In The Matter Of An Application For Annulment Of The Amendment On Wages

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zrušení novely zákona o mzdě

Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=53207&nr=95~2F2002~20Sb.&ft=txt

95/2002 Coll.



FIND



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. "



as follows:



The proposal is rejected.



Justification



(I).



And.



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 amendments.



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.



(B).



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

the law.



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

as amended.



II.



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.).



III.



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.



IV.



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

laws.



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.



In the.



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

considerations:



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

they cannot.



The Constitutional Court therefore also dealt with solely that part of the proposal, which

is directed against an individual, adopted the provisions above cited

laws.



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.



Vi.



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.



VII.



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

approve.



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

child. ".



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.