In The Matter Of The Application For Revocation Of § 83 Para. 1 Of The Law On Misdemeanors

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zrušení § 83 odst. 1 zákona o přestupcích

Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=50937&nr=52~2F2001~20Sb.&ft=txt

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amended, is repealed on 28 March 2007.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.