On The Proposal To Annul Part Of § 3 Para. 3 Of The Act No. 236/1995 Coll.

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zrušení části § 3 odst. 3 zákona č. 236/1995 Sb.

Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=82435&nr=161~2F2014~20Sb.&ft=txt

161/2014 Coll.
FINDINGS


Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic


Constitutional Court decided under ref. Nos. Pl. US 28/13 of 10 July 2014
plenary Court composed of the Chairman Pavel Rychetsky and judges
Louis David, Jaroslav FENYK, John Philip Vlasta Formánková, Ivana Janu,
Vladimir crust Musil, Vladimir Sládečka, Radovan Suchanek, Šimáčková
Catherine, St. Adalbert Šimíček, Tomkova Milady (
judge rapporteur) and Jiri Zemanek on the proposal of the Municipal court in Brno
filed under Art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic to annul words | || "2,75násobek" in § 3 par. 3 of Law no. 236/1995 Coll., on
salary and other indemnities associated with the duties
representatives of state power and some state bodies and judges and Members of the European
Parliament, amended by Act no. 11/2013 Coll., and Art. II, in the first
Act no. 11/2013 Coll., amending Act no. 236/1995 Coll., on | || salary and other indemnities associated with the duties
representatives of state power and some state bodies and judges and Members of the European Parliament
, as amended, and certain other laws, as
participation of the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament
and the Senate of the Czech Parliament as parties

Follows:

I. The provisions contained in § 3 para. 3 of the Act no. 236/1995 Coll., On salary and other terms
associated with the duties
representatives of state power and some state bodies and judges and Members of the European Parliament
, last as amended by Act no. 11/2013 Coll., expressed
word "2,75násobek" with respect to the judges of district, regional and high
courts, the Supreme court and the Supreme administrative court to cancel the expiration date
31 December 2014.

II. The remainder of the proposal is rejected.
Reason


I.

Definition matter and recapitulation draft

First Constitutional Court on 24 May 2013 received a petition from the Municipal Court in Brno
to cancel the word "2,75násobek" in § 3 par. 3
Act no. 236/1995 Coll., On salary and other indemnities associated
duties with representatives of state power and some state bodies and
judges and Members of the European Parliament, amended by Act no. 11/2013 Coll
., and the provisions of Article II of the first part of Act no. 11/2013 Coll ., which
amends Act no. 236/1995 Coll., on salary and other terms
associated with the office of representatives of state power and some
state bodies and judges and Members of the European Parliament, as amended || | amended, and certain other laws, along with a proposal to
preferential decisions in this matter pursuant to § 39 Act no. 182/1993
Coll., on the Constitutional court, as amended by Act no. 48/2002 Coll.

Second Municipal Court in Brno filed the petition under § 64 par. 3 of Law no.
182/1993 Coll., On the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter
"the Constitutional Court Act"), and after in connection with its decision
activities in accordance with Art. 95 para. 2 of the constitutional Act of the Czech national Council
no. 1/1993 Coll., Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter "Constitution") || | concluded that

. § 3 par. 3 of Law no. 236/1995 Coll., as amended by Act no.
11/2013 Coll., in the word "2,75násobek" and

. the provisions of the first part of Article II of the Act no. 11/2013 Coll.

Which are to be used in resolving the matter file. Ref. 50 C 22/2012 used are in conflict with Article
. 1. 1 in conjunction with Art. 81 and Art. 82 para. 1 of the Constitution, Article
. 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter") and Art. 1
Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(hereinafter "the Protocol").

Third In that case, sp. Ref. 50 C 22/2012 the Municipal Court in Brno
deciding on a complaint that the judge of the Regional Court in Brno seeks
against the Czech Republic - Regional Court in Brno payment of the amounts given
difference between the plaintiff's claim for salary within the meaning of § 28-31 of the Act no.
236/1995 Coll., on salary and other compensation related to performance
office of representatives of state power and some state bodies and judges and
MEPs, as amended regulations (hereafter
"Act no. 236/1995 Coll.," or "law on salaries") and claims
multipurpose lump sum compensation expenses (hereinafter referred to as "reimbursement of expenses") within the meaning
§ 32 par. 1 point. a) Act no. 236/1995 Coll., and according to the original

Statement of claim in January 2012, and according to its extension and for January and February
2013 and the actual paid salary and expenses, which were
relation to the period between January and February 2013 according to the Law no. 11 / 2013 Sb.
reduced with effect from 1 January 2013.

Fourth With reference to the applicant's contention in that case the petitioner
specifically states that in January 2013 the applicant has not paid the full salary of 105
CZK 800 and a reimbursement of expenses in the amount of CZK 4,100, on what should
entitled not to reduce the salary and reimbursement of expenses by Act no. 11/2013 Coll.
Applicants were paid salary only 90,600 CZK and expenses only
CZK 3 500, a difference of salary and reimbursement of expenses in the sum represents the defendant
amount of CZK 15,800. The same applies to February 2013.

Fifth The petitioner in the Constitutional Court considered the proposal in this regard
further refers to § 3 par. 3 of Law no. 236/1995 Coll., As amended
Act no. 11/2013 Coll., Under which newly makes a base salary
from 1 January to 31 December of the calendar year 2,75násobek
average nominal monthly wages of individuals in the public sector reached
according to data released by the Czech statistical Office (hereinafter referred mainly
"CSO") for the last calendar year, the amount of the base salary for
respective calendar year, the Ministry of Labour and social Affairs
in the Official Gazette notice. This statement was published in the Official Gazette on 22
1, 2013 under no. 18/2013 Coll. and a base salary of judges for the 2013
determined amount of CZK 62 856.75.

6th In relation to the alleged unconstitutionality of the aforementioned provisions
petitioner then presented this to the Constitutional Court following arguments. First
attacked defects on the legislative process and objected inadmissible
retroactivity of Law no. 11/2013 Coll. Subsequently presented this general
constitutional arguments, constitutional arguments for specific
examination of the case, the economic arguments presented and described developments
salary limitations regarding judges.

7th The petitioner initially protested that they were not satisfied reasons for declaring emergency legislation
chairwoman of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
(hereinafter "Chamber of Deputies") specified in § 99 of Act No.
. 90/1995 Coll., On the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, as amended
amended (hereinafter the "Rules of Procedure"). The petitioner introduction
recapitulated that the Constitutional Court judgment file. Nos. Pl. US 33/11 of 3
May 2012 (N 95/65 SbNU 259; 181/2012 Coll.) Set aside the word "2.5 times"
in § 3 para. 3 of the Act no. 236/1995 Coll ., as amended by Act no. 425/2010 Coll.
expiry on 31 December 2012, after the government submitted
Chamber of Deputies amendment to Act no. 236/1995 Coll. as publication no. 763 of 30
July 2012. According to the petitioner, however, was hardly the proposal
considered a government bill in the sense of Art. 41 of the Constitution, because
this proposal could not be approved without further ( It was presented in five
variants) with a comprehensive amendment to it on 12 December 2012
rejected. Government responded on 14 December 2012, a
Chamber of Deputies a draft amendment to § 3 para. 3 of Law no. 236/1995
Coll., The amount of the salary base established as 2,75násobek
average wage in the public sector ( print no. 880). This proposal was discussed
emergency legislation and approved by the Chamber of Deputies on 18 December 2012
(in the Collection of Laws as the Law no. 11/2013 Coll.
Published on January 17, 2013) with effect modified in the fourth part of Article V
1 January 2013. in the explanatory memorandum to print no. 880
government literally stated that print no. 763 "perceived primarily as a legislative
carrier for solutions to emerge from the general political consensus ".
The petitioner argues that the government in such a serious matter, such as determining the salary of judges
not acted constitutionally because it failed to timely proper
draft law that would legislature could discuss timely manner. Subsequent use
institute emergency legislation then was his abuse arising from poor
proposal submitted as a print no. 763. Consideration of the draft Law
emergency legislation can be a tool for laxity
executive power. Another petitioner's opposition is directed against the fact that
although subject to legislation, the amount of judges' salaries, not
amendment of Act promulgated under no. 11/2013 Coll. with justice

Discussed, therefore the judiciary had no opportunity during the preparation
decision of the government to defend its position. In this regard, the petitioner
states that the Constitutional Court on this issue once took an alarming
opinion, in judgment file. Nos. Pl. US 12/10 of 7 September 2010 (N 188/58
SbNU 663; 269/2010 Coll.), But did not live to by the petitioner
Law no reflection.

8th The petitioner also addressed the issue of retroactivity of the law no. 11/2013 Coll
. Under Part Four of Article V of the Act no. 11/2013 Coll.
law should come into force on 1 January 2013. In the Collection of Laws
law was published on 17 January 2013. The petitioner believes that, in accordance with the provisions
§ 3 para. 3 of Law no. 309 / 1999 Coll., on the Collection of laws and Collection of international
contracts entered into law no. 11/2013 Coll.
effectiveness of the fifteenth day after its publication, ie. on 1 February 2013. This is the conclusion reached
According to the petitioner, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, which
alerted the Ministry of Justice on this fact and the need to divert
social security premiums from the reimbursement of costs for
January 2013. There has therefore been a situation where January 1, 2013 has not been determined
salary basis for setting judges' salaries. This situation then falls
Article II of the first part of Act no. 11/2013 Coll., Which stipulates that the salary
base under this Act shall be applied first to determine the salary and
reimbursement for the month of January 2013. this adjustment does not appellant
with one that would


Favorem in the judiciary retroactively, thus retroactively confer certain benefits, but
considers that it is a modification restrictive, and thus impermissibly retroactive
.

9th Substantive justification of the unconstitutionality of the contested statutory provisions
derived from the petitioner recap
relevant decisions of the Constitutional Court concerning various aspects of physical security
judges. In his opinion, it contains the following basic tenets:

- Assessing the constitutionality of salary limitations regarding judges
for a specific period of the year falls within the framework defined by the principle of judicial independence
[Constitutional Court decision. Nos. Pl. US 55/05 of 16
January 2007 (N 9/44 SbNU 103; 65/2007 Coll.), Paragraph 49]

- The constitutional position of judges on the one hand, and representatives of legislative and executive
, especially the government, on the other hand
because of the principle of separation of powers and the principle of independence of judges differs
implying i different layout space for the legislature to pay
restrictions on judges in comparison with the layout space for such
restrictions in other areas of the public sector (Constitutional court decision.
Nos. Pl. US 55/05, paragraph 49) ,

- Interference in the material security of judges guaranteed by law can not be
expression of arbitrariness by the legislature, but must be based on the principle of proportionality
, justified by extraordinary circumstances, eg.
The difficult financial situation of the state, where even meet this condition must be taken into account
different function of judges and representatives of the legislative and executive
, especially the state administration; such interference may not create grounds for
concerns as to whether the restrictions affect the dignity of judges, for example. unless
expression of constitutionally unacceptable pressure by the legislative and executive branches on
judicial branch (Constitutional Court decision. Nos. Pl . US 55/05, paragraph 49)

- The principle of an independent judiciary is one of the essential
democratic rule of law within the meaning of Art. 9 Sec. 2 of the Constitution (
ruling of the Constitutional Court. Nos. Pl. US 55/05, paragraph 50) | ||
- Arbitrary interference by the legislature in the material security of judges,
in that context and limitations on compensation, to be within the scope protected by the principle of independence
subsumed two reasons. The independence of judges is
primarily conditioned on their moral integrity and professional level, but also
is closely connected with the appropriate material security.
The second reason downshift prohibition of arbitrary interference in the material security of judges
(salary restrictions) within the framework of the principle of independence
exclude the possibility, pressure by the legislative
respectively. executive on judicial decision-making. In other words, eliminate arbitrary
interference in the material security of judges as a possible form
"penalization" of judges by the legislative and executive, and thus also forms
pressure on their decision [Constitutional Court decision. Nos. Pl. US

43/04 of 14 July 2005 (N 139/38 SbNU 59; 354/2005 Coll.)]

- 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 he judges' salaries seem too high
comparison with the salaries of civil servants or
compared with another professional group. Striving for such equality deviates from
constitutionality, it is a political objective that has no support in the constitutionally understood principle of equality
[Constitutional Court decision. Nos. Pl.
US 11/02 of 11 June 2003 (N 87/30 SbNU 309; 198/2003 Coll.)]

- As another form of wage restraint is to be regarded as the freezing
law anticipated revenue growth judges or other constitutional
officials, with eg. "Permanent" pay freeze Constitutional Court would undoubtedly
assessed as a step constitutionally inadmissible.
Emoluments of the judges in the wider sense, should be a stable,
unless there are quite exceptional and extraordinary circumstances the State [
judgment of the Constitutional Court. Nos. Pl. US 13/08 of 2 March 2010 (N 36/56
SbNU 405; 104/2010 Coll.), Paragraph 41; similarly finding sp. Nos. Pl. US 55/05, paragraph 55
]

- As a significant element of the guarantee of adequate material security of judges
terms of the principle of separation of state powers into legislative, executive and judicial
requirement and their mutual balance must be considered as well
direct link between the salary of representatives of the legislative
and powerful on one side and the salary of judges on the other. Construction of the Law on salaries
representatives of state power with a uniform salary base and
statutory factors ensures that along with increased salaries
representatives of legislative and executive power in the same proportion
automatically raises and salaries judges, represents an important, legal order
built-in fuse, the ratio of material support
representatives of the various branches of power will be maintained in the future (
ruling of the Constitutional court. Nos. Pl. US 55/05, point 59).

10th The petitioner further states that these theses are also contained in many other
Constitutional Court judgment relating to salary restrictions
against judges. It recalls that these propositions generalizing the Constitutional Court
also volunteered in its Judgment. Nos. Pl. US 12/10 and its
final judgment concerning the salary restrictions judges, ie. In finding
sp. Nos. Pl. US 33/11.

11th For that last Constitutional Court judgment. Nos. Pl. US 33/11
even chooses the next two general theses:

- Judicial salaries and wages, unlike other servants of the state
after a long period with the following intended perspective
subject only to restrictions. Measures in relation to them is then no longer appears as
exceptional and proportional, but as a deliberate process leading to the judges' salaries
returned to lower levels, and therefore to take this opportunity to remove from the standpoint
legislative and executive power in the past made a "mistake"
in establishing rules for the calculation of judges' salaries in the mid-90th
20th century. Such leveling then in its consequences inevitably leads
well as the descent of the judiciary within
middle social strata, its revenues degradation in relation to other legal professions, and
umenšování the necessary social prestige,

- Restrictions contained in the reduction coefficient for determining the salary base
value of three times to 2.5 times the average nominal monthly wage
individuals in the public sector constitutes disproportionate and
only against judges focused intervention, does not meet the the conditions imposed on acceptance of restrictions
salaries of judges, the Constitutional court has set in already outlined
jurisprudence.

12th From another finding of the Constitutional Court, which does not apply to pay
restrictions regarding judges, it also recalls the conclusions stated in the judgment
sp. Nos. Pl. US 22/09 of 7 September 2010 (N 186/58 SbNU 633; ​​
309/2010 Coll.), Paragraph 40:

"Unlike the legislative and the executive is to judge put a clear requirement
completed higher education, the professional
judicial examinations and continuing professional education.
Unmistakable demand to judge their moral integrity, which requires and presupposes
law. The position of judge is also associated with many
restrictive measures which interfere with the personal lives of judges, including restrictions

Ancillary revenues - is why the State is committed to Justice dignity materially
secure. "

13th In favor of the conclusion on the unconstitutionality of the contested statutory provisions
Municipal Court in Brno refers to a number of international
documents. In the first place points to recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
dated 17 November 2010 Judges CM / Rec (2010) 12
(http://www.coe.int), which replaced the earlier Recommendation R (94 ). 12 Of
Articles 53-55 relating to the remuneration of judges, that:

- Remuneration of judges should reflect their role and responsibilities and be
sufficient level

- In sickness and maternity should be ensured by maintaining a reasonable amount
their remuneration

- Board of judges should be reasonable in relation to the earlier salary

- There should be a special provision to prevent reducing
judges' salaries.

14th Among the other international documents petitioner notes the report
European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission)
received on 12 to 13 March 2010 (http://www.venice.coe.int) | || that in part III, Article 6 states: "the Venice Commission is of the opinion that
financial evaluation of judges must correspond with the dignity of their profession and that
adequate evaluation is a prerequisite for protection
judges from unwanted external influences - the above evaluation should be
set with regard to the social situation in the country and compared with the rate
ranking senior officials. "Finally, in a comparative analysis
argues the conclusions of the Advisory Committee of judges in the activities of the Council of Europe
2001, which in its opinion no. 1 (Avis No. 1, No. points.
61 and 62) emphasizes the need for such legal provisions that
will prevent the reduction of judges' salaries and to ensure that the actual increase || | salaries so as to maintain their value in relation to the cost of living
(http://wcd.coe.int/).

15th The petitioner approached the constitutional arguments
relevant for the assessment of the case, mentioned briefly on developments
remuneration of judges, referring to the justification for the proposals in matters sp. Nos. Pl. US
16/11 [decision finding sp. Nos. Pl. US 16/11 dated August 2, 2011 (N 135/62
SbNU 99; 267/2011 Coll.)] And sp. Nos. Pl. US 33/11, in which time
Municipal Court in Brno analyzed in detail the dismantling of the system of remuneration
constitutional factors contained in the Act no. 236/1995 Coll. There can, according to him
characterized as an effort in relation to judges to reduce their salary level
dozens of interventions in the components of security.
Particularly recalled the conclusions contained in the Constitutional Court judgment no. Nos. Pl.
US 33/11, in which he gave the petitioner right in stating that it was unconstitutional
affected the rights of judges by reducing the wage base of
three times the average wage in the public sector at 2.5 times. The so sharp
interference in the remuneration of judges, the Constitutional Court found no reason
( "restriction - a disproportionate and focused only on judges
hit -"). The petitioner believes that the Constitutional Court in this judgment
lawmakers did not create any space for the account, which borders the base salary
is constitutional. In the case file. Nos. Pl. US 33/11, according to him
judged by the Constitutional Court only two boundaries, which directed all
petitioner's arguments: that the reduction of the wage base
three times to 2.5 times for the situation that was in the area of ​​remuneration | || in the public sphere, in relation to judges disproportionate, and thus unconstitutional, because
judges enjoy in this respect increased constitutional protection.
Only a constitutional measure therefore feels that the petitioner was to return
amount of base salary tripled.

16th However, the legislature on January 1, 2013 failed to adopt legislation that would guarantee
judiciary realization of the right to physical security
; up to a month apart retroactively reduced the already achieved
salary base on 2,75násobek average wage in the public sector.
The petitioner believes that the only possible interpretation of constitutional issues, which belonged judges
salary on 1 January 2013 and throughout January 2013, is one
which is used as the basis of Constitutional Court decision. Nos. Pl.
US 33/11 and infer that the judges belonged to a salary equal to the salary base in
equal to three times the average wage in the public sector for 2011
(because it was a level which the Constitutional Court considered conformal).

Government, as the reduction base on 2,75násobek (print no. 880)
according to the Municipal Court in Brno did not nothing relevant, merely that
return to triple would put high demands on the resources of the state budget
in 2013 and in following years, ie. the period when applying
austerity measures in practically all population groups.

17th To support its claims, the offeror and economic arguments.
Particular, said that data from the Czech Statistical Office reveals that
average wage in the public sector called upon. FTE (Table 1b
as a supplement to the publication of the Czech Statistical Office no. E-3106-12 with
called "Registered employees and their wages Q4 2012"
published on April 2, 2013) nominally in 2000-2012 did not drop at all
(2011 stated figure 24 469 CZK, for the year
2012 figure of 25 015 CZK). To natural persons (a figure misleading because it ignores
length of time jobs) between 2009 and 2010, the average wage in the public sector
fell by CZK 36 and between 2010 and 2011 by 42 CZK, in
2012 has been increased to 23 453 CZK (ie. an increase of CZK 455). These
marginal fluctuations in the direction of decline, then legislation fully reflects
that monitors the status of the base salary of the average wage in the public sector and
toward decline, ie. that the Czech Republic is probably one of
few countries where judges' salaries fall proportionately decrease in salaries in the public sector
automatically. At the same time this adjustment does not take all of
consideration by the legislature. Reasons for far more substantial decline in the level of remuneration of judges and
still remain obscure, or endure
constitutional light. In fact, according to the petitioner is a
long effort to reduce the relative remuneration of judges in the country, however
judges' salaries can not be regarded neither as an international comparison
divorced from reality. Final state budget for 2011, published on the website of the Ministry of Finance
states in section | i |. State budget expenditure
chapter 3 "Utilization of wages in the budget sector" that
In 2011 there was an increase in the salaries of teaching staff in regional education
EUR 1 554.4 miles. CZK, while in terms of
number of employees in the central organs (tab. 52), a decrease of 676 employees in the growth
vacant job positions from 6,209 in 2010 to 14,745
in 2011. the petitioner in this situation does not see any
adequacy reduce the base salary of judges by almost 12%.
Disseminated media reports, according to him, moreover, indicated that the central authorities
government, despite the claimed savings are still allocated
pay hundreds of thousands of crowns.

18th The petitioner therefore its substantive arguments conclude that
considers the word 2,75násobek specified in § 3 par. 3 of Law no.
236/1995 Coll., As amended by Act no. 11/2013 Coll., As
unconstitutional due to conflict above this multiple law judges on a stable material
security. In the case of a proposed cancellation of the first part of Article II
Act no. 11/2013 Coll. then to conflict with the right of judges to the material
security approaches yet another reason for violating the ban
retroactivity of the law. Based on the above given
therefore found the provisions inconsistent with Art. 1. 1 in conjunction with Art. 81 and Art. 82 para. 1
Constitution, Art. 1 of the Charter and Art. 1 of the Protocol.

19th The petitioner adds that the provisions of § 70 para. 1 of the Constitutional Court
suggests that if there is the Constitutional Court concluded that the law or its
individual provisions are inconsistent with constitutional law, finding decides
that such a law or its individual provisions are deleted
day, which in the judgment determined. The petitioner is of the opinion that the Constitutional Court should
if granting the petition lawmakers to establish
relatively short deadline for the adoption of new regulations, which will be in line with supporting reasons
expressed in the judgment. In other words, the date of annulment of the contested provisions
that the Constitutional Court must be in accordance with § 70 para. 1 of the Constitutional Court in its judgment to determine
should be designed so that on the one hand, the legislator had some space
the adoption of new regulations, but on the other hand
order to avoid unnecessary delays in the adoption of new legislation.
It is generally known that the legislature has long been aware of the existence of many
Constitutional Court judges regarding salary restrictions and that

Issue is known to him in detail. The legislature is able to adjust the new legislation
take in a relatively very short time, which indeed proved
even if the contested Act no. 11/2013 Coll., Which was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies
Government on 14 December 2012
the Chamber of Deputies approved the draft on 18 December 2012, the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
(hereinafter the "Senate") discussed the proposal on 28 December 2012 and that same day
been approved law delivered to the President for signature. Additionally, the deadline is extended
legislators to adopt new legislation is granted, the longer it takes
unconstitutional situation.

20th The petitioner simultaneously proposed that the Constitutional Court in accordance with § 39
Law on the Constitutional Court ruled on the petition, preferably, with
argument repeated interference by the legislature in the direction of restrictions
salaries of judges, their intensity, as well as general the impact of the ruling in the case
high number of complaints of judges to supplement the salary and reimbursement of expenses for January 2013.


II.

Recap substantial parts of the parties' observations

21st According to § 42 para. 4 and § 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, he sent
Constitutional Court the petition to express the parties. Within the prescribed period
observations sent to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. The Public Defender of Rights
letter delivered to the Constitutional Court on 10 June 2013 announced that
its right to accede to the control exercised. Likewise letter doručným
Constitutional Court on 22 July 2013 the government did.

22nd In its statement of 3 July 2013 President of the Chamber of Deputies Miroslava Nemcova
stated that the draft law, which was later announced as
Act no. 11/2013 Coll., The Government submitted to the Chamber of Deputies on 14
. December 2012 and was distributed to the deputies as publication no.
880th Content of the proposal, as the government in the explanatory memorandum states, in response to
Constitutional Court promulgated under no. 181/2012 Coll. (Sp. Nos. Pl. US 33/11
), which is the expiration on 31 December 2012 repealing the general regulation
above the salary basis set out in § 3 para. 3 of the Act no. 236/1995 Coll., | || determination of the new pay structure for determining the pay and some
reimbursement of expenses, and a multiple of 2.75 at the average nominal monthly wage
individuals in the public sector reached
according to published data of the Czech statistical Office for the last calendar year. In the explanatory memorandum
Government further stated that reducing the salary base for the session
average wage in the public sector from three times to 2.5 times, the
occurred since January 1, 2011 Act no. 425/2010 Coll. , called
Constitutional court for compensation as regards judges, which is contrary to Art. 1
paragraph. 1 in conjunction with Art. 82 para. 1 of the Constitution. Return to triple
would put high demands on funds from the state budget in 2013 and in future years
ie. The period in which they are applied austerity measures
virtually all population groups. For a reasonable solution, especially
due to the current economic situation and the state budget,
because the government considers the determination of a session of the base salary of the average wage in the public sector
amounting multiple of 2.75. Also, as the government
explanatory memorandum states, the proposed solution is based on the assumption that
Constitutional Court canceled a session of the base salary of the average wage in the public sector
amounting to 2.5 times is too low, but
while the Constitutional court at the discretion of the legislative and executive
, at what level it stipulates. If the Constitutional Court
base salary calculated by multiplying the numbers 2.5
found to be unconstitutional, and the logic then the original base salary calculated multiple
numeral 3 as safely constitutional, then for a compromise solution was chosen
determining multiple numeral 2.75, ie mid
extreme solutions. Regarding Art. II of the bill's explanatory memorandum states that
Constitutional Court annulled the expiry on 31 December 2012 the amount of salary
base in the general arrangements (ie. For all judges, including judges of the Constitutional Court
, as well as representatives of legislative and executive power) and
without making appropriate changes to the provisions of § 3 para. 3 of the Act no. 236/1995 Coll
. become inapplicable. In a separate section of the explanatory memorandum
regarding Article II thus emphasized that the newly established above
wage base used to determine salaries and compensation expenses for the full

Month of January 2013, even in the event that the promulgation in the Collection of Laws
occurred during this month, for reasons of legal certainty.

23rd On the proposal of the government declared President Chamber of Deputies
state of legislative emergency. The proposal was assigned for discussion
Budget Committee, which discussed it and released on 18 December 2012 a resolution in which it recommended
Chamber of Deputies, the bill submitted by the government
approved, has discussed it in the general debate, only
detailed debate, discuss it in the Tuesday, December 18 to 19 hours and
adopted a resolution according to which the meaning of § 99 par. 7 of the Rules of Procedure
waives general debate. On the same day the Chamber of Deputies during
consideration of the Bill by the number of votes of 168 deputies registered
160 for and 3 against approved a resolution that states that continue to exist
conditions for discussing the bill in summary consideration.
Budget Committee resolution was then adopted by a number of votes from the present 161
133 deputies in favor and 2 against. In the detailed debate on the bill were
submitted two amendments, of which the draft MEP Jana Dried,
which in Article I of the bill replacing the word "2,75násobek"
word "3X" has not received the number of votes 106 deputies registered
24 for and 32 against. Deputies after the final vote in favor
agreement with the government draft of the number of votes registered 99 deputies
80 for and 8 against. Deputies transmitted on 19 December 2012
bill to the Senate, which discussed it at its meeting on 28 December
2012, when his determination to deal with the bill.
President signed the Act on 11 January 2013. On 15 January 2013 the law was approved
delivered for signature by the Prime Minister and in the Official Gazette
Act was promulgated on 17 January 2013.

24th According to the President of the Chamber of Deputies, we note that the proposal
Municipal Court in Brno contested parts of Act no. 236/1995 Coll.
Amended by Act no. 11/2013 Coll., Were adopted after a properly conducted
the legislative process and that the legislative assembly acted in the belief that
these provisions are in accordance with the Constitution and our legal order.
It is therefore up to the Constitutional Court, in connection with the petition
Municipal Court in Brno evaluate the constitutionality of the provisions and issued
appropriate decision.

25th Senate chairman Milan Stech sent to the Constitutional Court
statement that the Constitutional Court received on 24 June 2013. The proposal
Act, which was promulgated after its adoption in the Collection of Laws under no. 11/2013 Coll
., the Government submitted to the Chamber of Deputies on December 14
2012 after the final vote has not been approved
previous draft law submitted by the government at the end of July 2012 and which was discussed
as Parliamentary print no. 763 . the Chamber of Deputies was
draft Act is being discussed as Parliamentary print no. 880 in the state of legislative emergency
that a government proposal announced
President of the Chamber of Deputies for the period from 17 December 2012 until 21 December 2012. Government
bill was approved together with amendments, which were supplemented by
treatment based on the fact that the relevant laws governing insurance
on social security insurance and public health insurance were
circuit taxable income insurance reimbursement of expenses dropped
provided a percentage of the base salary of representatives of state power and
some state bodies and judges.

26th The Senate bill was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies on 19
December 2012, with the government through its chairman requested
President of the Senate, the Senate debated the bill in summary consideration.
The bill was debated as Senate no. 10, was assigned for discussion
three committees, namely the Committee for Economy, Agriculture and Transport
, the Committee on Health and Social Policy Committee
ústavně- rule. Committee on National Economy, Agriculture and Transport as
guarantee committee discussed the bill at its third meeting held on 28
December 2012 in its resolution no. 18 recommended that the Senate bill
to pursue. Committee on Health and Social Policy bill
discussed at its 3rd meeting held on 28 December 2012 and after
gained support for the proposal to pass the Bill in the present text,
committee in its resolution no. 6 recommended that the Senate bill must be rejected.

Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs discussed the bill at its fourth meeting on
27th December 2012 after the proposal gained support
not to discuss the bill, the committee in its resolution no. 14 recommended that the Senate
present the bill to return the Chamber of Deputies with amendments
proposals adopted by the committee. The purpose of the amendments was total
change bill ceded to the Chamber of Deputies, based on what
to the Act no. 236/1995 Coll. in § 3 par. 3, the amount of base salary
set at three times the average monthly nominal
wages, the changes were based on the fact that the judges at the Constitutional Court
used force base salary for judges and
to the draft Act changes were omitted by way of amendments
related to income subject to social insurance
security and health insurance premiums.

27th The Senate has discussed the bill at its 3rd meeting on 28
December 2012, with the introduction of its negotiations with the assent
requests the Government to conduct an abbreviated. After a presentation by a representative
promoters and Reporter of the Committee, which was referred the Bill for consideration, with
under § 107 of Act no. 107/1999 Coll., On the Senate Rules of Procedure,
without debate, voted on a draft Recommendation guarantee Committee to the Senate
expressed willingness to discuss the bill. The Senate this proposal
assent its resolution no. 50, which for this resolution of the 74 senators present voted
57 and 11 were against.
The discussion of the draft bill in committee may be noted that the bill was quite
extensive debate, which resulted in the relevant committees
to different conclusions as set out in the resolutions adopted by the committee.
By the petitioner was the proposed adjustment of the salary base reported,
that the Government's view, the proposed change in line with the Constitutional Court
, which was also stated in the explanatory memorandum, and were referred to
temporal aspects arising from the rejection of the previous government's draft
bill in the Chamber of Deputies, the result of which was necessary
a shorter meetings. These arguments petitioner number of senators said
different opinion, especially in the constitutional law committee, which raised objections
secondly in terms of meeting the conditions of a state of legislative emergency
, partly objections to the proposed amount of the wage base in relation to
judges, which were expressed opinions that, in accordance with the Constitutional court would
judges should be in the law preserves the original finish
expressed by the word "three times", and concerns have also been modified so that
It was in the government's draft by way of amendments adopted
in the Chamber of Deputies in relation to premiums.
Committee for Health and Social Policy objections of some senators have led to
resolution rejecting the draft law, the constitutional law committee
then led to the adoption of amendments that would certainly be consistent with the findings
Constitutional court. In the Committee on Economy, Agriculture and Transport
, which was a guarantee committee, however, received support arguments that
were also mentioned in the explanatory memorandum to the government bill, dovozující,
it is a compromise solution that would the possible future constitutional test
conformity to succeed, and on that basis were all present
senators passed a resolution recommending that the Senate bill is
pursue. This resolution was subsequently adopted by the Senate, so
full Senate on the bill was not passed debate.

III.

Waiving hearing

28th The Constitutional Court saw that a hearing would not bring significant shift in the
clarify things than what follows from the written acts of participants
management. With regard to § 44 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended after the amendment
by Act no. 404/2012 Coll., No need to inquire participants
management for their stance on this issue, because it was possible in the case || | decide without holding a hearing.

IV.
Wording of the contested provisions


29th § 3 par. 3 of Law no. 236/1995 Coll., As amended by Act no.
11/2013 Coll., Provides: base salary is from January 1 to December 31 of the calendar year 2,75násobek
average nominal monthly wages
natural persons in the public sector achieved according to published data of the Czech

Statistical Office for the last calendar year.
Amount of the salary base for the calendar year, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs
in the Official Gazette notice.

30th Of Part I. Art. II of Act no. 11/2013 Coll. reads:


Transitional provisions
Base salary under this Act shall be applied first to determine
salary and reimbursement of expenses for the month of January 2013.

V.

Locus standi of the appellant

31st The proposal to repeal part of the Act no. 236/1995 Coll.
and transitional provisions incorporated into the first part of Act no. 11/2013 Coll.
together with a proposal for the preferred resolution of the case in accordance with § 39 of the Law on the Constitutional Court
was filed with the Municipal Court in Brno under § 64 par. 3
Law on the Constitutional Court.

32nd Municipal Court in Brno under file. Ref. 50 C 22/2012 conducting the proceedings in which
judge of the Regional Court in Brno seeks against the Czech Republic - Regional Court in Brno
payment of the amount of the difference between the plaintiff's claim for
salary and a lump sum compensation expenses , according to the extension of the claim for
January and february 2013, and the actual paid salary and expenses, which were
in relation to the period between January and february 2013 Reduction Act no. 11/2013 Coll
. This statement makes the reduction for each month an amount totaling 15
800 CZK.

33rd The condition of locus standi of the court pursuant to § 64 par. 3 of the Law on the Constitutional Court
is that the statute, respectively.
its individual provisions of which annulment is sought, the subject of the proceedings, which constitutes
for consideration of the matter by the decision of the court grounds.
When assessing entitlement to supplement salary and reimbursement for the months of January and February
general court must apply § 3 para. 3 of the Act no. 236/1995 Coll.
Setting the amount of the salary base, including transitional provisions
determining when the first change in the wage base is manifest (Art. II
Act no. 11/2013 Coll.).

34th The Constitutional Court in its settled case
repeatedly took legal opinion, according to which an amendment to the legislation has no independent normative
existence, but becomes part of the amended legislation;
Amendment conceded assessment only in cases of objections to its
is unconstitutional because of the absence of norm or failure
constitutionally prescribed manner of its adoption, and release.
Period of this situation is when it is attacked by the transitional provisions
[see. Finding sp. Nos. Pl. US 6/13 dated 2 April 2013 (112/2013 Coll.)]
Normatively as this provision exists precisely and only as part
amending statute, part of the amended Act does not happen.

35th Locus standi of the appellant is therefore given.

VI.

Constitutionality of Jurisdiction and the Legislative Process

36th The Constitutional Court is in accordance with § 68 para. 2 of the
Constitutional Court in proceedings to review the standards required to assess whether the contested
law (its individual provisions) was adopted and issued within the bounds of constitutionally provided jurisdiction
a constitutionally prescribed manner.

37th From the Chamber of Deputies publication no. 880/0 (government bill)
stenographic reports and the observations of the parties, the Government Resolution no. 934 of
14 December 2012 (publicly available) and the President's decision
Chamber of Deputies no. 48 and 49 dated 14 December 2012 (available in
digital library of Deputies), it was found that the government
approved the petition submitted by the Minister of Labour and social Affairs
on December 14, 2012 Resolution no. 934, while simultaneously proposed
chairwoman of the Chamber of Deputies, to declare the period 17 to 21 December 2012
state of legislative emergency for the consideration of the government
bill and asked that the government's proposal was
shortened discussed in negotiations in the framework of the declared state of legislative emergency.
The Government asked the President of the Senate, the Senate debated a government
bill in summary consideration.

38th Chairwoman of the Chamber of Deputies announced the decision no. 48 dated
14th December 2012 for a period of 17 to 21 December 2012 the state of legislative emergency
, with the decision that justifies the request of Prime Minister
"extraordinary circumstances which are fundamentally threatened
fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens" . In its decision no. 49 on the same day decided that
Parliamentary Print no. 880 will be discussed in shortened negotiations (omitting
first reading), ordered the printing of the Budget Committee for consideration and

Set impassable deadline for submitting resolutions to 18
December 2012 until 10.00.

39th According to data from the digital repository of Deputies was print no. 880/0
circulated to Members of 14 December 2012; Budget Committee to him
opinion in its resolution (no. 880/1) of 18 December 2012, in which
recommended that the Chamber of Deputies discussed the proposal in general
debate and discuss it in December 18 2012 to 19.00.

40th The bill was discussed at the 49th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies on
18th December 2012 as item no. 164; at the beginning of Deputies (according
stenographic report) to assess whether the conditions exist for discussion
in shortened proceedings; In the debate on this issue none of the deputies
logged in voting no. 241, it was decided that there are still
conditions for discussing the government bill (print no. 880) in abbreviated
negotiations; 168 deputies were registered, 160 voted for, against third


41st Minister of Labour and Social Affairs as the reason for submitting a proposal
Act stated that "the government after it has been approved the previous proposal
solution - the amount of a base salary equal to the average multiple of 2.75
monthly nominal wages of individuals the public sector - by
this salary base should be from 1 January 2013 salaries determined only
judges and prosecutors also indirectly - I firmly believe that
submitted a government proposal will be approved, because otherwise you will not || | fixed for determining the salaries of judges and prosecutors
no wage base - ".

42nd After Deputies vote no. 242 (enrolled 161
133 for, 2 against) has decided to waive the general debate (in accordance with § 99 para.
7 of Law no. 90/1995 Coll., On the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies ).

43rd The detailed debate raised two amendments (MEP Jan
Čechlovský suggested to extend the government's proposal for the amendment of regulations
social security insurance and public health insurance so
to reimbursement of expenses provided by Law no. 236 / 1995 Sb.
not subject to premium payments, and MEP Jana Dry suggested that instead
multiple of 2.75 base salary was 3 times the average salary in the public sector
). Minister of Justice pointed out in the debate
Deputies of the risks associated with the adoption of the government's draft and
stated that he would be happy if it was accepted, "the so-called 3 times" that
would "undoubtedly constitutionally konformnější", and "maybe it was finally at peace
this issue." The first amendment was adopted (
exclusion of compensation expenses from insurance payments), the second - the return of the salary base for
tripled - not accepted.

44th The bill was adopted in a vote no. 245 (99
been registered deputies voted for 80, 8 against).

45th The Senate discussed the bill as a government publication no. 10;
Chamber of Deputies forwarded it to the Senate on December 19, 2012, the Senate press
ranked 3rd meeting on 28 December 2012; Minister of Labour and Social Affairs
during discussion in the Senate, according to the stenographic record indicated that
"submitted bill in the Chamber of Deputies discussed
state of legislative emergency, and found, therefore, that this is an extraordinary circumstance when the
a major threat to fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens, especially
ie citizens' right to a fair wage, so also the reason
emergency legislation ". Legal and Constitutional Affairs of the Senate in its resolution proposed
return the Bill to the Chamber of Deputies;
refused mouth of its President, who informed about the content of the committee's resolution,
interpretation that 2,75násobek determining base salary represents an increase
salaries of judges, with reference to the Constitutional Court decision. Nos. Pl. US 33/11
said that according to a binding ruling by the Constitutional Court to be
salaries of judges are derived from the base salary, which will be three times the average
salary in the public sector. Also highlighted the problematic condition
legislative emergency declared in his opinion, just because the government doesn't manage
present laws the way it should. Guarantee Committee, the committee
Economy, Agriculture and Transport, which suggested not to discuss the
Act. This proposal by the Senate in voting no. 4 adopted (resolution no.
50, registered 74 senators for Amendment 57, 11 against).

46th The Act was delivered to the President for signature Dec. 28, 2012,
president signed the law on January 11, 2013, for signature by the Prime Minister was

Delivered January 15, 2013, for publication in the Official Gazette on January 17
occurred in 2013 under no. 11/2013 Coll.

47th The petitioner argues that the institute emergency legislation was being misused
because the government was when submitting a proposal addressing
amount of the salary base for determining the salaries of judges unacceptably sluggish, and further emphasizes that
not debated before submitting Deputies with power
court. Finding sp. Nos. Pl. US 33/11 dated May 3, 2012 canceled the day
31st December 2012 provision under which should be a base salary for judges
unwound from 2.5 times the average monthly wage in the public sector
for the last calendar year. Although the government submitted on 30 July 2012
Deputies bill (print no. 763/0), which
should be amended Act no. 236/1995 Coll., Did so, however, means a rare
: submitted five variants of the wage base (from 2.51 after
3 times) and simultaneously proposed to cancel all variants freezing
salary base contained in § 3a of the Act no. 236/1995 Coll. To print no. 763/0
was given a comprehensive amendment deputy Vladislav
Vilímce that the base amount determined 2,75násobek
average monthly wage in the public sphere and assumed called for.
Representatives remunerated by Act no. 236/1995 Coll. between 2015 and 2016
gradual thaw their salary base (coefficients of 2.51 and 2.61).
Were also given some additional amendments that deal with taxation
reimbursement of expenses, the extension of the freeze salary base
representatives in 2015, but also a proposal to address the decline in the salaries of judges of the Constitutional Court
towards the salaries of judges of ordinary courts or higher salary base
unfolding from 3 times the average wage in the public sector.
Third reading of the draft took place on 12 December 2012, with the bill (as amended
comprehensive amendment) was adopted.

48th The Constitutional Court has no doubt that the contested act was adopted in the context of
constitutionally provided competence of Parliament; the answer to the question whether this
was also constitutionally prescribed manner, is not so obvious.

49th The Constitutional Court has in the past repeatedly
defects in the legislative process, including the declaration of a state of legislative emergency and
discussion of the draft bill in summary consideration dealt with; his views have evolved from large
restraint [eg. Finding sp. Nos. Pl. US 24/07 dated 31 January 2008
(N 26/48 SbNU 303; 88/2008 Coll.), Finding sp. Nos. Pl. US 56/05 of 27
March 2008 (N 60/48 SbNU 873; 257/2008 Coll.), Or finding sp. Nos. Pl. US
12/10 of 7 September 2010 (N 188/58 SbNU 663; 269/2010 Coll.)]
A vigorous reminder of the need to respect the principles of creating harmonious, transparent, and predictable
rights as one of the
attributes materially understood the rule of law [eg. Finding sp. Nos. Pl. US 55/10 of 1
March 2011 (N 27/60 SbNU 279; 80/2011 Coll.), Or finding sp. Nos. Pl. US
53/10 dated 19 April 2011 (N 75/61 SbNU 137; 119/2011 Coll.)].
Although the institute emergency legislation entirely legitimate institute, it is necessary
it unquestionably viewed from the perspective of the principles of separation of powers,
pluralism, free competition among political forces and parliamentary
protection of minorities. In its judgment. Nos. Pl. US 55/10, the Constitutional Court explained that the institute
declaring a state of legislative emergency, restricts or qualifies those mentioned
constitutional principles and must therefore be interpreted in terms of its use
restrictively. Condition for declaring a state of legislative emergency
is the existence of exceptional circumstances, which has the potential to undermine the fundamental rights and freedoms
fundamental way, or when the state faces serious economic damage
(§ 99 para. 1 of Law no. 90/1995 ., on the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies
). Conclusion on the existence of exceptional circumstances must be reasonable
basis and must be supported by facts, reasonableness
declaration of state of emergency legislation must then be weighed against lean also on the intensity
reasons for declaring a state of legislative emergency in relation to the restriction || | question of constitutional principles, as interest in the prevention or elimination of its consequences
should with regard to the values ​​protected in a particular case
outweigh the interest in the ordinary course of legislative procedures
(cf. paragraphs 84-85 of finding sp. Nos. Pl. US 55/10). It is also impossible to disregard
from the fact that the parliamentary practice this institute used -
as the Constitutional Court has in the past also pointed out - very often.


50th Declaring a state of legislative emergency was the President's decision
Chamber of Deputies no. 48 dated 14 December 2012
justified in essence, the wording of the Act ( "extraordinary circumstances which are fundamentally
compromising the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens") . Facts, however
can be reliably reconstructed from above administered survey
legislative process; reason for declaring a state of legislative emergency was the fact that
from 1 January 2013 did not exist in the law of the provisions from which it was possible to construct
salary judge (and subsequently to even
state representative) and the Chamber Chamber on 12 December 2012 rejecting print no. 763/0
who debated since July 31, 2012, following the annulment of the provisions of
base salary in Act no. 236/1995 Coll.
Constitutional Court (Judgment. Nos. Pl. US 33/11). The Constitutional Court gave lawmakers
seven months that the unconstitutional reduction of the wage base salary and session judge
to the average wage in the public sector
solved constitutionally consistent manner. The first error, which in principle is most likely
triggered a chain of events which culminated
rejection of the proposals contained in the print no. 763/0, committed government
which in this press failed in the material sense proposal
Act, which could have been approved by the Chamber of Deputies, but -
as she stated in the explanatory memorandum to the government bill brought by
14th December 2012 - "support for the solution to emerge from the general political consensus."
After rejecting "support" the government within two days (during which certainly missed
commenting procedure, let alone discussions with representatives from the judiciary, which must be at
current state of affairs considered tops of the judicial system, namely the Supreme
court and Supreme administrative court) submitted to the Chamber of Deputies a new proposal
(print no. 880/0), coupled with a request for publication
state of legislative emergency. At this time "over" (31 December
had only 17 days) had to discuss the bill
two chambers of Parliament utmost signatures of the President and the Prime Minister and
law must be promulgated. No wonder that it failed completely, although
even this time "sufficient" to complete the proposal for the amendment of regulations governing
premium payments for social security and public health insurance
- this part of the Act, however, the petitioner has not made || | subject of its opposition and not so probably could not do with regard to
subject of the proceedings, and therefore the Constitutional court leaves aside (
law was finally promulgated in the Official Gazette January 17, 2013).

51st If the ratio of the intensity of the Constitutional Court of the reasons for declaring a state of legislative emergency
(judges are entitled to remuneration, as indeed
stated Minister of Labour and Social Affairs in discussing the proposal in the Senate
) with a focus on sound and quality legislative procedure, shall
say that in that time the situation was the only way to
try to ensure that judges are not left since January 1, 2013, without remuneration for their work
. You also can not overlook the fact that when the consultation begins printing
no. 880 out of 168 registered deputies voted 160 (more than
three-fifths majority of all deputies) to the conclusion that the conditions exist
for consideration of the bill in summary consideration.
However be argued that in four days could Deputies properly on the proposal
consider, you can not ignore the fact that the relevant topic discussed by the House
31 July 2012 as publication no. 763, so that MPs || | were very well informed about the nature and character of the legislation
whose only ambition was to be a replacement coefficient of 2.5
another, a constitutional, as laid out in its judgment. Nos. Pl.
US 33/11, the Constitutional Court, if the coefficient of 2.5 in its decision eliminated from the law. Similarly
was enormous time pressure the Senate, which was to discuss the draft
10 days including Christmas.

52nd The Constitutional Court is forced to conclude that the government and Parliament have repeatedly
treats - as to how the adoption of a law that fundamentally affects
material security of judges - the third part of the state power
namely the judiciary in a way that in European democratic and legal
space can hardly be found. The Constitutional Court has in the past several
appealed to the executive and legislative power
respect the rules of democratic political culture; in its judgment. Nos. Pl. US 12/10, the Constitutional

Court (paragraph 25) said: "The judges found themselves in terms of possibilities relevant
express their will and defend themselves on the issue of salary in a worse position than other professions
- in exceptional circumstances, for example. Burdensome || | financial situation of the state should no longer be the judge follows
disadvantaged and the fact that the legislature could proceed to pay
restrictions, should obtain a relevant opinion
representatives of the judiciary, which should also become part of the explanatory news. "In finding
sp. Nos. Pl. US 16/11, the Constitutional Court pointed out with all urgency
constitutive principles of a democratic society that stands or falls
constitutional state - the then finding words sp. Nos. Pl. US 19/93 of 21 December 1993
(N 1/1 SbNU 1; 14/1994 Coll.) "- It is not law and justice
subject to the free disposition of the legislature, and thus no law because
the legislature is bound by certain fundamental values ​​which the Constitution declares
inviolable ". Limitations on compensation of judges will always
imply some form of intervention in one of the components of judicial independence
(as will be further justified again), so it is unacceptable
ensure that such intervention occurred unilaterally;
judges represent the perspective of the personal scope of Act no. 236/1995 Coll.
largest group of people, moreover, a group that enjoys - as will also be further emphasized - from a constitutional viewpoint
special protection, and space for interventions into their
position is narrower than for other groups of public officials. Judicial Power
not in terms of our constitutional representation, yet it is the judicial system
completed two highest courts - they must willy-nilly for
this situation also play a vital role Representatives judiciary. Already
judgment no. Nos. Pl. US 16/11 was stated that "
this negative state puts pressure on the extension of the principles of interpretation arising from the constitutional order
pressure to downshift rules of democratic political culture underneath
constitutionalist framework".

53rd Derogatory action in this matter would therefore be simply the result of literally přehlíživého
steady approach of the government and the legislature to be able
court, which hopefully lapse of almost 25 years since
major societal changes are perceived merely as a group of civil servants dependent on
State and paid as they want this or that political representation;
The Constitutional Court, however, had to weigh the consequences of such a process, also taking into account
to the fact that the petitioner, although succinctly formulated objections to the defects
legislative process, formulation of the prayer for relief gave a clear signal that it intends to raise and objection
material and prefers
evaluating the constitutionality of the contested Act in terms of material. In terms of claims
legislative process in the future will not be possible for the Constitutional Court
approved of any procedure that will pass discussions with representatives,
respectively. Representatives of the independent judiciary, both at the executive and legislative
. Interference in the material position of judges must be duly justified
including a comprehensive economic analysis that will inform
recognizable national budget in response to the economic situation
state and must be given adequate information on the situation in pay particular || | senior state officials and other persons with the highest remuneration for work
provided from the state budget. One can not but recall that in countries
with a long democratic tradition is able to assist
material security of judges, for example, limited only on the basis of the conclusions of a comprehensive
opinion of a group of independent experts (cf.
Example the situation in Canada).

54th The formal repeal legislation embodied in the Act no. 11/2013 Coll.
(His Art. I, therefore, amendment of § 3 para. 3 of the Act no. 236/1995 Coll.) -
Without assessing the impact of the Act on the constitutionality of material - under these circumstances
terms of the principle of proportionality should retreat
requirements of effective protection of constitutionality. That, however, the Constitutional Court in no way prejudges
situations in which - as it has done in the past -
derogatory action on grounds of unconstitutionality of the legislative process will
considered as only possible. In this case, he preferred
effective protection of constitutionality and the next step of its review approached
assessment of the constitutionality of those provisions that the petitioner in its proposal
marked.

VII.

Compliance contested provisions of the constitutional order


VII./A
§ 3 par. 3 of Law no. 236/1995 Coll., As last amended

Act no. 11/2013 Coll.


VII./A.1
Overview of the situation in the remuneration of judges

55th The Constitutional Court considers necessary for the scope of the assessment of the constitutionality of the contested provision
recall, as it has done several times already
(particularly in judgments file. Nos. Pl. US 16/11, et al. Nos. Pl. US 33/11 ) that
interference in the material status of judges insist since 1997
continuously. There is no need to repeat the content of the restrictive modifications
sufficient summary below reflects in particular the development
base salary, which is decisive for determining the salary of judges and lump
reimbursement of expenses.

56th In connection with the change of the concept of determining the salary base of people
remunerated according to Act no. 236/1995 Coll. Act no. 309/2002 Coll.
(Linked to average wages of individuals in the non
sector for the last calendar year) occurred in 2003 to freeze, thus anchoring
salary base as at 31 December 2002 (Act no. 425/2002 Coll. )
which lasted until 2005 and resulted in a reduction of trade
average earnings in the public sector and the wage base (for example, in which
in 1996 amounted to a value of 4.38: base salary 31 200 CZK, the average | || salary in the public sector according to CSO data, in 1994 amounted to CZK 7,122
; in 2002 the value of 3.65: base salary 46 440 CZK, the average salary in the public sector
according to CSO data, in 2000 it was 12 731 CZK)
value of about 3.33 in 2003 to 3.00 in 2005. the model, according
which she had copied base salary (with a shift of two years)
development of average wages in the non sphere, was applied only in
years 2005, 2006 and 2007 and since 2008 as a result of Act no. 261/2007 Coll., on
stabilization of public budgets, as amended, is to re-freeze
salary base anchored on 31 December
2007 (above base 56 847 CZK). The freeze lasts until 2010 (when
nominal reduction was canceled by sp. Nos. Pl. ÚS 12/10)
session of the base salary and the average salary in the public sector in 2008 amounted
2010 value of about 2.5.

57th This reduction session salary base salary and non
sphere of values ​​of 4.38 to 2.5 between 1996 to 2010 was due to changes
concept determining the salaries of constitutional officials in 2002 and double the base salary freeze
in 2003-2004 and 2008-2010.
Starting from 2011 until 2014 (Act no. 425/2010 Coll.) Should apply to ad hoc
fixed base salary in each year, and only as a "back
against the decision of the Constitutional Court" was the "general"
base salary reduced to 2.5 times, ie the value achieved as a result of freezing
base in 2008-2010, the legislature assumed
that the base is used again only in 2015.


VII./A.2
Constitutional Court judgment relating to the salary base in the period after 31 December 2010


'58. The Constitutional Court judgment file. Nos. Pl. 16/11 Constitutional Court annulled § 3b paragraph. 1
Act no. 236/1995 Coll., As amended by Act no. 425/2010 Coll., On the day of its publication in the Official Gazette
(on 12 September 2011), therefore, a valid basis for the judge
in the amount of CZK 54,005 in 2011 to conflict with Art. 1. 1 in conjunction with Article
. 82 para. 1 of the Constitution. With regard to the earlier case, the Constitutional Court
stressed that

- Assessing the constitutionality of salary limitations regarding judges
for a specific period of the year falls within the framework defined by the principle of judicial independence
,

- The constitutional position of judges on the one hand, and representatives of legislative and executive
, especially the government, on the other hand
because of the principle of separation of powers and the principle of independence of judges differs
implying i different layout space for the legislature to pay
restrictions on judges in comparison with the layout space for such
restrictions in other areas of the public sector,

- Interference in the material security of judges guaranteed by law can not be
expression of arbitrariness by the legislature, but must be based on the principle of proportionality
, justified by extraordinary circumstances, eg.
The difficult financial situation of the state, where even meet this condition must be taken into account
different function of judges and representatives of the legislative and executive
, especially the state administration; such interference may not create grounds for
concerns that it may limit the dignity of judges, or if no

Expression of constitutionally unacceptable pressure by the legislative and executive branches on
judicial power. In the present case, the Constitutional Court did not find such.
Public finance deficit in international comparison in no way extraordinary, further accentuating
long-term downward trend and freezing judges' salaries, which
evaluated as an abandonment of rational relation between the level of salaries of judges and
public administration salaries. This leveling leads to a descent
judiciary within the middle strata of society and to reduce
social prestige. The Constitutional Court pointed to the extraordinary
growth of salaries in the public sector in 2010, which was inconsistent with the declared objective necessity
savings.

59th Consequence of abolishing the wage base for 2011 was the activation
legislature and executive produced "fuse - that would prevent irreversible
dramatic increase in the salaries of judges, which would occur unchanged
general regulation in § 3 para. 3 of Law no. 236/1995 Coll., as amended by Act no. 309/2002 Coll
. - This has been achieved wages would probably not be possible due to
existing case law of the Constitutional Court in the future significantly reduce "
(explanatory memorandum to print no. 133/0). Notice of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs
published under no. 271/2011 Coll. was for 2011, announced
base salary 57 747.50 CZK (2.5 times the average salary
individuals in the public sector for 2009).

60th Finding sp. Nos. Pl. US 33/11, the Constitutional Court annulled the one hand, ad hoc
fixed base salary for the years 2012 to 2014 (§ 3b par. 2 Act
no. 236/1995 Coll., As amended by Act no. 425/2010 Coll.)
finding the date of publication in the Official Gazette, ie. June 1, 2012, to annul the word "2.5 times"
in § 3 para. 3 of the Act no. 236/1995 Coll., last amended by Act no. | || 425/2010 Coll., on the expiry on 31 December 2012.

61st He pointed out previously defined general theses
setting the boundaries of possible restrictions in the material security of judges, further
comparison with the case law of the European Constitutional Courts and emphasized and clarified
principle of an independent judiciary as one of the essential attributes of a democratic
the rule of law (Art. 9 Sec. 2 of the Constitution).
Requirement for an independent judiciary stems from two sources: the neutrality of judges
as a guarantee of a fair, unbiased and objective trial
and of ensuring the rights and freedoms of individuals
judge separated from political power. Judicial independence is guaranteed
guarantees of a special legal status (which must include demoted,
finality, immunity), also guarantees
organizational and functional independence from bodies representing the legislative and executive power in particular
, as well as separation judiciary from the legislative and executive
(in particular by applying the principle of incompatibility).
In terms of content, judicial independence ensured
judges are bound only by the law, ie. Excluding any elements of subordination in
judicial decision. The basic components of the principle of independence of the judiciary
Constitutional Court comprehensively considered in its judgment. Nos. Pl.
US 7/02 of 18 June 2002 (N 78/26 SbNU 273; 349/2002 Sb.).

62nd The Constitutional Court on the edge of § 3 par. 3 and § 3b par. 2 Act No.
. 236/1995 Coll. In the cited judgment reiterated a statement that expressed
in judgment file. Nos. Pl. US 12/10 "- judges 'salaries and unlike other
salaries, servants of the State' for a long time and with the prospect of following
intended to be subject to restrictions.
Measures in relation to them is then no longer appears as an exceptional and proportional, but as targeted
process leading to the judges' salaries back to the lower
levels and thus to eliminate this way of viewing angle
power legislative and executive power in the past made, error 'when determining
rules for calculating judges' salaries in the mid-90s of the 20th century.
Such leveling then in its consequences inevitably leads also to descend
judiciary within the middle social strata, its degradation
income in relation to other legal professions, and
umenšování the necessary social prestige. "In fact, this is nothing
alter or promoters claim the law, under which provisions contained in §
3b paragraph. 2 of the salary base salary returns "about" the level of years 2007 to 2009.


63rd Conversely, the restrictions contained in the reduction coefficient for determining

Salary base value of three times to 2.5 times the average nominal monthly salary
individuals in the public sector (§ 3
paragraph. 3 of the salary, as amended by Act no. 425/2010 Coll.) Represents
inadequate and only against judges focused intervention and does not fulfill those conditions
that for the acceptance of restrictions on the salaries of judges, the Constitutional court has set
already outlined in case law.

64th The consequence of finding sp. Nos. Pl. US 33/11 was that the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs
only for the period from 1 June 2012 to 31 December 2012 announced
Communication no. 183/2012 Coll. the amount of salary basis
2.5 times in relation to the achieved average salary in the non
sector in 2010 in the amount of CZK 57 222.50 (judges and for the period January 1 to
May 31, 2012 had base salary set of "frozen" in the amount of CZK 849
56, a base salary compared to 2011 by almost CZK 1 000
nominally reduced).

65th The Constitutional Court does not consider benchmarks conclusions that
Constitutional Court said in findings by binding to "freeze"
base salary in the years 2003-2010, as these conclusions were developing a
a judicature practice after December 31, 2010 substantially overcome.


VII./A.3
Determination of base salary for judges multiple of 2.75 of the average wage
individuals in the public sector

66th The Constitutional Court especially points out the starting maxims, which he called
relevant in judgments file. Nos. Pl. US 33/11 and sp. Nos. Pl. US 16/11,
which intends to measure and contested by the legislation.

67th The process of the executive and the Chamber of Deputies after the Constitutional Court announced a judgment
sp. Nos. Pl. US 33/11, is described in Part VI of this
award. Executive Power submitted a bill in five variants and
Deputies could not find the necessary majority opinion for how
adjust the base salary for judges, even when reading
finding of the Constitutional Court did not need to hesitate, though in the course of discussing || | rang reminders of the Constitutional court decision. Nos. Pl. US 33/11 from the mouth itself
Minister of Justice and in the Senate by the President
Constitutional Law Committee, and in this direction have been made and suggestions from the Members
to repayment of the session tripled.

68th The Constitutional Court file no. Nos. Pl. US 33/11 judged by a reduction in salary
base that determines the relationship between the average wage in the non
sphere and base for the salary of a judge from January 1, 2011 from 3 times to 2.5 times
and found that the above conclusions. If
executive and legislative powers could not or did not understand the conclusions of the Constitutional Court,
no choice but to say quite straightforwardly: a reduction in the relative values ​​of
system of remuneration of judges was the result of a long-term freeze of salary
base in the first decade after 2000 , as
executive and legislative powers should well know, including that the "defrost" for an extended period
must be associated with a certain "leap increase" if it is to go only about
freezing, not a targeted approach leading to a permanent reduction in the relative proportions
, moreover, was the result of targeted pressure (dokumentovatelného
quotes from the explanatory reports at least Constitutional court)
to reduce the salaries of judges and their convergence with the salaries of clerks (but not
never said that his group).

69th The Constitutional Court does not consider the relative ratio between the base salaries for judges and
average wage in the public sector as constitutionally untouchable
parameter; in its judgment. Nos. Pl. US 33/11, however, was
reasons why the Constitutional Court reduction of about 16% considered
a disproportionate having regard to all the factors taken into account.

70th The explanatory memorandum to print no. 880/0 contains only a single figure
justifying the border multiple of 2.75, namely a "return to triple
would put high demands on funds from the state budget in 2013 and in the years
others ie. the period in which they are applied austerity measures
virtually all population groups. For a reasonable solution, especially
due to the current economic situation and the state budget, is considered
setting session - equal to the multiple of 2.75. "

71st It is not the role of the Constitutional Court, in its decision formulated
extensive economic analysis and studied the possibilities of the state budget;
It should be part of the explanatory memorandum to the bill. Nor was it
in Act no. 425/2010 Coll. nor in the Act no. 11/2013 Coll. As regards

Austerity measures against the population as a result of the financial and economic crisis
, it is necessary that the executive and legislative powers are not used
populist general statements: salaries of judges succumbed
significant real decline in its value (perhaps like no group of employees
remunerated from the state budget) due to interference in the years 2002-2010
when on pay in the public sector did not
no austerity measures, which would be reflected in the data on average wages in the non
sphere. According to CSO data publicly available (publications
e-3106-13, published 25 March 2014), the average gross monthly wage in the public sector
- FTE - in the years 2000-2013 (Annex
1b) in either year did not decrease, even during declared as
period of crisis; 2009 is reported to grow from 4.2 to 9.5% in 2010 and 2011
stagnation (growth 0.2%) in 2012 to grow 2.2% in 2013, growth
0 9%.

72nd These developments reflect the salaries of judges only with a lag time
(if the average salary, salary decreases and judges only with a time lag
- it stems from the rules contained in § 3 para. 3 of Law no. 236/1995
Sb.). Judges solidarity with other employees in the public sector is therefore
system built very solidly.

73rd Toughened austerity measures (as in the explanatory memorandum to print no. 880/0
states "virtually all population groups") and has not found its expression in the
average wage in the public sector. The legislature did not
analytically claimed any structural changes in employment in the public sphere
nor decrease in salaries of employees in the highest hierarchy
government. According to available public data (information
system on average earnings published on www.mpsv.cz)
median gross monthly salary of the highest state officials from central state authorities
increased between 2012 and 2013 from 80,271 (revised results
as at 26 March 2014) to 84 139 CZK (results as of 26 March 2014, the average
amounted in 2013 the value of CZK 91,398). Macroeconomic forecasts (eg.
Finance Ministry revised April 11, 2014) say that
gradual recovery in economic activity should continue, GDP would
this year could grow by 1.7% in 2015 growth could accelerate to 2%;
Other forecasts published in publicly available sources indicate
option to 3% growth, analytical consensus foresees this growth
Czech economy from 2.5 to 3%.

74th The Constitutional Court therefore finds that neither the reduction of trade between the salary
base and average wage in the public sector from 3 times to
2,75násobek is not supported on the analytical analysis, which would indicate that
terms of interference is proportionate, moving within the constitutionally defined
space for interference in the material security of judges. Of cited
public resources can be taken to suggest that the reduced base salary since 2013
out three times on 2,75násobek, an increase of 8.3%, with growth beyond -
even mild - the average wage in the public sector (FTE)
according to CSO data, in the same period, and certainly not correlated to about 4.6% growth
median average salary of the highest state officials
between 2012 and 2013. judges' salaries are also set a fixed amount and
Unlike state officials can not raise
awarding any bonuses.

75th Freezing salaries of judges in the decade between 2002-2011 has already yielded savings
state budget in the billions CZK; savings to pay one
district court judge at the beginning of his career due to freeze
salary can only in the years 2007-2011 estimated at more than 400 000 CZK.
Another significant savings (in the billions) state budget recorded
'thanks' chosen method of regulating salaries, ie.


Ad hoc bases to be determined for the years 2011-2014, apparently conscious that
Constitutional Court decision in principle has


Ex nunc. The temporal matters to the Constitutional Court at a later date.

76th It can be summarized that in establishing the relation between the average wage in the public sector
a base salary of judges were not taken into account
maxim that in its case law on this issue has set in the past
Constitutional Court; He was not reflected tapered layout space
legislator in this area. After years of pay freezes judges
legitimately expect in 2011 a system restore regular links to

Achieved average wage in the public sector.
Difficult economic situation could give rise to certain restrictions, but just with regard to
past this area was already narrowed most, if not
exhausted in the situation where it was not and it is not possible to assess the economic situation
in our country as a state before bankruptcy (thankfully). The Constitutional Court, being a
issued a series of proposals courts have repeatedly met with the judge's attitude
public who unquestionably understands and must understand that in the case of
economic difficulties within the established constitutional space restrictions may also affect
judicial power. Such restrictions, however, must be within
her enclosure always be proportionate and must not create inequality
. If each employee (or at least most of them
) in the public sphere touched a real reduction in value of his remuneration for the work
between the years 2002-2013, as was the case with judges, then
restrictive measures , albeit in a constitutionally defined layout space
could theoretically hit the judge. One can not fail to see that even in the period
reduction of wages in the public sector were allocated areas where
neither of these restrictions did not (eg. Education, health). To
This approach, however, and restrictive interventions in the past in
security of judges sickness or taxing reimbursements of expenses;
although the Constitutional Court does not intend to follow the conclusions expressed in the past that in its judgment.
Brand. Pl. US 13/08, in which he appealed to Judge net income, partly
increased due to the change of income tax, can point to the fact that
2010 and 2011 have been raised so. Ceilings for social || | security, and she modification has led to a drop in income of the judiciary
choir. Moreover, the judges differ from other constitutional officials
significantly reducing any possibility of obtaining such additional income.
Title of the performance of other functions, labor relations or even business failure
income then the judge can not substitute another job || | activities (mostly those authorized are able to replace the loss -
teaching or research activity). Furthermore, the profession of a judge usually
life choice that should not be influenced by constant interference in the material security
. In this respect, the judiciary
most stable pillar of state power, as not subject to electoral cycles,
whose laws apparently can lead by representatives of legislative and executive power
effort to meet the public mood and in reward for
the performance of their mandate. This approach, however, in relation to the judicial power
not applicable and leads to disturbances in the hierarchy of relationships
individual components of state power, in terms of the level of material security
how they were raised when the introduction of a uniform base salary
representatives of state authority and judges.

77th Legislative power and the executive in relation to the regulation
material security of judges committed a strategic error: unlike some
neighboring countries also affected by the financial and economic crisis
adopted general and long-term fundamental measures in relation to employees
public administration and partial and temporary measures against judges, but quite the opposite
procedure. For example, the Polish Constitutional Court in a decision
sp. Ref. K 1/12, 35/12 P pronounce that freeze judges' salaries in 2012
not unconstitutional; its conclusion while leaning on the finding that since 2008
remuneration of all employees and officials of state institutions
frozen and general mechanism of increasing judges' salaries remained unchanged -
it was only a casual one-adapting financial situation
State. At the same time, however, he added that in the long term would pay
judge should show an upward trend, which should not be lower than a similar trend
on average pay in the public sector. Otherwise
international comparison of European Constitutional Courts decision shows that the constitutionality
protection authorities shall ensure that the constitution outdistanced
economic reality of the country, however, emphasize that the constitution is endowed
specific legislative autonomy, which precludes economic goals
unlimited prevail over equality, respectively.
comprehensive understanding of the independence of the judiciary, already protects constitutional principles (eg.
Portuguese Constitutional Court in decision no. 353/12 dated July 5, 2012, the Constitutional Court
Slovak Republic in its judgment. Ref. PL . US 99/2011 of 11 December
2013).


78th No choice but to repeatedly point out that the Constitutional Court has already expressed
in 2003 (Judgment. Nos. Pl. US 11/02): "Salaries of judges, in a broad sense
should be a stable, not | || moving factor, with which it calculates or another government
example, because he judges 'salaries seem very high compared with
state employees' salaries or in comparison with other professional
group. "And again repeat what he told the Constitutional court in 2012 (finding
sp. Nos. Pl. US 33/11), "Leaving any rational relation between
level of judges' salaries and the level of salaries in the public sector in the regulation of the law | || about salary reflected in its absurd consequences as well as to the salaries of judges of the Constitutional court
"- as a consequence, not only the Presidents of Chambers and
officials of the two supreme courts, Presidents of Chambers superior courts
with 30 years of experience and their officers, but from January 1, 2014 and even longer
Presidents of Chambers regional courts and their officers higher salaries than
judges of the Constitutional court.

79th Under these circumstances, we can not accept the thesis of limited possibilities
state budget, while not in the statutory
submitted any argument which could be classified as "exceptional circumstance" justifying
priority to equality in the area of ​​limiting compensation || | state employees, public officials and judges over the principle
comprehensively understood judicial independence. Furthermore, as noted above,
Constitutional Court as neither the arguments that would indicate
equal treatment in respect of remuneration of civil servants and judges (in the sense of equal
restriction - cutting the wage bill in the public sector may not lead to
reducing or freezing the wages of each individual, unlike any
judge).

80th Salary restrictions contained in § 3 para. 3 of the Act no. 236/1995 Coll.
Last amended by Act no. 11/2013 Coll., In the word "2,75násobek"
is in conflict with Art. 1 paragraph. 1 in conjunction with Art. 82 para. 1 of the Constitution, and therefore
plenum of the Constitutional court decided in accordance with § 70 para. 1 of the Constitutional court of
derogation of the provisions as specified in the verdict finding
sub I. With regard to the above mentioned reasons and not at the present time already
space restrictive interventions in the relative ratio
enshrined in § 3 para. 3 of the salary, as was established by law no. 309
/ 2002 Sb. (Level 3 times). For the adoption of a constitutionally consistent
relation between the average wage in the public sector and salary base
judges set by the Constitutional Court suspension
finding a reasonable period of time sufficient for proper law-making process of this legislation
simple changes.


VII./b
Compliance Art. II of Act no. 11/2013 Coll. with the constitutional order

81st Article. II Act no. 11/2013 Coll.
is a transitional provision, which results in a reduced salary basis according to Art. I
for the first time for the salary of a judge in January 2013. This provision
be read in conjunction with Art. V of effectiveness, according to which this Act
came into force on 1 January 2013. In the Official Gazette was published
17th January 2013. According to the explanatory memorandum to print no. 880/0 is a transitional provision
reasoned as follows: "for reasons of legal certainty, it is stressed that
newly established above the wage base used to determine salaries and
reimbursement of costs for the entire month of January 2013, even in the event that the
promulgation in the Official Gazette occurred during this month . "
The effect of the Act stated:" The effectiveness of the proposed solutions must
occur immediately after canceling wage base Constitutional court, ie
. After 31. 12. 2012. "

82nd The petitioner argues that this is legislation impermissibly retroactive
retroactively.

83rd Under Article. 52 paragraph. 1 of the Constitution is the validity of the law needs to be
announced, pursuant to paragraph 2 way promulgation by law.
This law is Act no. 309/1999 Coll., On the Collection of Laws and Collection
international treaties, as amended. According to § 3 para. 1
Act no. 309/1999 Coll. Legal regulations come into force on the day of their
publication in the Official Gazette. According to § 3 para. 2 of this Act is the day
publication date of dispatch of the legislation relevant amount Collections
laws, as stated in its header, and under paragraph 3, unless
The effectiveness later, take the laws into force | || fifteenth day after its publication (general

vacatio legis

). If required by the urgent public interest, may exceptionally determine
earlier effective date, but no earlier than the date of publication.
Those provisions of the Constitution and Act no. 309/1999 Coll. preclude the adoption of legal prescription
he intended effects before it was announced.

84th Law no. 11/2013 Coll. She was published in Volume 7 of the Collection of Laws, which
was circulated on 17 January 2013. Thus, if Article. In states that
Act comes into force on 1 January 2013, it is obvious that || | effectiveness of law is established in violation of Article. 52 paragraph. 1 of the Constitution and § 3
paragraph. 3 of Law no. 309/1999 Coll. If the law no. 11/2013 Coll.
provided through Art. II and V, that its effects occur already prior
publication, earlier than was announced, it operates retroactively.
The effectiveness of this legislation that predates its validity and legal regulation stipulates
imperative of reducing the salary
base from 3x to 2,75násobek back to the time when the law was published
. For completeness, it should be noted that the petition with the Constitutional Court
submitted for review only transitional provisions, not those of
Energy Act.

85th The Constitution does not contain an explicit prohibition on retroactivity of laws
for all areas of law, but he follows the rule of law in accordance with Article
. 1. 1 of the Constitution, whose characters include the principle of legal certainty and the protection
confidence in the law. This prohibition principle applies in cases
true retroactivity; containing the ban as constitutional principle
not exclude any retroactive effect of legal norms, but only
such that simultaneously constitutes interference with the principle of protection of confidence in
law, legal certainty, respectively. acquired rights. The Constitutional Court has in the past
formulated the scope of permissible exceptions to the prohibition of the right
retroactivity [see. paragraph 146 judgment file. Nos. Pl. US 53/10 of 19 April 2011
(N 75/61 SbNU 137; 119/2011 Coll.)]: Such is the situation where
entity had a retroactive adjustment to count further legal action
standard standing in stark contrast with the fundamental, generally recognized principles
humanity and morality in civil law relationships could also be used
reference to "ordre public", public order, if prejudice
absolutely mandatory regulations, which were issued as a result of certain marginal situations
transformation of values ​​in society.

86th Article. II Act no. 11/2013 Coll. (Which could - despite
provisions of efficacy leading to January 1, 2013 -
take effect sooner than Feb. 1, 2013) carries the signs of true retroactivity and
circumstances of its adoption can not find a reason for admission to some of the
exceptions previously defined by the Constitutional court for a breakthrough in the prohibition of the right
retroactivity. Nor is the adjustment


In favorem in favor of the judges of the ordinary courts; After derogation "2.5 times"
Constitutional Court on 31 December 2012 can not be seen on the new regulation other than
as to reduce the level achieved in the long term legislation contained
( "triple"). Cited above, the content of the debate in both chambers of Parliament
just proves that some members of the Legislature
pointed out the transparency and clarity of the final judgment of the Constitutional Court
, the more addressees of this standard could not expect the legislature will be re
with the amount of base sell by auction. As the Constitutional Court already
2002 [cf.. Finding sp. Nos. Pl. US 33/01 of 12 March 2002 (N 28/25
SbNU 215; 145/2002 Coll.)] "- Genuine retroactivity has no state law
place where the legislature already have, He get a word ',
however, did not do so. "

87th In the present matter, the legislature in terms of the passage of time could get
to the word (Constitutional Court gave in its judgment. Nos. Pl. US 33/11 time
space about 7 months), and only as a result of the process of government and disagreements on
solutions intervened in the material security of judges retroactively. The judge, who began
performance of 1 January 2013, did not know whether and how
remunerated, contrary to § 34 para. 1 of Act no. 236/1995 Coll.
Which provides that judge receives salary from the date on which fulfilled the legal conditions for
performance. Even such judges can not be
in connection with the beginning of the performance features prepare salary in (although
for all other employees and the employer pursuant to § 136 paragraph. 1
Labor Code must be made on the day of commencement of employment). Changes nothing
fact that the salary for January 2013 was due later in the calendar

Month following the month in which it is entitled to a salary (
§ 37 paragraph. 1 last sentence of the Act no. 236/1995 Coll., In conjunction with § 141 para. 1
Labour Code).

88th However, the Constitutional Court finds the contested provisions of Art. II of Act no. 11/2013 Coll
. norm unconstitutional, his absence due to the repeal
would lead to even greater interference in constitutionally protected values ​​
judge's independence, namely the absence of a legal basis for the physical security of judges
during the month of January 2013. If he can not hit
lead the Constitutional court for constitutional state, it would be against the principle of effectiveness of protection
constitutionality mechanically apply the derogation
without taking into account its implications. The passage of time in the past can not be undone
nor the Constitutional Court decision, legal consequences assessed
provisions related occurred on February 1, 2013, matching Constitutional Court
having ex nunc, with regard to § 71 para. 4
Law on the Constitutional court did not have the ability to change anything; The Constitutional Court therefore by
§ 70 para. 2 of the Constitutional Court in the rest of dismissed
[see. also, for example, similar conclusions judgment no. Nos. Pl. US 5/03 of
9th July 2003 (N 109/30 SbNU 499; 211/2003 Coll.)].

VIII.

Legal Consequences of the derogative statement I sub for legislators and the courts

89th Repeal Act under Article. 87 paragraph. 1 point. a) Constitution does not fundamentally
retroactive effects, and if derogatory statement is not affiliated with
suspension, operates with the effects


Ex nunc. The expiry of the annulled statutory provision is up to date
enforceability of the judgment. Cancellation unconstitutional statutory regulation alone
itself imply a revision of individual legal acts based on its
application. Therefore according to § 71 para. 4 of the Law on the Constitutional Court
true that "the rights and obligations of legal relations created prior
repeal legislation remain unaffected." On the other hand
not overlook that if the Constitutional Court in its judgment states that
law or any other law is inconsistent with the constitutional order, then
this contradiction was given after the current period of its effectiveness.
Especially in cases where the derogatory reasons finding that the application
canceled legislative acts of violation of fundamental rights of individuals, is therefore
natural consequence that the individuals concerned to provide protection
their fundamental rights and freedoms just that the present legal
regulation to the extent to which turns derogational ground
expressed in its judgment of the Constitutional court, does not apply retroactively. Providing this protection is finally
to be confirmed and below the main purpose authorized court under Art. 95
paragraph. 2 of the Constitution (with regard to Art. 4 of the Constitution). However, this applies only for
assumption that providing this protection does not prevent any other fundamental right
or an important public interest, which in the case of collisions
should be given priority. If, for example, the legal relationships between individuals
meant a return ABSENCE unconstitutional law
Although the protection of the fundamental rights of one party of the legal relationship, but at the same time
negative interference with the fundamental rights of another party, who in the past acted
trust in the law, it would result in such a derogation
with regard to the principle of legal certainty principle (with the exception of some extreme cases
interference in the fundamental rights) are excluded. Conversely, in the case of vertical
legal relations between the state and the individual has
fundamentally prefer the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. Even here, however
must take into account the fact that the return ABSENCE
unconstitutional law could under certain circumstances lead to a threat to the state's ability to perform its functions
(eg. With regard to the impact on the state budget) and to
threat of another important public interest, thereby causing
contrary, priority must be given precisely the legal certainty and maintaining the current status
[closer to the foregoing interpretation of such. finding sp. Nos. Pl.
US 38/06 of 6 February 2007 (N 23/44 SbNU 279; 84/2007 Coll.) As amended by Amending
resolution file. Nos. Pl. US 38/06 of 3 April 2007; Finding sp. Ref. IV.
US 1777-1707 dated 18 December 2007 (N 228/47 SbNU 983); Finding sp. Ref.
Pl. US 16/09 of 19 January 2010 (N 8/56 SbNU 69; 48/2010 Coll.); Finding
sp. Nos. Pl. US 15/09 of 8 July 2010 (N 139/58 SbNU 141;
244/2010 Coll.), Paragraph 53; Finding sp. Ref. IV. US 1572/11 dated March 6

2012 (N 45/64 SbNU 551), paragraphs 25 to 28; Finding sp. Ref. III. US
3489/12 of 23 May 2013 (available on http://nalus.usoud.cz), paragraphs 12 and 13
].

90th The said results shall apply mutatis mutandis in case
derogative decision of the Constitutional Court, both abstract and concrete norm control. Finally alone
§ 71 para. 2 of the Constitutional Court assumes
unenforceability decisions issued on the basis of an unconstitutional law
(assuming that this application falls respective derogational reason
cf. Decision Ref. No. . IV. US 1777-1707), which certainly can not be interpreted
sense that the ordinary courts or other public authorities have continued
issue a decision on which will be pre obvious that they are not enforceable.
In these cases it is necessary to distinguish between abstract and concrete
control standards. Although, for the abstract review of standards applies
aforementioned practically without exception, need for specific control standards
carefully weigh the presumption of constitutionality of the contested Act, and interest
legal certainty on the one hand and the interest of who their actions || | initiated proceedings to review a norm at the Constitutional court, on the other hand.
Succinctly put, did not make any rational sense if it is satisfactory
Constitutional Court regarding the petition to annul applied
statutory provision could have a positive effect in the legal sphere
party which either alone gave this proposal to repeal statutory provisions
together with a constitutional complaint (§ 74 of the constitutional court Act)
or was party to proceedings before the general court, which according to Art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution
submitted to the constitutional court for the annulment Law, who has
in resolving the matter [see. Opinion of the Plenum also sp. Nos. Pl. US-st.
31/10 of 14 December 2010 (ST 31/59 SbNU 607; 426/2010 Coll.)]. Neither
However, this rule may not apply without exception, not just with regard to
necessity of balancing fundamental rights of the party, on the one hand and
requirement of legal certainty, the protection of fundamental rights
other parties or other constitutionally protected values ​​on the other hand
(see above). The result of this benchmarking does not have to be from the perspective of
court that the matter be submitted to the Constitutional Court, obvious, while
for its assessment will be a key starting right conclusions contained in
a possible derogative award.

91st According to § 70 para. 1 of the Constitutional Court, the
the annulment of the contested regulation occurs, "a date which will determine in its judgment."
According to § 58 par. 1 of the same Act, findings published in the proceedings to review norms
"are enforceable on the date of their publication in the Collection of Laws
if the Constitutional Court decides otherwise." It
by the constant jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court indicates that the Constitutional Court is given the option of
justified cases, postpone the enforceability of the judgment in
revocation proceedings to review norms. This reason is aimed at situations where the
immediate repeal of the legislation raised more negative consequences than
its temporary tolerance. Therefore, even now in the present case, the Constitutional Court
suspension of operation approached (see paragraph 80).

92nd However, since in this case it is a case of so-called.
Specific control standards, it is necessary to weigh the implications this postponement
enforceability to the proceedings which led to the release of this award, respectively.
and the proceedings in cases other judges, which was due to the submission of this proposal
Municipal Court in Brno interrupted and where would this finding could
be taken into account when making decisions.

93rd The Constitutional Court stated that the determination of the temporal effects of the abolition
unconstitutional legislation is to some extent a matter in which the
not be limited to purely constitutional arguments. Should the Constitutional Court
not take into account arguments, interests and values ​​of others, then the
suspension of operation had not actually accessed.
When evaluating whether suspension of the operation to proceed and for how long, because
necessarily reflects eg. Severity legislation that should replace
editing canceled, or the length of the legislative process, and can not disregard
neither of these aspects, such as the dates of the elections to the Chamber of Deputies
. If they had not done so, it would determine
suspension of operation of such a finding expedient. It is therefore no coincidence that in the past
setting out the Constitutional Court suspension length as

Few months and more than one year.

94th The now present case, the Constitutional Court notes that although
general they would have in determining the suspension of operation
Cancellation finding that withdrawal had actually reflected in the legal sphere
those participants whose management led to the judgment granting the petition in this case
conditions are fulfilled for the conclusion that this rule does not apply
. When considering the legal effect of the derogative judgment in proceedings to review norms
it is necessary to consider other aspects than the purely procedural
, which indeed is even constitutional courts in other European countries
. The Constitutional Court takes the view that these aspects taken together
lead to the conclusion that the effects of this finding can be applied to the
cases these participants only from the date of its enforcement and that
this finding does not establish entitlement to retroactive payment of the difference of salary
other requirements arising from above base of 2.75
times the average wage in the public sector for the last calendar year and
constitutionally consistent triple, which should be inserted in the statutory framework || | at the date of 1 January 2013.

95th This conclusion leads Constitutional Court primarily interested in calming
overall atmosphere, which in the case of judges' salaries long as there
on the political scene, and particularly in the wider public. Although the Constitutional Court
insists that the legislature in this matter a long time progresses consciously
unconstitutional, and therefore unjustifiable manner, it is necessary to simultaneously see that
reverse the replenishment of these amounts would represent a significant and particularly also
unforeseen interference in the state budget, which would inevitably lead to further growth
said tensions between the company and the judges.
The Constitutional Court could not overlook the reverse replenishment required amounts would
involved a period when the Czech Republic was in a financial crisis
respectively. yet out of this crisis slowly recovering. This solution would therefore
probably lead to misunderstanding on the part of society and it would also be eligible
weaken the position of judges and discredit their function. The Constitutional Court did not
does not believe that the coefficient applied multiple of 2.75 of the average wage in the public sector
with judges evoked situation has
could be described as so unbearable that it would necessarily require correction
not only in the future, but also back. In its deliberations based
also from that of a judge should be seen not only in the professional, but also personal
. Simply put, the judge is expected only
expertise and a strong work ethic, but also integrity and
above-average personal integrity [see eg. § 80 of Law no. 6/2002 Coll., On
Courts, Judges, judges and State administration of courts and amending
some other laws (Act on courts and judges)].
Therefore, the Constitutional Court held that from this group, which should represent a real
elite society may require a greater degree of generosity and willingness
than the other groups.

IX.
Obiter dictum


96th The Constitutional Court issued this finding in an imaginary "continuous numbering"
under number XIV. Already fourteen times in recent years had to entertain
interference in the material security of judges. Several times already
also expressed the hope that it is perhaps the last time, and that the legislature will perceive
limits of possible interventions through the prism of constitutional principles governing
independence of the judiciary.

97th Legislation material security of judges session
built on three times the average wage in the public sector with a two-year time lag
reflecting developments in the public sector could judge
shift into higher middle-class households. It's a treatment that is not outside
European standards and is essentially the diameter of a judge
example, in the Council's member states. It also contains a rare opportunity
nominal pay cut if they reduced the average salary in the public sector
- in many countries the salary of a judge before such
decline protected. In repeated proceedings before the Constitutional Court with the intervention of the legislature showed
arbitrary, even according to the explanatory memorandum
can infer the intent to put pressure on the humiliation session average salary and wage base
valid for judges. Such pressure can not be justified simply
budgetary costs of judges' salaries; On the other hand, the judiciary

Exist beyond the economic reality of the state, and the session is not constitutionally untouchable
quantity. To hit her would have to be very strong arguments
supported by regular analyzes of remuneration in the public sector
a situation very limited possibilities State
while respecting constitutional guarantee of judicial independence. The Constitutional Court did not base its decision
entitled to a retroactive additional charges for the period when judges were unconstitutionally
harmed by reducing the level of material security, which does not mean
once and for all that it was unconstitutional interference can cause
very significant impact on state budget. It is assumed that the legislature
date of enforceability of the award in the legislation puts adjust the weighing base salary
's constitutional level three times the average
salary in the public sector, and on the other hand, the Constitutional Court
surprised if judges withdrew from the litigation commenced and
after several years of disputes were raised by a period of understanding and mutual respect
which belongs officials representing the pillars of state power.

X.

98th The Constitutional Court could not grant the petitioner in his application for priority review
petition (§ 39 of the Constitutional Court Act) with respect to personnel changes
majority of the Plenum of the Constitutional Court in 2013.

Chairman of the Constitutional Court:

JUDr. Own hand

Dissenting opinions according to § 14 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll., On the Constitutional Court,
amended, I took the verdict plenary decision
judges Jan Musil and Radovan Suchanek and the operative part of the decision I plenum
judge Vladimir Sládeček.