On The Proposal To Cancel The Word "judges" In The. Withdrawal Of Salary

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zrušení slova "soudcům" v z. o odejmutí platu

Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=55707&nr=198~2F2003~20Sb.&ft=txt

198/2003 Coll.
FINDINGS


Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic


Constitutional Court decided on 11 June 2003 in plenary on the proposal
Municipal Court in Brno seeking the annulment of the word "judges" in § 1 of Act no. 416/2001 Coll., On
withdrawal of additional salary for the second half 2001
and determine the amount of additional salaries for the first and second halves of 2002
representatives of state power and some state bodies, judges, prosecutors, members
Presidium of the securities Commission, representatives of the Ombudsman and || | members of the Bank Board of the Czech national Bank

Follows:

The word "judges 2)" in § 1 of Act no. 416/2001 Coll., On the withdrawal of additional
salary for the second half of 2001 and determine the amount of additional salaries for
first and second half of 2002, state officials
power and some state bodies, judges, prosecutors, members of the Presidium of the
securities, representatives of the Ombudsman and members of the Bank Board of the Czech national Bank
abolishing the day of its publication in the Collection of laws.
Reason


I.

On 8 April 2002 the President of the Chamber 13 C of the Municipal Court in Brno
Constitutional Court under Art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, as amended by 31
May 2002 and § 64 para. 4 Act no. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional court,
(from 1 January 2003, this provision contained in § 64 par. 3 of this Act
'the law on the Constitutional court ") an application for annulment
word "judges" in § 1 of Act no. 416/2001 Coll., on withdrawal of additional salary for
second half of 2001 and determine the amount of additional salaries for the first and
second half of 2002, representatives of state authority and
some state bodies, judges, prosecutors, members of the Presidium of the
securities, representatives of the Ombudsman and members of the Board
Czech national Bank, as in proceedings judge of the Municipal court in Brno
against the Czech Republic - Municipal court in Brno
payment of additional salaries for the second half of 2001 in the amount of CZK 53,100 and reimbursement of costs
maintained by the Municipal court in Brno under file. Ref. 13 C
27/2002 concludes that this provision of the Act no. 416/2001 Coll.
a result of which the applicant was not in the pay date set for the 15th January 2002
paid an additional salary for second half of 2001 in the amount
to which he is entitled under § 4 para. 2 of Act no. 236/1995 Coll., on salary and other terms
associated with the office of representatives of state power and some
State authorities and judges, as amended
regulations, which should be applied in resolving a matter is inconsistent with Art. 1
Czech Constitution (now, after amendment made by the constitutional Act no. 395/2001 Coll
. effective from June 1, 2002 in terms of Art. 1 par. 1) and Art. 2 paragraph. 1
Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (the "Charter")
as it represents a significant interference in judicial independence guaranteed by Article . 82 para. 1
Czech Constitution. She said that the same conclusion by the Constitutional Court in its judgment of 15 September 1999
, promulgated under no. 233/1999 Coll. (Sp. Nos. Pl.
US 13/99, Collection of Decisions of the Constitutional Court, volume 15, pp. 191 and
seq.), Annulling the word "judges" in § 1 of Law no. 268 / 1998 Coll., on
withdrawal of additional salaries for the second half of 1998
representatives of state power and some state bodies, judges, prosecutors and members of the presidium
securities Commission, and opined that the withdrawal || | additional salaries of judges is a threat to the principle of judicial independence. In other
its findings on July 3, 2000, promulgated under no. 320/2000 Coll. and no.
321/2000 Coll. (Sp. Nos. Pl. US 18/99 and Pl. US 16/2000, Collection of
resolution of the Constitutional Court, Volume 19, pp. 3 et seq. And 23 et seq.)
Constitutional Court rejected proposals to abolish the law no. 287/1997 Coll.
supplementing law no. 236/1995 Coll., on salaries and other
indemnities associated with the position of representatives of state power and some state bodies
and judges, as amended by Act no. 138/1996 Coll., and
word "judges" in § 1 of Act No. 308/1999 Coll., on withdrawal of additional salary
for the second half of 1999 and the second half of the year 2000
representatives of state power and some state bodies, judges, prosecutors and
members of the presidium of the securities Commission, expressed
however, that the withdrawal of salaries of judges is possible only in exceptional and isolated cases
.

II.

The proposal under § 69 para. 1 of the Constitutional Court to challenge

Constitutional Court expressed chairman of Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
prof. Ing. Vaclav Klaus, PhD. and Senate
Czech Republic Doc. JUDr. Petr Pithart.

Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies, said that by law no. 236/1995 Coll.
Additional salary belongs judges if the calendar half
actually held the position for at least 90 calendar days and Conditions -
regard to the second half of the calendar year - the performance of judges
end before 31 December and said that in formal terms, the Act no. 416/2001 Coll
. came into force earlier than enough in the case judges
fulfill two conditions necessary for the payment of additional salary, namely performance
function for 90 calendar days and the duration of the employment relationship
judge on the last day of the calendar half and therefore Claimant's allegations , that
u plaintiff preconditions for the payment of additional salary were satisfied is
groundless. He disagreed with the petitioner's opinion that
non-payment of one additional salary constitutes interference in judicial independence
because this financial payment can hardly be considered material
security of judges. He recalled that it was not moral and it would be a denial of the equality of citizens
if one group of employees paid from the state budget funds
be recognized as an extra bonus
(neodejmutí additional salary) compared to other groups of employees or representatives
who further salary in 2001 was withdrawn
Government regulations no. 453/2000 Coll., amending Government Regulation no. 251/1992 Coll., on
salaries of employees of budgetary and other organizations
, as amended, no. 454/2000 Coll., which changes
Government Regulation no. 253/1992 Coll., on salaries of employees
government authorities, certain other authorities and municipalities, as amended | || amended, and no. 496/2000 Coll., amending Government Regulation No.
. 79/1994 Coll., The emoluments of staff of the armed forces, security forces and
services, customs administration, members of the Corps
fire protection and employees of certain other organs (Staff
salary scale), as amended regarding employees
government, and that the law no. 416/2001 Coll., concerning
representatives of state power, was the creation of unjustified inequality
prevented. He concluded that the legislature acted in that Act
in accordance with legal procedure, and in the belief that the law is not in conflict with the Constitution
.

Senate President said that after the approval of the government bill
Chamber of Deputies and the Senate passed to the Senate, despite recommendations
its constitutional law committee, which had recommended its resolution to return
bill Deputies with amendments resting | || in the disqualification of judges from the scope of the law, he has expressed willingness bill
to pursue. He explained that other salaries are still governed by Act no.
236/1995 Coll., Which prepared the comprehensive amendment has not been adopted
and the same is the fate of the draft law on salaries and some other essentials
Magistracy. Regarding the merits of the case, referring to the statement of the Senate
in proceedings filed with the Constitutional Court file.
Brand. Pl. US 13/99, Pl. US 18/99 and Pl. US 16/2000.

In a statement to the Senate a proposal led by the Constitutional Court file. Nos. Pl.
US 13/99 to annul Act no. 268/1998 Coll. signed by its chairperson Dr.
. Libuse Benesova was stated that the bill emerged from the Senate
who watched him achieve that both employees of the budgetary sphere, so
state authority representatives, judges, prosecutors and members of the Presidium
Securities Commission will 1998
belong to only one additional salary. The date of approval of Senate Bill
Senate has proposed that the law came into force on publication and the
such date to avoid any doubts about his
retroactivity. The bill approved by the Chamber of Deputies
was referred to the Senate until October 30, 1998, and as proposed by the Senate
expressed willingness to discuss the bill no longer pursue.

The application for annulment of Act no. 287/1997 Coll. led to the Constitutional Court under
sp. Nos. Pl. US 18/99, the President of the Senate stated that the proposal of
Act filed by a group of deputies, which it justified by the fact that the

Adoption of stabilization and recovery of the economic measures the government has decided
to employees in budgetary and some other organizations and bodies
who are remunerated according to Act no. 143/1992
Coll., On salary and remuneration for work readiness in budgetary and
some other organizations and bodies, not belonging
additional salary for the second half of 1997, a similar amendment was also adopted at
approval of Act no. 201/1997 Coll., on salary and
some other requisites of prosecutors and amending and supplementing Law no.
143/1992 Coll., on salary and remuneration for work readiness in budgetary and
some other organizations and bodies, as amended || | regulations, and therefore the petitioners should consider that the right to adequate
similar arrangement was also made for people who are out of state resources
remunerated according to Act no. 236/1995 Coll. Objection
retroactive effect of the Act no. 287/1997 Coll. It is unfounded. Regarding
constitutional principle of judicial independence, the guarantees of adherence include
material security for judges, which is, however, ensured primarily through
a regular monthly salary, the amount and terms of delivery, and
that monetary performance no restriction affected. However, even in
evaluation report of the European Commission on the Czech Republic it stated that
judges' salaries are relatively high. Other salary is in accordance with legal regulations
lump-sum payment provided under the conditions set
once in half a year, and yet the very conditions of entitlement, one of
which is the duration of the employment relationship a judge on the last day of semester, || | clear that this financial payment can hardly be considered material
security of judges, the reduction or withdrawal could result
threats to their independence. Should that be, and should in fact be seen as
conflict with the Constitution, it should apply to judges of the Constitutional Court
when Art. 81 and 82 of the Constitution guaranteeing the independence of judges as a general
provisions apply to these judges. But the Senate still
when discussing the new draft law which have been withdrawn
additional salary for the second half of 1999 and the second half of 2000,
fully respected the Constitutional Court ruling and returned the bill Chamber of Deputies
the amendment, which is the scope of the proposed modifications
secreted judges.

In Annulment of the word "judges" in § 1 of Act no. 308/1999 Coll.
Maintained by the Constitutional Court file. Nos. Pl. US 16/2000, the President expressed
Senate so that the Senate bill returned to the House of Deputies
amendment, which is the scope of this Act secreted
judges. The Senate debate on bills
respected the Constitutional Court adopted in the proposal to repeal the Act no. 268/1998 Coll
. promulgated under no. 233/1999 Coll.

III.

Constitutional Court proceeded in this proceeding pursuant to § 68 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll
. Because they were not considered grounds for rejecting the draft or stopping
management CC ascertain whether the Act no. 416/2001 Coll. She was adopted and issued within the bounds
constitutionally provided jurisdiction and in a constitutionally prescribed manner. He found that the contested
Act was duly discussed and approved by the Legislature,
signed by the appropriate constitutional officials and promulgated in the Official Gazette.
Therefore, nothing prevented evaluating the contested provisions of the Act in terms
its compliance with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.

IV.

Given issue the Constitutional Court dealt three times already.

The proposal of the District Court for Prague 4 to annul Act no. 268/1998 Coll., On
withdrawal of additional salaries for the second half of 1998
representatives of state power and some state bodies, judges, prosecutors and | || members of the presidium of the securities Commission, decided plenum of the Constitutional court
this judgment of 15 September 1999 sp. Nos. Pl. US 13/99:

"The provisions of § 1 of Act no. 268/1998 Coll., On withdrawal of additional salary for
second half of 1998, representatives of state power and certain
state bodies, judges, prosecutors and members of the Presidium of the Commission || | securities with the text "representatives of state power and some state bodies
^ 1) ^ 2 judges), prosecutors ^ 3) and members of the presidium
securities Commission ^ 4) additional salary ^ 5 ) for the second half of 1998
not belong ", the word" judges ^ 2) "date of its publication in the Collection

Laws. In the remainder of the proposal to repeal the Act no. 268/1998 Coll
. dismissed. "The discovery was promulgated as no. 233/1999 Coll.
A qualified majority of the plenum had concluded that the contested Act does not
while back, or does not infringe the prohibition of retroactivity and does not deprive persons authorized
already acquired rights, its adoption However, in the case judges were
violated the constitutionally guaranteed principle of judicial independence
based on a system of separation of powers as the basis of democratic rule of law.
in this regard the Constitutional court referred to the Constitution of the United States of America. the findings were told
that the principle of judicial independence in itself
contains a number of aspects, some of which are of a material nature.
the Constitutional court also noted, inter alia, that the decision concerns only judges
ordinary courts, that means the district, regional and high courts and the Supreme
and the Supreme administrative court, but the Constitutional court judges, who are
Act no. 236/1995 Coll. categorized as "representative"
and not in the category of "judge", although They carry the judiciary and also
they are covered by Article. 82 para. 1 of the Constitution on the independence of judges.

Draft Municipal Court in Brno, on whose side have intervened
acted in accordance with § 35 para. 2 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll. even
District Court for Prague 2 District Court in Plzen-mesto, to annul Act no. 287/1997 Coll
. supplementing Law no. 236/1995 Coll., on salary and other terms
related duties
representatives of state power and some state bodies and judges, as amended by Act no. 138/1996 Coll
. (during the proceedings, the petit correctly spelled on a proposal to repeal §
4 of Act No. . 236/1995 Coll., as amended by Act no. 287/1997 Coll., and the proposal
District court for Prague 2 was formulated more precisely to the text of the provisions
'representatives and judges pay more for the second half
year 1997 does not belong "in deleting the word" judges "), the Constitutional court rejected
judgment of 3 July 2000, sp. Nos. Pl. US 18/99. The same proposals submitted
and two judges of the District Court in Olomouc. Both of these proposals were
resolutions of the Constitutional Court on 24 August 2000, sp. Nos. Pl. US 31/2000, from 19.10.2000,
sp. Nos. Pl. US 30/2000, rejected as inadmissible because of obstacles
judicata (§ 35 para. 1 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll.).

Design District Court for Prague 2 District Court Plzen-mesto were
resolutions of the Constitutional Court on 25 April 2000 and 5 May 2000, sp. Nos. Pl. US
13/2000 and Pl. US 18/2000, rejected as inadmissible for obstacle
pendens (§ 35 para. 2 of the Constitutional Court).
In the reasoning of its judgment of 3 July 2000, sp. Nos. Pl. US 18/99, promulgated
under no. 320/2000 Coll., The Constitutional Court held that judicial independence
represents one of the fundamental democratic values, and ensure
undoubtedly assists and material security of judges. In particular
essential that judges' salaries to other government bodies do not interfere, whether
longer any form, arbitrarily and repeatedly. The Constitutional Court in accordance with
practice of the European Court of Human Rights focused on the question whether the withdrawal
so. 14th salaries of judges of the ordinary courts were required by law, directed
If a legitimate objective and whether it was necessary in a democratic society
. The Constitutional Court stated that the legal form of intervention in
rights granted were met and adopted law has no retroactive effect,
and noted that the legislative technique used in this case, namely
amendment to the original law, rather than the special and
separate law, as it has in other cases, from a constitutional perspective
However, this difference is not important. Regarding the question of the legitimacy of the objectives to which
withdrawal of additional salaries of judges were directed, the Constitutional Court stated that
could not disregard the difficult social and economic reality in which
Czech Republic found. Proceeding from the fact that ordinary court judges
do not live in isolation and in a "legal and economic vacuum"
expressed the view that a pre-given right of judges to such material security, which can not be
legislative form in any way and under no circumstances
accordingly, can not be understood as an immutable dogma, although theses
declared in an earlier decision of the Constitutional court (no. 233/1999 Coll.)
that the state is obliged to create conditions for the independence of the judiciary and
stabilize their position in relation to the legislative and executive powers,
true. In the present case, however zákonodárcův interference in the material

Security covered the entire public sector, not just the courts and different
assessment of this group, although specially protected by the constitutional principle of independence
would be for her in that context meant barely acceptable
advantage.

Design District Court in Hradec Kralove, on the side as a secondary participant
featured District Court Plzen-mesto to in § 1 of Law no.
308/1999 Coll., On the withdrawal of additional salary for the second half of the year
1999 and the second half of 2000, representatives of state power and certain
state bodies, judges, prosecutors and members of the Presidium of the Commission
securities which reads "representatives of state power and some state bodies
, judges, prosecutors and members of the Presidium of the Commission
securities additional salary for the second half of 1999 and for the second half of 2000
not belong "has been canceled, the word" judges ", was finding
dated July 3, 2000 sp. Nos. Pl. US 16/2000, published under no. 321/2000 Coll
. rejected. The same draft also filed two judges
District Court in Olomouc and judges of the District Court in Ostrava, District Court
Pilsen-City and Municipal Court in Brno. Draft District Court Plzen-mesto
was the resolution of the Constitutional Court of 05.05.2000, sp. Nos. Pl. US 18/2000,
rejected for lis alibi pendens as inadmissible (§ 35 para. 2
Constitutional Court Act) and the other four draft resolutions were
Constitutional Court on 24 August 2000, sp. Nos. Pl. US 31/2000 of 19.10.2000, sp.
Brand. Pl. US 30/2000, from 1.9.2000, sp. Nos. Pl. US 32/2000, from 26 October 2000,
sp. Nos. Pl. US 27/2000, rejected as inadmissible obstacle to rei
judicata (§ 35 para. 1 of the Constitutional Court).

After discussing this proposal and vote on it prevailed over the conception
which was enforced in judgment no. 233/1999 Coll., Based on the view that
withdrawal of additional salaries for judges devalues ​​one of the fundamental || | democratic values ​​that it represents, judicial independence, and the
interference with the inalienable right of judges to not decreasing their salaries as
guarantees of their independence and legal certainty, that the view which
applied in the judgment published as no. 321 / 2000 Sb., by which special assessments
only one group of state-paid people - judges
- even if protected by increasingly constitutional principle of independence would mean hardly acceptable
advantage when the procedure legislature || | generally covered the material security of the public sphere as a whole.
On the other hand, however, the Constitutional Court distanced believes that the salary of judges
be moving factor, according to the momentary ideas of this or that government
grouping. He therefore considered the solution found for an extraordinary act,
which can be accepted only for serious reasons and only in the context of the overall
appropriate adjustment of salaries in the entire sphere of state representatives and employees
. Only in this overall context, it was possible to recognize the impact
state's financial problems also on the salaries of judges. It was under these circumstances would
admitting exceptions violation of the constitutional principle of equality
on the basis of which this statutory framework is subjected to the entire region
state employees and public officials. Judges' salaries are regulated by law no.
236/1995 Coll., On whose § 3 para. 2, the salary determined by multiplying the wage and salary
base rate set depending on
accountability and performance functions performed. According to § 3 para. 3
base salary means the sum of the highest salary and the maximum
personal bonus set of special regulations for employees
ministries. The salary is thus directly dependent on the amount
salaries of employees of public institutions and the interconnectedness salaries
if it was once accepted as a principle for the remuneration of employees of the state
should be respected in both cases the indexation of wage rates | || (eg. an increase of 17% from January 1, 1999, which resulted in an increase in salaries
representatives of state power and state employees, including judges)
way in reducing the amount of certain material benefits.
Constitutional Court in its decision respected the Parliament that the adoption of Act no. 308/1999 Coll
. used its legislative powers and possibilities
starting from the state budget and economic situation of the country included in
austerity measures and a judge. He took the view that payment of additional salaries
not endanger the independence of judges, especially because this is not surprising,

Or deep interference in their material security.
Independence of judges is also characterized by a series of constitutional guarantees, such as
appointment without time restriction or prohibition of the transfer
appeal against their will. Nadřazováním this completely changes in its
material security of judges over the other attributes of judicial independence
would in turn could reduce public confidence in the
independent judiciary. Other salaries were simultaneously removed judges also
representatives of executive and legislative power, maintain the balance
classical division of power and there was no rational reason for exempting
judges from the general state intervention when the Government Decrees. || | 248/1998 Coll., amending Government Regulation no. 253/1992 Coll., on
salaries of employees of state administration bodies, some other
authorities and municipalities, as amended, and no. 126 / 2000 Sb., which
modifying the Decree no. 253/1992 Coll., the emoluments
state administration employees, some other bodies and municipalities, as amended
occurred earlier cutbacks
additional salary for employees of state administration bodies, some other bodies and municipalities.

V.

First

Now this application for annulment of the word "judges" in § 1 of Act no. 416/2001 Coll
. submitted after the Municipal Court in Brno still
District Court for Prague 1 District Court for Prague 2 District Court for Prague 5 and Prague District Court
- west, which are in this position management side
participants. These four proposals were resolutions of the Constitutional Court of
August 13, 2002, August 26, 2002, February 6, 2003 and May 27, 2003 sp. Nos. Pl. US 13/02, Pl.
US 18/02, Pl. US 3/03 and Pl. US 11/03, rejected as inadmissible because
Constitutional Court on the same matter is already under § 43 para. 1 point. e) and paragraph.
2 point. b) the Constitutional Court Act (§ 35 para. 2 of the Law on the Constitutional Court
).

These courts, unlike the Municipal Court in Brno, which in its
proposal centered on interference in judicial independence, also argued
violation of non-retroactivity and protection of acquired rights.

As to the alleged retroactivity of Law no. 416/2001 Coll., Which came
efficiency November 28, 2001, as stated in the judgment no. 233/1999 Coll.
On the Law no. 268 / 1998 Coll. of § 4 para. 2 of Act no. 236/1995
Coll., as amended by Act no. 138/1996 Coll., resulted
legal conditions for establishing the right to an additional salary for the second half of the year 1998, both
actual performance for at least 90 calendar days in this
half and duration of the performance of the leaders November 30
1998 respectively. Judge duration of the employment relationship on 31 December 1998.
right to additional salary would therefore created an authorized person only fulfilling
then mentioned conditions, ie. before 30 November 1998 regarding
representatives, and 31 . December 1998 in respect of judges, which in their consequences
means that under the law, which does not link any legal
effects with any legal matters which occur before its effectiveness,
does not retroactively, and because the date of its efficacy, ie. on November 19, 1998, no person
still do not enjoy a personal right to additional pay, could not intervene in the so-called
. acquired rights. The same was true of the law no. 287/1997
Coll., Which came into effect November 28, 1997, and no. 308/1999 Coll. (Regarding
judge), which came into force on 3 December 1999, and this applies also to Act no. 416/2001 Coll
., Which became effective on November 28, 2001. While in terms
temporal scope by Act no. 287/1997 Coll., No. 268/1998 Coll. and no.
308/1999 Coll., which collected the listed persons, among them judges, other
pay only for the second half of the years 1997-2000, it was important
§ 4 para. 2 point. a) Act no. 236/1995 Coll., as amended by Act No.
. 138/1996 Coll., That entitlement to additional salary for the second half
undermined, as has been said, with representatives of duties until 30 November
au Judge duration of the employment relationship before 31 December, with
Act no. 416/2001 Coll., which withdrew additional salaries to the persons listed
not only for the second half of 2001 in full, but also for both
half of 2002, always one half, playing the role of point. b)
this statutory provision under which the entitlement to additional salary does not arise in the first half of the calendar year
representatives, whose office expired before
31st May and judges, whose employment relationship ended prior to 30 June
.


Act no. 416/2001 Coll. does not act retrospectively and can not be criticized or interference
so. acquired rights. Your opinion on this issue, the Constitutional Court expressed
example. in its judgment of 28 February 1996, sp. Nos. Pl. US 9/95, which was published under no. 107/1996 Coll
. and also published in Volume 5 Collection of Decisions of the Constitutional Court
p. 107 et seq rejecting the proposals
group of deputies to annul Act no. 34/1995 Coll., supplementing Law no.
76/1959 Coll., on some service contracts of soldiers, as
amended, and Act no. 33/1995 Coll., amending and supplementing
Czech national Council Act no. 186/1992 Coll.
on the service of the Police of the Czech Republic, as amended, and
Act no. 100/1970 Coll., on the service of members of the Corps
national security, as amended. The petitioners in their
proposals argued that the contested law should abolish acquired rights, because they withdrew
certain group of citizens of their legal entitlement to service pension or allowance
entitled to an allowance for the service. According to the Constitutional Court in
withdrawal or reduction of those benefits that reach until after the new legislation
legislation comes into effect, can not invoke the protection of acquired rights.
Even if such rights to enjoy protection, it would mean that in the future
would never not be narrowed their scope, irrespective example.
On the economic situation of the state, etc.

Constitutional Court for its opinion lingers and builds on it and in this case,
as the benefits are, by their nature, comparable to other
salary pursuant to Act no. 236/1995 Coll. (Ie. 13th and 14th salary).

Second

The Constitutional Court also had to ask the question whether there are conditions to remain on
legal view expressed in its last two
findings relating to a similar issue.

First of all, let it be said that the absence of the Constitutional Court itself
as a constitutional body, ie. The public authority to act arbitrarily, the ban on which
is also subject to, because the Constitutional Court, or was he
is obliged to respect the constitutional framework of the State in which enforcement is arbitrary authorities
public authorities is strictly forbidden, he must feel bound by its own
decisions that can its case law only under certain conditions
. This postulate can be described as an essential requirement
democratic state (Art. 1, paragraph. 1 in connection with
Art. 9 Sec. 2 of the Constitution).

The first option, which the Constitutional Court can overcome its own jurisprudence, is
change the social and economic situation in the country, or a change in their
structure, or a change in society's cultural conceptions.
Another possibility is a change or shift in the legal environment formed by sub-constitutional legal norms
, which together affect the examination of constitutional principles and principles
without deviating from them, however, and especially restricting the principle
democratic legal statehood ( Art. 1, paragraph. 1 of the Constitution). Another option
to change the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court is change, respectively.
completion of legal norms and principles that form the binding terms of reference for
Constitutional Court, ie. those which are contained in the constitutional order of the Czech Republic,
unless of course the changes conflict with the limits laid down by Art. 9 paragraph .
2 Czech Constitution, ie. unless the changes in the essential requirements of a democratic
law.

Third

The Constitutional Court considers that the present case should be evaluated in light
legal changes that have occurred since the adoption
finding of the Constitutional Court. Nos. Pl. US 16/2000 and Pl. US 18/99, ie.
From July 2000 until today. Although the Constitutional Court reviewed the law
issued in 2001, it is the assessment of its constitutionality bound maxim that the court
ie. The Constitutional Court is a critical condition at the time of publication of the decision in this case
award. Yet the norm control proceeding constitutes
facts and valid state of the legal order of the date of this judgment.

Act no. 420/2002 Coll., Which shortens the period during which the
representatives of state power and some state bodies, judges and prosecutors
paid while temporarily unable to perform the functions
, and laying down certain measures in health insurance
(care) and pension insurance, which came into effect on 1 January 2003
among other things, amended provisions. § 34 para. 4 of the Act no. 236/1995 Coll.
So that officials whose performance is governed by special legal

Regulation and the Labour Code, a judge who was recognized
temporarily unable to perform the functions for the salary for a maximum period of 20 working days during the same
incapacity to perform a function or more temporary inability
to perform the functions arising in one calendar year
over the same period. Other officials belong to the reasons and
conditions laid down in the first sentence salary for a maximum period of 30 calendar days
.

Before entry into force of Law no. 420/2002 Coll., Ie. To 31. 12. 2002
set § 34 par. 3 of Law no. 236/1995 Coll., That includes salary and representatives
judges indiscriminately after the time during which temporarily
not acting, after which he would otherwise be applied under special regulations
health insurance benefits for 6 months.

Act no. 425/2002 fixing for 2003 the extraordinary measures
when determining salary and certain reimbursements of expenses related to performance
office of representatives of state power and some state bodies, judges and state
representatives and laying these persons the level of additional salaries
for the first and second halves of 2003, which became effective October 1, 2002,
been provided in § 1, that for the determination of salary and other costs and expenses || | associated with the position in 2003, named for Representative and
judge the salary basis reached as of December 31, 2002.
The result of legislative changes in pay scales and personal bonuses
made for employees of ministries, effective following the day
31st December 2002, the base salary in that year does not increase.
The provisions of § 2 of the Act contains further reduction of salary to persons Thames
payable under the special regulations for 2003 in half.
The provisions of § 3 eliminated for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2003 use
§ 3. 3 of the Act no. 236/1995 Coll., On salary and other terms
associated with the position of representatives of state power
and some state bodies and judges, as amended by Act no. 309/2002 Coll.

It is clear from the explanatory memorandum to the proposed two above cited laws is
clear that the petitioner has pursued the goal of "preserving
comparable position of individual groups' people ie.
State employees, representatives of state power and judges with special
status of judges in terms of pay and the petitioner appeared
as unfair and disproportionate.

Fourth

To changes in the statutory framework relating to salary ratios
judges have exceeded the Constitutional Court's opinion constitutional limits
acceptance of the "uniqueness" of the act which withdrew additional salaries from judges
, as defined by finding Constitutional court file. Nos. Pl.
US 16/2000, published under no. 321/2000 Coll., And had to be based
principled argument that the Constitutional Court explained in its judgment. Ref.
Pl. US 13/99, published under no. 233/1999 Coll.

If we can in very exceptional circumstances principle of equality in the field
limiting compensation to state employees
constitutional officials and judges over the principle comprehensively understood judicial independence, not apply
this session of both principles generally like once always and under all circumstances
given. Conversely, the salary of judges, in a broad sense to be stable
nesnižovatelnou quantity, not moving factor, with which it calculates
or another government eg. Because the salaries seem
judges too high compared with the salaries of civil servants or
compared with another professional group. In other words, if we can accept
application of the principle of equality in the abovementioned sense as an exceptional
economically justified, reduction of salaries of all, you can not accept the equality
all the abovementioned groups (even as a target) in terms
final salary. Striving for such equality deviates from the category
constitutionality, it is a political objective, which has no support in the constitutionally understood
principle of equality. This principle is found in a substantive sense
boundaries in a statement, according to which "the same can not be modified arbitrarily
unequally, but also uneven must not be modified arbitrarily
well." The principle of equality should not be understood as a leveling in
result, but it must be interpreted as a guarantee of
starting chances. Thus interpreted the principle of equality, the legislature
patently not respected.

The Constitutional Court considered the contested part of the law of the aspects just mentioned

And concluded that it is contrary to Art. 1, paragraph. 1 in conjunction with Art. 82
paragraph. 1 of the Constitution, which make clear the obligation of the state to ensure judges and
materially independence, as a guarantee of fair and equitable
deciding on the rights of persons. Contradiction with these constitutional provisions
concluded the assessment of the contested part of the law in the context of the above
new legislation, which in total has actually
can pose a real threat to judicial independence with all the negative consequences
Rights Protection private individuals. The Constitutional Court has come to
conclusion that the contested part of the law is in conflict with Art. 1. 1 of the Charter, which provides
equality of rights, because it concluded that in this case the legislature as well
unequal ratios
occupational categories with the aim to get close to leveling in results, and this goal
Constitutional court found illegitimate.

VI.

Plenum of the Constitutional Court, therefore, with regard to the above mentioned reasons decided
according to § 70 para. 1 of the Constitutional Court to cancel the word "judges" in
§ 1 of the Act no. 416/2001 Coll., On withdrawal additional salary for the second half of 2001
and determine the amount of additional salaries for the first and second halves of 2002
representatives of state power and some state bodies, judges, prosecutors
, members of the Presidium of the securities Commission, representatives | || Ombudsman and members of the Bank Board of the Czech national Bank for
conflict with Art. 1. 1 in conjunction with Art. 82 para. 1 of the Constitution of the CR and Art. 1
paragraph. 1 of the Charter, and the date of publication in the Collection of Laws.

Chairman of the Constitutional Court:

JUDr. Holeček vr

According to § 14 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll., On the Constitutional Court, as amended
, took the decision of the plenum dissenting opinions
judges JUDr. Vojen Güttler, Mgr. Miloš Holeček, Mgr. Paul
Varvařovský and lawyer. Miloslav Vyborny.