The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court ruled on 12 December 2003. February 2002 in plenary on the draft group
Senators to repeal the "Act No. 217/2000 Coll., its parts, or
the changes made in the Act No. 1/1992 and no. 143/1992 Coll. "
The proposal is rejected.
Submitted the proposal attacks the first Act No. 217/2000 Coll., amending
Act No. 1/1992 Coll. on wages, remuneration for work stand-by and about
average earnings, as subsequently amended, Act No. 143/1992 Coll.,
on salary and remuneration for stand-by duty in the budget and, in some
other organisations and bodies, as amended, law No.
10/1993 Coll., on the State budget of the Czech Republic for the year 1993, amending and
certain laws of the Slovak National Council and some other
the regulations, as amended, and Act No. 129/2000 Coll., on the
change and cancellation of certain laws related to the law on regions,
the law on municipalities, the law on district offices, and the Act on the capital city
Prague. The reason for the filing of the proposal is the fact that this law (respectively.
at least part of it) apparently was not accepted formally correct procedure,
which provides for the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution").
First, the appellants refer to the provisions of § 68 para. 2 of law No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, according to which it is possible to review the constitutionality of
the contested Law split on the assessment of (I) its content comply with the
constitutional law and with the international conventions referred to in article. 10 of the Constitution and
(II) the constitutionality of the adoption of such a law. The appellants point out that
his Administration intend to question the content of the contested act compliance with
nadzákonnými legislation, but merely the way its approval, that
considered to be unconstitutional.
The unconstitutionality of the impugned law adoption process fro the appellants
in the fact that the Senate was deprived of the possibility of the Bill properly and in accordance with the
The Constitution to be discussed and decided. According to the article. paragraph 42. 2 of the Constitution
the draft law on the State budget shall consider and act on it just
The Chamber of Deputies. The Senate, therefore, in this case in the legislative
the process cannot participate in. Apparently, the same rule also applies to the case of the amendment
the law on the State budget (argument and maiori ad minus).
In this case, the Senate has received as part of the contested act and the proposal for the
the amendment to the section of the Act on the State budget. In this situation could
to do in principle in three ways:
-Within 30 days, this proposal does not deal at all. This procedure should
Although he was the least controversial (and therefore also the Senate opted in
the case of Act No. 363/1999 Coll., on the State bond program on
cover deficit of the State budget for the year 1998 and amending Law No.
530/1990 Coll. on bonds, as amended, and Act No.
22/1999 Coll., on the State budget of the Czech Republic for the year 1999), however,
would lead to the creation of a future constitutional conventions
(precedent), where the appellant or the Act. The Chamber of deputies of the
fear of the anticipated disapproval of a Bill in the Senate
joined to this proposal and the draft amendments to the decidedly formal and
insubstantial parts of the law on the State budget, and in this way would the Senate
"knocked out of the game" in the legislative process.
-Decide that the Senate Bill does not deal with. To
However, it is said to be noted, that in the Committee referred to in
the provision of section 102 paragraph. 1 of Act No. 106/1999 Coll., on rules of procedure
The Senate shall proceed to the vote on this issue "after their detailed
the debate ". The term "detailed debate in the Committee" should be
understood as "discussion" under art. paragraph 42. 2 of the Constitution, this right
in the case of the law on the State budget, admits only Of
the Chamber of Deputies. Therefore, the appellants are of the opinion that even if the Senate resolution
decided that the examination of the draft law does not address at all, would
-in relation to the amendment of the law on the State budget-protiústavního
misconduct, as they would about this law passed, or even
discussed, although the article. paragraph 42. 2 of the Constitution provides that, on the proposals of the law on
the State budget shall act and these proposals are heard only the Chamber
the Chamber of Deputies. In this case, could also be a risk of "decommissioning of
The Senate of the game "in the legislative process, as shown in the
the previous paragraph.
-Stand up to things so that one act is merely formally,
but not really, and that can therefore be discussing individual parts
submitted by a separate Act, in the sense that the Senate would discuss the entire
the proposal except for the part concerning the Act on the State budget. This
in the opinion of the appellants ' variant is only theoretical, since even
When is one law changed several laws at the same time,
stricto sensu is law only and neither the Constitution nor the rules of procedure of the Chamber
(cf. § 98 et seq.). do not give space for the "breakdown"
submitted by Bill.
The Senate eventually-with regard to the need to comment in particular on the law on
wage-law discussed and returned to the Chamber of Deputies, in the version adopted by the
The appellants submit that the situation arising when discussing
the contested act is not unique, and even in this fro her
the severity and intensity of the actual constitutional law. Already in the case of Act No.
362/1999 Coll., namely the Chamber of Deputies agreed with the law,
part of which was next to the Act on the State bond program and
the amendment to the Bills and amendments to the law on the State budget.
In the case of the Senate will act on the State bond program to pay
the deficit of the State budget for the year 1998 for the solution at all
the proposal does not deal, as in the debate was that the senators
worried about your procedure knowingly violate the Constitution and also did not want to give
to challenge the law-with whose contents are almost all identified
-before the Constitutional Court. The Senate, therefore, in connection with the situation
"only" has adopted a resolution (no 217 of the 12 meeting of 8 June. 12.1999)
which stated that it was "impossible for the draft law discussed", and
Thus, it objected against the described procedure. This resolution clearly had
aim to prevent the recurrence of similar situations.
The appellants submit that the legislative procedure, which is part of the
the law on the State budget even further amendment Act (respectively.
part of the amendment to another law is a change in the law on the State
budget) could be regarded as constitutionally compliant only if
If the concept of "law" has not been seen formally as the law together
the present and published within one text under one number in
The collection of laws, but a purely material as a legal standard governing a specific
the area of legal issues with the fact that under one number in the collection of laws
or within one unit designated as law and together
the present may be more laws governing alone a
Materia. In this case, it would be possible to conclude that the Senate
in fact, discussed and decided in some way about some
parts of the contested act, but not about the amendment to the Act on the State
the budget. The concept of "law" referred to in article. 41 to 48 of the Constitution, would he one
the law published in the statute book under one number, and together
the present, but the law within the meaning of the legal standards governing the circuit
relations, under one number can be posted even more laws.
This method of interpretation, however, the appellants only considered a theoretical and
apparently nekorespondující with the existing constitutional and legal editing
the legislative process in which it is quite common that one
by law, namely the amendment of several laws, the other performs, however, from
the formal point of view – and therefore also from the point of view of the legislative process-
It is only when the Act eg. separately shall not vote on individual
novels, but only about the law as a whole.
Therefore, the appellants argue that in the case of the contested act is formally
This is one of the law as a whole, though there was an amendment to it at the same time
few laws, and because its included amendments to the law on the
the State budget, which the Senate is not at all to decide, this
the law is adopted as a whole unconstitutional way, and is therefore a reason (even without
further examination of the content of the Act) to its cancellation.
The appellants, however, do not exclude nor such an interpretation, which would be based on the
the idea that the unconstitutional way only was amended the law on the
the State budget, and not to other laws (or their partial amendment), and
Whereas, therefore, the reason for cancellation is given only for the amendment to the Act on the State
the budget, rather than for an amendment to the laws of the other.
The appellants argue that repeatedly designing laws, which in
a single text governing the amendment of the law, which is subject to
consideration by the Senate, and the Bill on the State budget hearing
exclusively by the Chamber of Deputies. The current practice was made by the Senate
found to be unsuitable, but the Chamber of deputies also discusses
laws (on the proposal of the Government) in the manner described above. In a given situation is
therefore be authoritatively-from the perspective of the constitutionality of the legislative process
-to assess whether the law is described by the practice of taking the right and
State in which way has the Senate constitutionally aprobovaným in cases
proceed as described above.
Because the plaintiffs are aware of the fact that the Constitutional Court is not
gifted with competence to interpret the Constitution, authoritatively regarded as necessary,
to comment on this issue in the context of an abstract review
the standards to which according to the article. 87 para. 1 (b). a) and b) of the Constitution.
The unconstitutionality of the adoption of the contested act fro the appellants
primarily in the following directions:
-Conflict with the article. paragraph 42. 2 of the Constitution. The draft law on the State budget is
shall be entitled to consider and approve only the Chamber of Deputies, but in
the case of the contested act to the Senate debated and approved, which
The Constitution does not allow.
-Conflict with the article. 33 para. 2 of the Constitution. According to this provision, the Senate is not
right to take legal measures in matters of the State budget.
The interpretation of this article, it was that when the appellants ústavodárce
does not allow to adopt legal measures, even in the case of the dissolution of the
The Chamber of Deputies, the less you can consider approving these proposals
the Bill by the Senate when the Chamber of deputies normally works.
-Conflict with the article. 1 and article. 15 paragraph 1. 2 of the Constitution. According to the article. the Constitution is a Czech
Africa the democratic rule of law. Article 15 paragraph 1. the Constitution guarantees
bikameralismus. With the principles of the rule of law for the existence of bikameralismu
corresponds to the scope of the layout between the mainly clear both Chambers
Parliament. A condition where the upper Chamber on a specific draft law expressly
not according to the Constitution Act and adopt a resolution clearly contradicts the situation
occurred in connection with the cases of the contested act, when the Senate was
built into the positions described above, IE. either the Bill completely
ignore, and consciously give up on their right by to participate in the
the legislative process for the approval of the "normal" laws, or
to act and to vote, and at the same time risking the unconstitutionality of the adoption of this
With regard to these arguments, the Group of Senators proposed to the Constitutional Court
finding set aside as unconstitutional:
1. the entire Act No. 217/2000 Sb.
However, since the appellants are aware of the fact that any amendment to the Act
moment of entry into force of a legally ceases to exist, as it becomes
part of the amended law, and because the practice of the Constitutional Court is in
this direction somewhat inconsistent (e.g. resolution of 7 June 2005. 2. the 1995 sp.
Zn. PL. ÚS 10/94, a collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, volume 3,
page 324, and the discovery of 17 May. 12.1997, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 33/97, ibid.,
Volume 9, pp. 399 et seq.; promulgated under no. 30/1998 Coll.), then because of the
procedural certainty (to avoid a decision pursuant to the provisions of section 67
paragraph. 2 of the Act on the Constitutional Court, IE. termination of the proceeding) also
"potential petity", and that the cancellation of the following provisions:
2. The provisions of § 2, section 4, paragraph 4. 4, § 4, paragraph 4. 5, section to section 4, paragraph 4. 6 "or
the labour code ", Section 4a, 5, § 6 (1). 1 and 2, § 7, § 8 para. 1, § 8 para.
4, section 10, section 11 (1) 1, § 11 (1) 2, § 11 (1) 3, under section 11 (1) 6
"at his own expense and risk to one account at a bank or employee
branches of foreign banks or savings and credit cooperatives,
the latest in the regular payday pay if the employee
another term used in writing to put matters right, "§ 11 (1) 7, § 12, § 13 para. 3, § 14
paragraph. 1 the last sentence of paragraph 2, section 14. 2, section § 15 "20% of the average
hourly earnings during on-call time at the workplace or 10%
average hourly earnings during on-call time out
workplace ", § 16, § 17 para. 7, § 17 para. 9, § 18 para. 1 the first sentence,
§ 18 para. 2, § 19 and 22 of Act No. 1/1992 Coll. on wages, remuneration for
work readiness and on average earnings. The provisions of § 1, part a, section 2
"employee", section 3, paragraph 3. 3 and 4, § 3 para. 5, § 3 para. 6, § 4, under section
5 (3). 1 "in the organizational folder, which is the State administrative authority", section §
5 (3). 1 "the Office of the Ombudsman, the Office for the protection of personal
the data ", § 9, § 10 paragraph section. 2 "in the range of 150 hours in a calendar
the year ", § 11 (1) 3, § 14, § 15 para. 1 (b). (b)), section 16, section to section 17
paragraph. 5 "at his expense and risk to a single account with a bank employee
or branch of a foreign bank or savings and credit cooperatives, and
the latest in the regular payday pay if the employee
put matters right in writing other term ", § 17 para. 6 and 7, section 18, section 19 para. 1 and
2, the first sentence of section 20, section 20a, 21, of section 21a of the second sentence, § 22, 22a, § 23 para.
1 (b). I), § 23 para. 2, section 25 a of the annex to law No. 143/1992 Coll., on the
salary and remuneration for stand-by duty in the budget and, in some
other organisations and bodies, as subsequently amended.
3. Part three of the Act No. 217/2000 Coll., amending Act No. 10/1993
Coll., on the State budget of the Czech Republic for the year 1993, amending and supplementing
some of the laws of the Czech National Council and some other regulations, in
Notify in writing the parties to the Constitutional Court that agrees with the
abandonment of the oral proceedings. The Constitutional Court decided that from this
negotiations cannot be expected to further clarification of the matter, and therefore dropped from him (§
44 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll.).
The Constitutional Court pursuant to § 68 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll. first
dealt with in the manner of acceptance and release of the contested Act No. 217/2000 Coll.
this direction of těsnopisecké messages from 24. a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies
Parliament of the Czech Republic and of resolution No. 974 of 18 May. 4.2000
It appears that the House of Commons by a majority of 123 for and 58 against (from
a total of 182 MPs) approved the proposal mentioned
the law (parliamentary print no. 475). From the těsnopisecké news from the meeting of 19.
Czech Senate meetings, held from 17. -18. 5.
2000, the Constitutional Court also found that the Senate resolution No. 367 of 18 May.
5.2000 a majority of 39 for and 3 against (from a total of 65
Senators present) returned the Bill to the Chamber of Deputies
in the text of the adopted amendments. From the těsnopisecké news from 26.
a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies finally suggests that the Chamber of Deputies
resolution No. 1070 of 27 June. 6. a majority of 113 votes for 2000 and 55 against
(from a total of 183 present deputies) has adopted the present proposal
the act as amended by the amendments adopted by the Senate.
The Constitutional Court found that the submitted design meets all the legal process
requirements and prerequisites, and that therefore nothing to prevent discussion and
the substance of the decision. Therefore, pursuant to section 69 of the Act on the Constitutional Court asked
about the time the parties-the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate
Parliament of the Czech Republic.
The Chamber of deputies in its observations on the draft mainly stated that
the contested Act No. 217/2000 Coll. changed by law No. 10/1993 Coll. part
non-directly to the State budget, and from the content point of view said
Therefore, to change the law on the State budget, although this did not jevově
the law was amended. Because the article. 42 of the Constitution speaks of the "draft law on the
the State budget ", and not" change the law on the State budget ",
takes the party to the proceedings, that the law in question under article. 42 does not fall.
He contested the law does not conflict with the constitutional order of the Czech
the Republic was duly approved by the prescribed number of members of the
the Chamber of Deputies, has been signed by constitutional actors and properly published in the collection of
The Senate draft stated that the draft law discussed on 18 July 2005. 5.
2000, adopted some amendments to it and handed it back to back
The Chamber of deputies in the text of the adopted amendments, when for
This proposal was from 65 senators present, 39 and 3 were against. The Chamber
the Chamber of Deputies approved the Bill as the Senate returned on 27. 6.
2000. On the question of the constitutionality of the legislative process, the Senate found that the
It is necessary to distinguish between the case where (I) the law in addition to other legal
editing also includes customization of the State budget (e.g. the law on
Government bond programme to cover deficit of the State budget for
1998, part of which was the amendment of the Act No. 22/1999 Coll., on the State
the budget for the year 1999 in the Czech Republic), and discussing such a proposal
the Senate Bill would also discussed the substantive elements of the State budget, and
When (II.) the proposed legal change will customize the State budget
does not apply, which is the case.
In Mr. things are said to be amendments to the law No. 10/1993 Coll. merits
did not cover modifications of the State budget, which is modified only in
the provisions of sections 1 to 5, but a part of the second "Adjustment to salaries and other
benefits of constitutional functionaries and some workers of the central authorities
the State administration and other bodies ", where in the wake of the proposed changes
Act No. 143/1992 Coll., also should be repealed certain provisions of
regarding the salary requirements of a circuit of the employees, which is
modifying the scope of the Senate belong to. Therefore, the opinion prevailed in the Senate
that the hearing of the Senate Bill is not in breach of article.
paragraph 42. 2 of the Constitution. The Senate, however, he added that in the future should be taken into
account the fact that the Senate is not a quorum on the State budget, and
It should therefore not be a substantive modification of the State budget associated with
legal editing in one Materia to the law.
First of all, the Constitutional Court considers it necessary to set out in Mr. stuff
the method and measure of the Constitution review. It was based on the following
1. The Constitutional Court mainly notes that the appellants expressly
nezpochybnili substantive nature of the contested act, but merely the way
its adoption, and because they say the Constitutional Court is not empowered to authoritatively
to interpret the Constitution, it is necessary to interpret the question in question at least in
the framework of proceedings for review of the standards. In these circumstances, therefore, the constitutional
the Court in this particular and specific case did not find the reason
to deal with the substantive nature of the Act and he concentrated exclusively
on the constitutionality of his acceptance, albeit in general terms, it is bound
Petite and not merely on the grounds of the proposal on control standards. When
proceedings for review of the standards referred to in article. 87 para. 1 (b). and indeed, the Constitution)
the assessment of the constitutionality of the contested legislation pursuant to § 68 para. 2
the law on the Constitutional Court divided into substantive assessment of its conformity with the
constitutional law and with the international conventions referred to in article. 10 of the Constitution, and on the
the determination of whether the contested act was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution
set out competences and constitutionally prescribed way.
2. Brought by the proposal (petit) is formulated in an alternative way, when
the plaintiffs-because of the procedural certainty-attacked in the first alternative
all the law No. 217/2000 Coll., and the individual parts of the above-cited
laws, amended by Act No. 217/2000 Coll., on this issue, the Constitutional Court
refers to its previously expressed legal opinion, according to which the provisions of the
the Bill, which are different laws were passed, become part of the
These amended laws (resolution of 15 December 1998. 8.2000, SP. zn. PL.
TC 25/2000, a collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, volume 19, page.
271 et seq.; Similarly, whether or not the award of 13 April. 3.2001, SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
51/2000, ibid., volume 21, p. 369; promulgated under no. 128/2001 Coll.) and
separately are no longer part of the legal order of the Czech Republic. Therefore,
The Constitutional Court had to reject the part as unfounded the remedies, which
the promoters will rail against the whole novelizujícímu Act No. 217/2000 Coll.
Since the provisions of this Act the provision amending other laws already have stopped
be a part of Act No. 217/2000 Sb.; a separate importance have only
the provisions of article. In the (Prime Minister's mandate to the publication of the full text
Act No. 1/1992 Coll. and Act No. 143/1992 Sb.) and article. Vi (edit
the effectiveness of the Act), which-according to the content of a submitted proposal-are not
designed to cancel and which having regard to its nature or canceled be
The Constitutional Court therefore also dealt with solely that part of the proposal, which
is directed against an individual, adopted the provisions above cited
3. The next question, which the Constitutional Court had to having regard to the proposal made by
to assess whether it was reasonable to deal with all the novelizovanými
the provisions of Act No. 1/1992 Coll., Act No. 143/1992 Coll. and Act No.
10/1993 Coll. (Note: Act No. 217/2000 Coll. was amended and
Act No. 129/2000 Coll., amending and repealing certain laws related
the law on regions, law on municipalities, district offices and law
the Act on the capital city of Prague, however, in this case consisted of
the amendment only in derogation article. (II) the part of the other, so that even the plaintiffs
expressly do not cancel any part of this Act), or whether it is
no need to dedicate himself entirely to the amendment to Act No. 10/1993 Coll. in this
respect, it should be based on the article. paragraph 42. 2 of the Constitution, according to which
the draft law on the State budget and national accounts
discuss on the public meeting and a majority of them just Chamber
the Chamber of Deputies. In Mr. things primarily means that when the Senate
discussed and approved the draft Act No. 217/2000 Coll. and when his
the amendment was part of the four laws, of which the three laws (No. 1/1992
SB., no. 143/1992 and no. 132/2000 Coll.) cannot be regarded as laws,
that, in a formal or at least in material terms immediately
related to the law on the State budget, it is not possible for these three novellas
the laws cited reasonably argue that the Senate was not entitled to them
to have a say. Such an opinion would be contrary to the meaning of even apparently
the text of the article. paragraph 42. 2 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court therefore concludes that, in the
Mr. case is justified to deal with only the proposal to repeal
the revised section of Act No. 10/1993 Coll., and not a proposal for cancellation
amending the provisions of law No. 1/1992 and no. 143/1992 Coll. Is
While certainly the correct consideration of the appellants, that Act No. 217/2000 Sb.
represents a single law formally (though the provision amending
several other laws), which was decided only in the Senate
the vote, however, the task of the Constitutional Court is in the present case, the assessment of the
the question of whether the Senate was, or was not entitled to consider and approve the also
change other laws than the law on the State budget, even if carried out
the only law. The following questions must be given to the answer
positive; otherwise, it could lead to a situation in which the
the appellants, that the amendment of the law on the State budget
associated with the change (possibly even the adoption of) other laws would be a Senate of the
the legislative process in relation to those other laws. Such
the interpretation would clearly did not fit the meaning of the article. paragraph 42. 2 of the Constitution nor the essence
bikameralismu, as enshrined in the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, and it is therefore
the interpretation should be considered as unconstitutional.
Also, the second part of the alternative remedies such as the Constitutional Court had to
reject the unfounded, as the discussion and approval of the
changes in laws, the Senate was entitled to.
The Constitutional Court therefore also dealt with only that part of the application,
which is directed against the amendment to Act No. 10/1993 Coll. made law
No. 217/2000 Sb.
The Constitutional Court found that, in deciding this matter, it is primarily necessary to
to deal with the interpretation of the article. paragraph 42. 2 of the Constitution in relation to the
case. While it is obvious that the interpretation of the cited article is possible and
meaningful only in the context of constitutional modifications to the whole legislative
process in terms of the competence of the Czech Senate.
1. Under the Constitution, the individual types of laws-from the point of view
examination-divided into (1) those with whom they must agree to
The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, either qualified or only
by a simple majority of the votes. To this group belong the constitutional laws and further
the laws referred to in article 14(2). 40 of the Constitution, i.e.. the election law, the law on the principles
negotiations and both Chambers, as well as between them and the law on the
the rules of procedure of the Senate. (2.) the second group of laws form the "common law",
that is,. the laws, which the opposition of the Senate to bridge the new vote
The Chamber of Deputies. For approval of the Bill as amended by the amendments
proposals adopted by the Senate requires a simple majority of members; to
approval of the original text of the Act (i.e., the text which was a proposal from the
referred to the Senate) is needed an absolute majority of all deputies (article 47
Of the Constitution). In this case, the Senate has to the Chamber of Deputies
law suspenzivního veto. (3.) the third case is a draft law on
State budget (Note: the same is true of the draft State final
an account that has the form of the Act), which dealt with and a majority of it
only the Chamber of Deputies (article 42, paragraph 2, of the Constitution).
2. The Constitutional Court to assess the merits of the constitutional
editing. According to the article. 88 para. 2 of the Constitution, are constitutional court judges
bound by constitutional acts, so the Constitutional Court is not entitled to the provisions of
contained in the constitutional law review (or even cancel);
its task is to only-in specific cases-their interpretation.
Although it is, therefore, in this case, the Constitutional Court forced to conclude that the
the concept, according to which the Senate is not entitled to vote on the Bill
on the State budget, in terms of comparison with other democratic
European States with bikamerálním running unique left him before this
Edit respect and in accordance with existing practice, it also assessed. (From the
comparatively speaking, compared to e.g.. the Constitution of all States
The European Union with a multiparty Parliament, the upper Chamber
Parliament excluded from the codecision procedure on the draft law on the State
the budget only if Belgium and Austria, while in France, Ireland,
Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, on the
the adoption of a law of this type the upper Chamber is involved.)
3. edit the existing constitutional approval of the law on the State budget in
The Czech Republic is based on the fact that the draft law may be filed solely
the Government, as the State budget is the most important tool State
policy, and therefore also the responsibility of the Government for the administration of expression State. Because
the concept of the constitutional system of the Czech Republic is-among other things-a reflection
the fact that the Government merely belongs to the Chamber of Deputies, and not the
The Senate chose the ústavodárce solution, according to which the approval of the law on
the State budget belongs exclusively to the Chamber of Deputies (see also above).
The law on the State budget is therefore, according to the existing constitutional modifications adopted
already at the moment of approval in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate into it
ingerovat is not in any way.
4. in the present case, however, it happened that one of the law was at the same time
the amendment of several laws, one of which was the law on the State
the budget. We must add that this practice, when one is at the same time
amended several laws in the legislative practice is relatively
frequent. To do this, in General, the Constitutional Court States that this practice is in
principle constitutionally conformal, but only if the amendments
rule is related to each other. On the contrary, the adverse phenomenon, nekorespondující
the sense and the principles of the legislative process, it is necessary to indicate the situation,
When one Act are amended laws to each other content
immediately unrelated, which occurs for example. to speed up the
legislative procedures, often in the form of amendments
proposals. (As apparently most pronounced example, so the House
the House is completely assigned and inappropriately made, was the adoption of law No.
170/2001 Coll., on the State bond program to pay the obligations
resulting from the Agreement between the Government of the United States, the Government of the Slovak
the Republic and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany for their mutual
posting of trade in transferable rubles and settlement functions
liabilities and claims incurred by the like balance in transferable rubles
for the benefit of the Federal Republic of Germany, on the amendment of Act No. 406/2000 Coll.
on the State bond program for the partial reimbursement of damage to agricultural
entities affected by the drought in 2000, and on the amendment of Act No. 424/1991
Coll. on Association in political parties and political movements, in
as amended, which was completely inorganically included
also the change of Act No. 424/1991 Coll.) Such a procedure does not match the
the basic principles of the rule of law, including the principle of
the predictability of law, its clarity and its internal policy
control. If one of the law (in the formal sense) is
interfered with the modified several laws in other equipment, and these laws
together they are not substantively, and systematically linked, there is often considerable
confusing legal situation, that the principle of predictability,
clarity and internal control Act already does not respect.
5. because the Constitution in relation to the law on the State budget does not allow
ingerenci of the Senate in the legislative process, and this Act may be-on
the design of the Government-negotiated and authorized only the Chamber of Deputies, it is
clearly the only potential constitutionally conformist to do so when it is
This law is being discussed and approved individually. Therefore, also
rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies (Act No. 90/1995 Coll., on rules of procedure
The Chamber of Deputies) in the provisions of § 101 paragraph. 3 expressly provides that the
"Part of the law on the State budget can not be changes, additions or
abolition of other laws. " (Note: the law No. 10/1993 Coll. was
approved prior to the entry into force of Act No. 90/1995 Sb.)
In the opinion of the Constitutional Court can be inferred from the statutory language, that even
part of the "normal" law cannot be the change, addition or cancellation of
the law on the State budget. The situation, when together with the draft of the law on
the State budget also are proposed laws of the other, or when one
the law is amended, the law on the State budget and other laws, it is therefore
-as already mentioned-a status that is not in accordance with the Constitution, or even
the law (see the cited law No. 90/1995 Sb.).
6. For completeness, the Constitutional Court States that the need to separate
the hearing and deciding of the laws for which the Constitution provides for different
legislative procedure (i.e., including constitutional laws, see section V. 1)
the law should also count on the principles of the negotiations and of the Chambers of commerce among themselves,
as well as on the outside, the anticipated article. 40 of the Constitution.
1. in case the Constitutional Court Mr. mainly notes that law No.
217/2000 was amended Act No. 10/1993 Coll., however, this
the amendment consisted solely in the derogation Article 6 article. In paragraph 1(b). 1, 3 and 4
This Act and the repeal of paragraph 2 and paragraph 1. In addition, the
Law No. 10/1993 Coll. is divided into two relatively independent parts,
the first is entitled (and content edits) "State budget
The United States for the year 1993 ", while the second part-which includes the
§ 6-is entitled "salary adjustment and other benefits of constitutional
officials and some workers of Central Government authorities and the
other organs ". Other portions of the law No. 10/1993 Coll. are
separate laws which this law amends.
2. in the first instance, the Constitutional Court found that the appellants themselves
not designated in the law No. 10/1993 no provision which would like
because of the unconstitutional procedure of its adoption or from the factual reasons, cancel,
even if-as is clear from the above that-against the changes made in this
the Act Rails. Delete in this particular case, one part of the law No.
10/1993 revised by Act No. 217/2000 Coll., namely "technically" or
You cannot, since no provisions of this Act were not by law No.
217/2000 Coll., added or amended, but only cleared. However, because the
The Constitutional Court shall evaluate each proposal in terms of its content and not just
forms, and in this particular case, deal with the question of the
the consequences should comply with a request to annul the Act No. 217/2000 Coll.
as regards the amendment to Act No. 10/1993 the Constitutional Court takes the
the legal opinion, according to which the cancellation of the contested provisions of the protiústavního
neožívá the provisions of the earlier Act, that it was unconstitutional
the provisions repealed or amended. The Constitutional Court in proceedings for review of
acts as a so-called standards. negative legislator, justified in the case of
compliance with the draft legislation only derogovat. Therefore, also
cancellation of the contested regulation may occur solely to "dispose" of the
the legal order of the Czech Republic, and not an effective Constitution
the new legislation in the form of "ožívání" of the previously cancelled. The opposite view
According to the beliefs of the Constitutional Court could give rise to considerable legal
uncertainty and to cross the constitutionally defined competences of the constitutional
the Court. Therefore, it can be concluded that the "ožívání" previously cancelled or changed
legislation as a result of the award of the Constitutional Court in that the meaning of
could occur only if the constitutional provisions would directly
allow (see e.g. Article 140 (6) of the Constitution of Austria).
3. The Constitutional Court therefore finds that if (the State) some
the provisions of law No. 10/1993 Coll. was approved by the Senate in a situation where
This proposal, the Senate was not entitled to discuss and decide about him-he had to
(the Constitutional Court) would also logically arrive at a legal opinion that this
change is not able to invoke any legal consequences. In other words,
because according to the article. paragraph 42. 2 of the Constitution, the Senate is not entitled to a hearing and
the approval of the law on the State budget (arg. and maiori ad minus, or
his amendment), they would have to be any intervention in this Act
understood as interventions to a body which is not entitled to them. Because
the law on the State budget may discuss and approve only the Chamber
the Chamber of Deputies, is this Act adopted already approved in the House of Commons,
that is,. completely independent of its further discussion and
approval in the Senate. If it is at the same time with the law on the State budget
(or with its amendment) under discussion and approval by the other (IE. a "normal")
the law (laws), or its amendment (Amendment) – which, however, is contrary to the
the law on the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies-this situation
interpreted so that the Senate can consider and approve only
"ordinary" laws and their amendments, and its decision therefore has legal
only these laws, but not with the Act on the State budget.
4. Mr. stuff is relevant, however, the fact that the amendment of the Act
No. 10/1993 Coll. concerned only the part which is its matter and
formal incorporation of the issue of State budget immediately
It does not apply. If article. paragraph 42. the Constitution speaks of "the law on
the State budget ", this term must be understood not in formal,
but in material terms. In other words, not every law-
marked as law the financial (or not any part of it)-
immediately refers to the problems of the State budget, and on the contrary, it is possible to
Imagine a situation where the law on the State budget materials will be modified.
the law, which is marked as such. In support of this view can be
point out the comparison with the constitutions of some other countries, which also
the concept of the "law on the State budget" is understood in the material sense, when
clearly delineate what is under such law should be found. As
an example may serve the article. 51 para. 3 the Austrian Constitution, which provides that
"Federal finance law shall include a proposed revenue and expenditure of the Association
(federal budget), the layout of the items on the future financial year, as well as
and other essential elements for the State budget in the relevant
financial year. ". You can also refer to the article. 134 para. 2 Spanish
of the Constitution, according to which "the State budget is drawn up to one year;
contains a summary of the expenditure and revenue of the public sector and is marked in them
the proportion of the income which the taxes are set by the State. ".
5. Consequently, in assessing whether it is possible in the specific
the case of the draft law be understood as "the law on the State budget," according to the article.
paragraph 42. 2 of the Constitution, is not sufficient to restrict this to a formal designation of such
the proposal (the Act). This procedure would, in effect, could lead to
that would be in the case of some important laws the Senate expelled from
the legislative process that the Bill was dubbed the "law of
the State budget ", even if in fact this law governed the matter
with the State budget directly unrelated. On the other hand considers the
The Constitutional Court considers necessary to emphasize that the material understanding the term "law of
the State budget "may not in practice lead to its too extensive
interpretation, since it is obvious that the State budget directly or at least
indirectly related to virtually every bill, no longer merely
the reason that its implementation usually has effects on the State budget (on
his income or expenditure). The concept of the "law on the State budget"
It must be interpreted in accordance with the normative adjusting budget
rules of the State included in the Czech National Council Act No. 576/1990 Coll.
about the rules of management of the budgetary resources of the United States and
municipalities in the Czech Republic (the budgetary rules of the Republic), which was in force in
the time of publication of the cited Act No. 10/1993 Coll. and Act No. 217/2000 Sb.
Under the provisions of section 3 of Act No. 576/1990 Coll. ("content of the State budget
the Republic ")," the State budget of the Republic includes the expected income, as well as
even spending on security tasks and meet the needs of the Czech Republic in a given
financial year. Also includes financial relationships to the budgets of municipalities,
district offices and to the budgets of the State funds States. ". In other words
the concept of the "law on the State budget" concept is to be in the material
interpreted in such a way, that this is about the law immediately
governing the planned income and expenditure of the budget of the public folder
sector of the Czech Republic related to the performance of functions of the State always on
the following time periods (i.e. the financial years). Only in this way
It is necessary to qualify as a law conceived under the article. paragraph 42. 2 of the Constitution, and only
such a Bill because the Senate is not entitled to consider and
6. the Constitutional Court deems it desirable beyond the present case-
emphasize that the material of the concept of the law on the State budget in the article.
42 of the Constitution also has another dimension. By creating a specific institutional categories
the law on the State budget ústavodárce stressed the special place and meaning
of this law in the legal order of the Czech Republic, much like it did in
cases, the electoral law or "contact" the law according to art. 40 of the Constitution.
The fact that he took out a draft law on the State budget of the scheme approval
proposals for the "normal" laws, expressed his will to be introduced to ensure that
the judge probing the State budget, the legislature in a coherent manner and separate from the
matter, that State budget are not directly related. In other words,
subject to adjustments included in the draft law on the State budget can
State only the rules relating to the issue of the State of the material
the budget, not the other rules. Incorporating into the draft law on the State
the budget provision, which materially matter directly with State budget
are not related, in terms of the Constitution, is not permitted. Such an approach to
the material concept of the law on the State budget can document
for example. even in the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland, whose article. 22 paragraph 1. 1 provides that
"The proposal of the Finance Act (a Money Bill) is such a draft law that
It contains only provisions (contains only provisions) concerning the
some or all of the following: save, cancel, reduce,
changes or adjustments to taxation, the imposition of duties from the resources of citizens designated
to pay down the national debt or to other fiscal purposes, the issue of money,
In addition, recruitment, allocation, issue or revision of management accounts
public funds, the notice or on any loan or guarantee its
repayment, things with the above or any of them
At this point, however, it must be held that the fundamental conclusion
The Constitutional Court cannot be extended to the case under consideration, for approval
Procedure Act No. 10/1993 Coll. was terminated before the Constitution
entered into force, and was in accordance with the then applicable to the Czechoslovak
of the legislation.
7. therefore, the Constitutional Court concludes that the contested intervention in the law on
the State budget No 10/1993 Coll. (thus formally marked) by the
novelizujícím Act No. 217/2000 Coll. clearly cannot be regarded as intervention
the law on the State budget in material terms. As is clear
already from the above text-and how to properly in its observations to the
the proposal shall indicate the parties to the proceedings-materie custom Act No. 10/1993
Coll. is divided into two relatively distinct parts, when the issue of
the State budget of the Czech Republic for the year 1993 directly modifies only part of
the first; the second part (paragraph 6 of the article. In), which is contested by Act No. 217/2000
Coll. partially derogována, relates to a different issue (already a salary adjustment
and some executives and other officials). The Senate
therefore did not err in the case discussed the design of the entire Bill No.
217/2000 Coll. and also it-in the texts of amendments-approved.
Indeed, the contested act was amended law No. 1/1992 Coll., no. 143/1992 Coll.
and no 132/2000 Coll., which cannot be regarded as the law on the State budget, or
in a formal, even in material terms, and amendments to the law No. 10/1993
Coll. concerned only that its separate parts that matter State
haven't touched the budget.
Of all of the above reasons, the Constitutional Court a group of senators as
nedůvodný completely rejected.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.