dignity and in rights. The fundamental rights and
freedoms are inalienable, not subject to alienation, nepromlčitelné and non-cancelable.
Article 36 para. 1 and 2 of the Charter regulates the right to judicial and other legal
protection and added:
1. Everyone can claim a set procedure, their right to an independent
and impartial court and in specific cases, at another institution.
2. Who claim that their rights was truncated by a decision of the authority
public administration, may apply to the Court to review the legality of
such a decision, unless the law provides otherwise. However, from the jurisdiction of the Court
may not be excluded examination of decisions concerning the basic
According to the Charter of rights and freedoms.
Article 6 of the Convention provides for the right to a fair trial and paragraph 1
This article reads as follows:
1. Everyone has the right to his matter was fair and public
and within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by
by law, the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of the
the legitimacy of any criminal charge against him. The judgment must
be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded either after
for the whole or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order
or national security in a democratic society, or when it
require the interests of minors or the protection of the private life of the parties
or, to the extent considered necessary by the Court for completely, if,
owing to special circumstances, public control might be detrimental to the
the interests of Justice.
As is clear from the quoted provisions, the right to a fair trial, which
essential component of the right to a hearing by an independent court,
It occupies a prominent place in a democratic society. The person concerned must
be able to have the decision reviewed by the Court, adopted against it, which
complies with the guarantees article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention. In the present case, however,
the appellant did not have the option to leave a review of the decision on the offense
an independent and impartial tribunal.
Denial of legal protection in matters of review of the decision of the public authorities
the Administration is possible if the law so provides. But it is not possible in the
the case that this is a decision relating to the fundamental rights and
freedoms under the Charter, the Constitution and the international agreements referred to in article. 10 of the Constitution.
Any other procedure is in breach of article. paragraph 36. 1 and 2 of the Charter and article. 4
Of the Constitution. Every natural and legal person has a constitutionally in the Czech Republic
the right to a fair trial guaranteed by article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention.
In the case of the decision of the provincial offences Act, however, this right of § 83 para. 1 of the law
No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended,
does not guarantee, as it is withdrawn by the right to leave a review decision
the public authority by an independent and impartial tribunal.
The Constitutional Court in this case and the case-law of the European Court of
human rights (e.g. the judgment in case against Slovakia Lauko from day 2. 9.
1998 judgment in case against Slovakia from Kadubec 2. 9.1998), according to the
that, in cases where the complainant was not able to leave a review
the decision about the offence an independent and impartial court, that right was
the complainant to discuss the Affairs of an independent and impartial
the Court of zneuznáno, art. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention is applicable and has been tampered with.
In article mode. 6 (1). 1 the first sentence of the Convention are therefore offences for
cannot save a penalty higher than $ 200 or a ban. Therefore,
§ 83 para. 1 of Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended
law which excludes from judicial review of the decision on the offence,
for which you cannot impose a fine of more than $ 2 000 or prohibition of activity, with the
except when pronouncing the forfeiture case or the prevents things
whose value exceeds the amount of $ 100, is in contradiction with the provisions of article 8(1).
6 (1). 1 the first sentence of the Convention.
The contested provisions of Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended by
amended, is inconsistent with article. paragraph 36. 1 and 2 of the Charter.
The exclusion of judicial protection for review of the decision in the cases of some of the
offences namely interferes with the fundamental right to judicial protection and in
as a result, it is then in a collision with the article. 1 and 4, of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court has already satisfied the other navrhovatelovými objections
concerning the State of affairs established reliably, the principle that the
should be lead to strengthening citizens ' trust in the accuracy of the
deciding that the accepted decision was convincing and led citizens and
voluntary organisations carry out their duties, when the only solution
is the abolition of § 83 para. 1 of Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended by
amended, and to allow for judicial review of a decision on so
provincial offences Act issued in the field of administrative law.
Of all the reasons given by the plenary of the Constitutional Court notes that section 83
paragraph. 1 of Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended
legislation is unconstitutional and, therefore, to decide on its cancellation.
The Constitutional Court is aware of the changes to the legal situation, which raises its
the decision to cancel § 83 para. 1 of Act No. 200/1990 Coll., on
provincial offences Act, as amended, and therefore, the contested provision
set aside the date of 28. 2.2002.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
