In The Matter Of The Application For Revocation Of The Second Sentence Of § 85 Z.č. 247/1995 Sb.

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zrušení části § 85 druhé věty z.č. 247/1995 Sb.

Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=48067&nr=243~2F1999~20Sb.&ft=txt

243/1999.



FIND



The Constitutional Court



On behalf of the Czech Republic



The Constitutional Court ruled June 13. October 1999 in the plenary on the draft political

Parties Democratic Union filed complaints with the constitutional abolition of the

part of the third sentence of section 85 of the Act No. 247/1995 Coll., on elections to Parliament

The Czech Republic and amending and supplementing certain other acts, which

sounds ", which won at least three percent of the total number of

valid votes, "



as follows:



Part of the third sentence of section 85 of the Act No. 247/1995 Coll., on elections to Parliament

The Czech Republic and amending and supplementing certain other acts, which

sounds ", which won at least three percent of the total number of

valid votes, "shall be deleted.



Justification



(I).



Day 16. October 1998, the complainant filed, i.e.. political party Democratic

the Union, the constitutional complaint pursuant to section 72, paragraph. 1 (a). and Act No 182)/1993

Coll., on the Constitutional Court. The reason the constitutional complaint was the decision

The Ministry of finance for the non-payment of the contribution margin of the election

the cost of the Democratic Union in the amount of CZK 7 778 790. The Ministry of finance

notified by letter from the 19. in August 1998, the Democratic Union of its decision with the

referring to the part of the provisions of § 85 of Act No. 247/1995 Coll., on elections to the

The Parliament of the Czech Republic and amending and supplementing certain other

laws (hereinafter referred to as "electoral law") was misleading for the payment of the allowance

the border gained votes at the rate of three per cent of the total number of valid

the votes cast in the election. The Ministry of finance is under section 85

the electoral law of the authority authorized to be paid to political parties

contribution to the reimbursement of election expenses after a $ 90 for each valid

resigned voice. With regard to this, that the payment of the contribution to the electoral

reimbursement of election expenses was refused with reference to the provisions of the

the law, submitted a democratic Union, together with a proposal on constitutional complaints

the repeal of section 85 election law whose application occurred

the fact that it is the subject of a constitutional complaint.



Democratic Union of the decision of the Finance Ministry sees the violation of

article. 22 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (the "Charter"), specifically

public authority intervention in the free competition of political forces in the

of a democratic society. According to the constitutional complaint, if any

the voice of the individual in the elections, provisioned amount $ 90 for the

a political party, then any of the other conditions for the payment of this

the amounts indicate the intervention into the free competition of political forces, since the

so create unequal conditions for the functioning of political parties. This

inequality conditions is exacerbated by the duties of the candidate

political parties consist of the bail in the amount of Eur 1 600 0000. If, then

Some Parties will not return this deposit or do not get a post on the

the election expenses for each individual voice, it's about economic discrimination

of the State against the emerging political parties, which are at a disadvantage against

Parties as demonstrating an appreciation, which is in direct conflict with the article. 5 of the Constitution of the Czech

Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"), which is a political system based

on the free competition of political parties. According to the Democratic Union State this

the procedure requires that the newly-established political party without any

State funding exceeded already in the first election after its

the formation of the 3% threshold, in competition with the parties State

richly financed. In addition, the constitutional complaint finds and

the clear discrimination from the perspective of the citizen, because the State has decided that

a voice will have a value of $ 90 and another not. Finally, the

constitutional complaint points out that not only the protection of the political

the rights declared and then then the economic instruments do just the opposite.

Has to be maintained really free competition of political forces, then it must

This amount is also paid for each individual voice, without further

restrictive conditions.



In the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic as

the party mainly argues that according to the article. paragraph 87. 1 (a). (j))

Of the Constitution and article 73, paragraph. 1 of law No. 182/1993 Coll., a political party

submit a proposal to the Constitutional Court only in the event of its dissolution or

another decision of the public authority, which is affecting its business.

The current legislation, other legal reason for the active card

political parties in proceedings under section 72 et seq.. Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the

as amended, does not allow. The Democratic Union is not, therefore, to

the submission of the proposal. The Chamber of Deputies is considered, therefore,

a pointless to comment on the proposal to repeal section § 85 of the electoral

the law and is limited only to the statement that the election law was

approved by the necessary majority of MPs, signed by the competent constitutional

agents and properly declared. The legislature acted in the belief that

the Act is adopted in accordance with the Constitution, the constitutional order and our

the rule of law, and is on the Constitutional Court to assess the proposal and brought

issued the relevant decision.



Due to the opposition of the lack of evidence of the active political parties in the

proceedings under section 72 of the Act No. 182/1993 Coll., as amended,

the Constitutional Court was forced to first deal with this subject. He came to the

the conclusion that the arguments of the Chamber of Deputies is based on erroneous interpretation of the

the law, and is therefore not justified. Pursuant to section 72, paragraph. 1 (a). and the law)

No. 182/1993 Coll. of the constitutional complaint may submit an individual or

the legal person referred to in article. paragraph 87. 1 (a). (d)) of the Constitution against the final

the decision, measure or other intervention by the public authority in breach of

constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms. A legal person is undoubtedly

a political party that is the subject of rights and obligations.



The provisions on the circuit of authorised persons for submission to the constitutional complaint is not

prejudice, but only supplemented by section 73 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., which regulates

a special case of the dissolution of a political party or other decision

State power, which concerns the activities of political parties, etc. the decision on the

refusal of registration of a political party or for a suspension of its activities

According to section 14 of Act No. 424/1991 Coll. on Association in political parties and

in political movements, as amended, that is, things which

as a rule, on the proposal of the Government is decided by the Supreme Court. In the case of section 73 of the Act

No. 182/1993 Coll., a political party may submit a proposal in accordance with article. paragraph 87. 1

(a). (j)) of the Constitution, if it is considered that the decision concerning its

activities not in conformity with the constitutional or other laws. This is not limited to the

the law of political parties, in addition to the proposals under section 73 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll.

given the constitutional complaint under the terms of section 72 of the Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the

as amended.



If the section 72 of the Act No. 182/1993 Coll., as amended

regulations, the political party as a legal person shall be entitled to submit

the constitutional complaint, if he considers that the final decision in the proceedings,

which was a participant in, or other measures by the intervention of a public authority

It was a person's fundamental right or freedom guaranteed by the constitutional

by law or international treaty in accordance with article 10 of the Constitution. Because in the

the case of the constitutional complaint challenged the fact occurred

the immediate effects of the provisions of section 85 election law, it is for the

The Democratic Union, the right to file complaints with the constitutional draft on

the abolition of this law, the application of the consequences that occurred

are the subject of the constitutional complaint (section 74 of law No. 182/1993 Coll.).



The Constitutional Court also considered the question of whether the constitutional complaint has not been submitted

someone obviously unlawful under section 43, paragraph. 1 (a). (c)) Law No.

182/1993 Coll., as amended. The Ministry of finance in the

communication of 19. August 1998 No. 143/61 733/1998 States that it is not entitled to

contribution to the reimbursement of election expenses of the Democratic Union pay,

because this party has not fulfilled the legal condition for the payment of the electoral

contribution according to section 85 election law.



The Ministry of finance probably does not consider its communication for the decision of the authority

State administration and refers expressly to the "usual way" against the restrictions,

that democratic Union considered unconstitutional. The "usual way"

may be two. The first is the submission of a proposal to repeal Regulation

the electoral law by a group of MPs or Senators of those

political parties, which are already represented in the Parliament. Such

the (imaginary) feat big parties in favor of the small parties that are

their potential competitors, however, you can hardly assume.



The other way it could be legal action against the Czech Republic

represented by the Ministry of finance for payment of the relevant parliamentary

contribution. But even this path has its pitfalls. Even if a plaintiff in this

the case was designed by the General Court, to ask for the annulment of the contested

the provisions of the electoral law, the Court might not have control

interrupt and not according to the article. paragraph 95. 2 of the Constitution refer to the constitutional

of the Court. The plaintiff in this case fully depends on the opinion of the General

the Court, which has the obligation to refer to the Constitutional Court only if

If alone, it concludes that the law, which has to be in the solution of the matter

used, is inconsistent with the constitutional law.
It is obvious that such a procedure would be the complainant, i.e.. The Democratic

the Union, could give rise to serious and the inevitable injury under section 75, paragraph. 2

(a). (b)) of the Act No. 182/1993 Coll., but the reference to the "usual way"

General courts in this case does not hold water either in terms of section 75, paragraph. 2

(a). and Act No 182)/1993 Coll., for any claim that the

the complainant has not exhausted all the procedural means which the Act to

the protection of his rights, provides the Constitutional Court cannot accept, if the

the complaint that its significance substantially exceeds their own interests

the complainant in the present case-the question of general importance which closely

is related to the principle of equality of political parties in the electoral contest.



Notwithstanding this serious circumstance both paths marked for "normal"

reported deficiencies, which would in effect impose restrictive

interventions in the conceptual content of the material rule of law and to the rights of

Sue in a Court of the application of the principle of equality guaranteed

The Constitution, the Charter, as well as the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental

freedoms (article 36 of the Charter and article 6 of the Convention). Before this fact

the argument does not hold water, the communication from the Ministry of finance is not a formal

by decision of the administrative authority. Pursuant to section 20a of Act No. 424/1991 Coll., on the

as amended, the contribution shall be paid to the Ministry of Finance on the

the request of a political party or movement. In the present case, in reality it is

of refusal put forward by the requirement, therefore, to give an opinion, which is in the

communication of 19. August 1998 under no. 143/61 733/1998 expressed. According to the

the opinion of the Constitutional Court in this case is not so much whether it was

formal factual refusal or simply just about the "measures" or

"other action" of the public authority.



The fact remains that the negative reaction of the public authority to the

raised by the claim, albeit with a link, that the provisions of the Electoral Act, the payment of

the contribution does not. Also given is spot on the constitutionality of § 85

the electoral law review, since the plaintiff derives the refusal

their claims from the protiústavního nature of this provision.

The Senate's Constitutional Court has, indeed, according to § 64 paragraph. 1 (a). (c)) Law No.

182/1993 Coll. law "in connection with the decisions on the constitutional complaint"

also, where appropriate, to submit himself to a proposal to repeal the law, if in

the review concluded that, contrary to the constitutional law.



For all these reasons, the Constitutional Court proceeded to discuss the draft on the

the cancellation of the second sentence of section 85 election law, which is "that in the

the election has received at least three percent of the total number of valid

the votes ".



II.



The Constitutional Court, after considering all the circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the

the proposal to repeal section section 85 election law, which makes the State

contribution to electoral costs the parties getting at least three percent of the

the total number of valid votes cast, is well founded.



The opinion of the Constitutional Court based on the consideration of fundamental questions, namely the

the relationship between the two conflicting aspects of electoral competition of political parties.

The first is the requirement of free electoral competition policy

parties under equal conditions, providing political parties equal chance

in the electoral competition and leading to such composition, which elected Ward

corresponds to the best real differentiation of the political will of the voters. The second

the requirement is the ability of the legislature to take a decision on the

the basis of the formation of a political majority, IE. be a legislative body not only

nominal, but also functional. In countries with a relatively fragmented spectrum

political parties are so interferes with the principle of effective integration

natural differentiation, since the inception of the majority must also be political

How to create a capable Government, so exercise the legislative activity is in

the nature of the constitutional State.



Both of these requirements is the need to sensitively and in a balanced manner to respect in total

the legal adjustment of all elements of the electoral process and when adjusting the position of the

political parties. It is therefore in terms of representative democracy

permissible to incorporate into the regulation of integration incentives there-and only

there-where there are serious reasons, in particular, provided that the

the fragmentation of votes among a large number of political parties has occurred

bezbřehému "overgrowth" of political parties, and thereby to compromise the functionality of the

and capacity, as well as the continuity of the parliamentary system. After bad

the experience from the excessive fragmentation of the parliamentary spectrum

joined European States applying the system of proportional representation in the

the election also largely to the introduction of integration incentives, especially

restriction clause, mostly 5. Such integrative interventions

Lawmakers are generally considered constitutionally legitimate, if

be made to the extent strictly necessary for the formation of the political will of the people

required for the adoption of a decision in a random, and if these adjustments

on the whole, do not distort the real picture too much political will of voters

expressed their vote, as in the confrontation of both of these requirements

enjoys higher constitutional protection of the principle of free competition of political right

the parties (article 5 of the Constitution, article 22 of the Charter).



The Constitutional Court has already dealt with the integration of incentives, especially in two

cases. The first (PL. ÚS 24/96-No. 88/1997 Coll.) concerned the 5%

the restriction clause. The Constitutional Court then said this clause for

constitutionally Conformal and found that certain restrictions when differentiation

the distribution of mandates, it is permissible, in the case of minimum intervention that allows

the formation of the Chamber of Deputies, capable to perform their constitutional functions.



The second case was a proposal to repeal the electoral deposits (PL. ÚS 3/96-No.

161/1996 Coll.), which received the support of most of the judges, although the constitutional

However, the majority of the Court, not qualified, so was rejected. In this

the case was in the Chamber of Deputies about the cancellation of the obligations of each of the parties

or coalition of deposit 200 000 Czk in each constituency, in which

participating in the elections, while the repayment of this amount is bound to get at least

five percent of the votes in the elections. As a result, remained in force and

This integration of stimulus that puts small parties from the obligation to

fold 1 600 0000 $ as a deposit for their turnout in all constituencies

with the risk that the amount lost, not gained if at least five percent of the

votes in the election (section 35 (4) of the Electoral Act).



How the 5% restriction clause, and these measures are

explained by the need to face the excessive differentiation of the political spectrum and

the existence of numerous small political parties. In essence, the same

the reasons are based and section 85 election law, which binds the payment of election

contribution in the amount of $ 90 for each individual voice for the party or the Coalition

on the condition get at least three percent of the total number of valid

votes.



As another reason for these restrictions stated fear of repeating

aimless activity parties pointing primarily to obtain State

resources, as well as the visibility of its candidates from other than

electoral reasons (e.g. in order to obtain the personal popularity of the reasons

corporate, or commercial activities, of a recession, etc.).



Contribution to the reimbursement of election expenses, as defined in section 85

the electoral law is not itself in the countries of the European Union, nothing quite

exceptional. Less stringent conditions for the payment of the allowance applies in the electoral

Germany, France, Italy and Denmark. Belgium and Spain weighed on

obtaining the parliamentary mandate, Greece on the electoral gain of three percent of the votes

and on the candidacy of the party in at least two thirds of the circuits, Luxembourg

to obtain at least five percent in the relevant circuit, United Kingdom,

Ireland, the Netherlands and Portugal don't know the direct funding of political

the parties to the State at all. From this perspective, the solution of the Czech election law

it to the European average.



However, the Constitutional Court considers that the objective assessment of the design of the Democratic

the Union requires not only an isolated consideration of the actual contribution to the

reimbursement of election expenses, but its guest in a summary of the resulting

the effect of all these factors in our electoral system.



There is a need to distinguish particular effects 5 depth definition

the clause from the election deposits and gross margin of electoral costs.

The 5% restriction clause acts directly and primarily to the system

the distribution of seats among the various political parties, i.e., only after

their vote, voters, and its effect on the admission of political parties to the

electoral competition and on their participation in the elections is only indirect,

mediated by a consideration of whether the chance to gain parliamentary representation for the

the party is, or is not real. This consideration may discourage some parties

from participation in the elections, their freedom to participate in elections and to compete with the

others in the electoral contest, however, is not directly limited.



By contrast, the electoral deposit represent intervention primarily not to the

the distribution of mandates, but the right kind of "advance" to the freedom of entry to the

electoral competition and participation in elections and clearly operates a priori to

equality of electoral chances that weighs 1 600 0000 CZK, payment which the parties

in advance for their full participation in the elections, gaining at least composed

five percent of the vote on a national scale.
This "apriornímu tool integration" directly in the Czech Republic

one limitation of the contribution to the reimbursement of election expenses, which your

the nature of the limits of a small political party, and other additional

the financial advantage, in comparison with the parties parlamentně

represented. In the Czech Republic is experiencing such cumulation

economic barriers for the participation of small parties in the election

the competition, which is unprecedented in any of the States of the European Union, with the election

the system of proportional representation. In the absence of or in

the electoral deposit. Although there are no electoral deposit, is itself the boundaries for

a contribution to cover the cost of the election assessed critically.

So for example. in Germany the level was 2.5% of the obtained votes found by the Federal

the Constitutional Court was unconstitutional, and the new edit section 18 of the law on political

sides was reduced to 0.5% for federal and 1% of the votes for the provincial

options. The Federal Constitutional Court in its decision (Entscheidungen St. 24,

with. 300, 339 n.) He said that although the legislature may payment of electoral

contribution to make odvislou from getting a minimum number of votes, the

but the border of 2.5% declared unconstitutional because it is inconsistent with the

the principle of equal electoral chances of political parties. Democracy is in the

essentially directed against the Charter, therefore, in 1975, in other

the context of the same constitutional court found that "everyone has to exercise their

státoobčanská the rights to form and method with a maximum degree of equality "and

that "everyone must have, regardless of the social differences, especially on your

origin, nationality, education, or assets, the same chance to become a member of the

the Parliament "(ibid., vol. 40, pp. 317-318).



The principle of free competition of political parties includes the obligation of the conception

the State must respect the equality of chances these parties from the point of view of legislation

the terms of this competition and the adjustment of claims for its participants, since it is in the

the essence of the application of the general principle of equality guaranteed as constitutional,

and international instruments. Any action of the legislature in the following conditions

is the intervention of the State and should be guided by the general interest. The percentage limitation

for the payment of the allowance to cover the election expenses of political parties

must not be the product of arbitrariness or fitness to be assessed only from

the interests of established parties.



And for the Czech Republic, therefore, that the legislator must while editing in

creating the political will to respect, that he is on the field

set out a particularly narrow limits and that he denied any differentiated

treatment of parties whose base is not a reason for the extraordinary severity.

In this context, it can be pointed out at the conclusion of the Federal Constitutional Court

GERMANY, that "when the payment of the cost of the election battle, which must be taken into account

in principle, all the parties that participated in the electoral struggle, cannot be

determination of the minimum percentage of votes entitled by pointing out that the election

have a parliaments "to create funkceschopné (Entscheidungen, vol. 24, p.

341.) Also in the Czech Republic, this criterion must be different.

It is not a tool for more integration, but simply about determining whether the suggestions and

programs submitted for the election are really meant that the focus

exclusively on electoral success and not on other targets. The purpose of the electoral

the contribution must not be restrictions of freedom of election competition, but to ensure the

its seriousness. The Federal Constitutional Court of GERMANY for example. expressly stated that the

the share of 0.5% of the vote as proof of the seriousness of the efforts in the electoral battle and it is sufficient

makes unnecessary validation according to the other criteria. The lower the threshold

the electoral success, the more likely it is that the electoral success with covers

with the political importance of the parties.



If modern representative democracy takes into account functionality

the parliamentary system and receives limited stimulus to integration

the system of allocation of mandates, it does not mean that the terms of integration may

take precedence over the principle of free and unrestricted competition in principle

electoral parties. Their competition is the direct expression of pluralistic

the nature of democratic society and the protection of pluralism in the political

life has a primary importance for the existence of a democratic society.

It is therefore significantly protected the article. 5 of the Constitution and article. 22 of the Charter. Any direct

or indirect restriction on the equality of parties in the electoral contest may not

individually or in the accumulation of measures that affect or differentiated

favour certain parties, suppress the priori itself already participate

political parties in the electoral contest. The accumulation of financial support only

for some of the party is, in effect, at the same time the accumulation of factual

financial penalties for parties to the other. Therefore, you must carefully consider whether

the purpose of such measures is not exceeded. This purpose must only be

the seriousness of the efforts of rival parties that is not focused on other objectives than to

participation on political representation and enforcement of the program itself.

Integration of incentives are in a representative democracy to a limited extent

permitted up to the end of the process of free competition legally equal

political parties, after counting votes for the party, and it's a

differentiation in the distribution of seats, but not a priori financial

by stimulating certain handicaps and other parties, as this would

to modification and drafting in the number of votes for the political

the parties of the cast.



Also, the French Conseil Constitutionnel in 1990 (decision No 89

DC-271) binding the electoral contribution to obtain more than five percent

votes in individual districts unconstitutional and contrary to the

the principle of equality, so that at the present time, while half of the total sum

electoral contributions divided proportionally among the parties according to the number of

members of Parliament, but the other half is to be distributed to all parties, which

to participate in the elections, according to the number of votes proportionally, without

the percentage limit has been set. In Denmark just to get

the contribution of 1 thousand votes cast during the last parliamentary

the elections.



The Constitutional Court has already, in its finding on the financing of political parties (PL. ÚS

26/94-no 296/1995 Sb.) He acknowledged the admissibility of State financial

contribution to political parties, due to their fair

features of the constitutional Government in the form of representative democracy. The Constitution in article.

5 is based on the fact that the formation of the political will and the formation of State authority is

the result of the free competition of political parties in the framework of democratic

the rule of law. The result of this contest is a specific political profile

the elected organs of State power. Therefore, interventions of State authorities back to the

the life of political parties are unwanted there, where they could be free and

free the parties to restrict competition. Also the article. 22 of the Charter provides that the

the legal adjustment of all political rights and freedoms and its interpretation and

the application must allow and protect free competition of political

Parties in a democratic society.



At the present time there are elections to the Chamber of Deputies for the material

incentives to encourage the electoral abstenci of small parties, which must on the way

non-refundable bond election State "pay" for it, that did not reach the boundaries of the

set on five percent of the valid votes, and thus pay a

"fine" in the amount of 1 600 0000 CZK for simple participation in the electoral contest.

In addition, however, there are also a number of limitations which financial claims in the opposite

direction, namely the rights of political parties to the State, in the case of small

the parties completely eliminated, and despite the fact that these Parties apply its role

in the electoral contest in the general interest as well as the parties to the parlamentně

entrenched incumbent. These, in addition to the contribution to cover the cost of the election

enjoy a variety of other material benefits; are entitled to a permanent post

a political party or movement, at least in the amount of Czk 3 0000 0000 each

a year ago, if received at least three percent of the votes cast (article 20, paragraph 4, and

paragraph. 6 of Act No. 424/1991 Coll.). This amount is increased for each additional

I started about tenth of a percent of the votes each year 100 000 Czk. Then have the

entitled to the each individual mandate according to § 20 paragraph. 7 of the law

No. 424/1991 Coll. in the amount of 500 000 CZK for the mandate and then finally receive

the financial remuneration from the State in connection with the exercise of parliamentary functions and

the activities of the parliamentary Club. In Germany for example. by contrast, there are only

election contribution paid to all parties that have won at least 0.5% of the

votes.



Accumulation of a series of financial penalties for small parties (and thus financial advantages

for larger parties) is in the current edit so extensive that occurs

in fact the "choking" those small parties, which do not have enough financial

resources for the conduct of the election campaign and the payment of the bonds. In recognition of this

the potential of such parties when voters vote the way their

the votes elsewhere, if "their party does not have enough resources to

visibility in competition with each other ". The higher the limit for small

the parties, the less will be the number of votes cast for them to express their

the true meaning and the weaker will also be the credibility of the election results.

The vote of the electorate, however, has to be an expression of the free in free

Contest Parties and the integrating factor is causing to their free

electoral competition.
Excessive accumulation of material sanctions is in its consequences

counterproductive, as it affects only those democratic political

Parties that do not have plenty of hearty donations and to whom

the accumulation of financial sanctions makes it impossible to conduct a fair election

campaign, or even enter the election contest. On the other hand, then

can other, also small, political parties have plenty of

funds from influential sponsors who associate with them

the political pursuit of our own interests.



Considering all these circumstances, the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that

binding post to cover electoral costs to obtain at least three

percent of the total number of valid votes cast in the elections to the Chamber of Deputies

the Chamber of Deputies, in particular, its scope, and also taking into account the additional restrictions,

which are subject to sanction political parties that received less than five,

or three percent of the votes, the minimum needed to

determine the seriousness of the electoral intentions of the parties and to the equality of chances

political parties in the electoral contest. In this summary of financial

penalties for some of them to participate in elections is becoming financially unbearable

luxury.



The Constitutional Court therefore, the relevant provisions of the electoral law with effect from the

the announcement of the award in the collection of laws set aside for its conflict with article. 5 of the Constitution

and the article. 22 of the Charter. It is for consideration by the Parliament of the Czech Republic, whether

for elections to the Chamber of Deputies during the existence of the bond election

left also a certain boundaries-say around 1%-gained votes

as proof of the seriousness of the intentions of the parties to the election, and thus the condition for

payment of the allowance to cover the costs of the election.



On the constitutional complaint of a request of the Democratic Union for the

payment of the allowance to cover electoral costs in the amount of Czk 7 778 790

requested in connection with past elections to the Chamber of Deputies, which

were held in 1998, and the Senate shall decide the Constitutional Court as soon as this

find plenum of the Constitutional Court shall be enforceable.



The President of the Constitutional Court:



JUDr. Kessler v. r.