88/2008 Sb.



FIND



The Constitutional Court



On behalf of the United States



The Constitutional Court ruled on 31 December 2004. January 2008 in the composition of Stanislav package

Francis Skinner, Vlasta Formankova, Turgut Güttler, Pavel Holländer,

Ivana Janů, Vladimir Crust, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jiří Mucha, Jan Musil,

Jiří Nykodým, Pavel Rychetský, Miloslav Výborný, Elisabeth Wagner, and

Michael April 1 on the proposal. a group of 67 members of Parliament the United

Republic, represented by a member of Mgr. Michal Hašek, 2. a group of 43

members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, represented by a member of JUDr.

Vojtěch Filip and 3. a group of 19 Senators of the Parliament of the Czech Republic,

represented by JUDr. Catherine Šimáčkovou, barrister based Moses

17, 612 00 Brno, on the repeal of part one, part two, part three,

part four, part five, part six, part seven, part eight, part

ninth, in point 1 in the article. XVII, part nine, part eleven, part

Twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, part, part, parts of forty-fifth part

forty-sixth, forty-seventh section, part of the 50th, part of the 50th

the first and second part of the 50th of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll., on stabilisation of the

public budgets, and to abolish the provisions of § 6 (1). 4 first sentence, section 6

paragraph. 13 and 14, § 7 (2). 8 the first sentence, section 16, section 21 para. 1 and § 38 h of paragraph 1.

1 (b). b) of Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended by

amended, with the participation of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament) and the United

Republic and (B)) the Czech Senate as parties to proceedings

and (C)) of the 43 members of Parliament of the Czech Republic, represented by

Member of JUDr. Vojtěch Filip and D) of the Group of 19 Senators of the Parliament

The United States, represented by JUDr. Catherine Šimáčkovou, barrister,

as the interveners,



as follows:



The proposal is rejected.



Justification



(I).



The subject of the proceedings in this matter



A group of 67 members of Parliament of the United Kingdom,

represented by a member of Mgr. Michal Hašek, the design, the examination of the

The Constitutional Court on 22 November. October 2007, claims according to art. 87 para. 1 (b).

and) the Constitution (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") and pursuant to § 64 para. 1 (b). (b)) of the Act

No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended,

the cancellation of the entire Act No. 261/2007 Coll., on public

budgets, or its individual design concretized in the closer

provisions.



In addition, this group of 67 members of the annulment of the same design

some provisions in the draft closer to these laws, concretized

amended by Act No. 261/2007 Coll.:



-Act No. 48/1997 Coll., on public health insurance, as amended by

amended,



-Act No. 553/1991 Coll., on the Czech General health insurance company

Republic, as amended,



-Act of the Czech National Council No. 280/1992 Coll., on departmental, disciplinary,

corporate and other health insurance companies, as amended

regulations,



-Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended

regulations.



Resolution of the plenum of the Constitutional Court of 8 April. January 2008 No. pl. ÚS

24/07-147 were excluded to a separate management proposals for the abolition of the

parts of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. and related possible suggestions,

concerning the content of the separate issues of financing of health

care from public health insurance, and proposals to repeal those parts of the

Law No. 261/2007 Coll., concerning the content of separate

the issue of social security. About these excluded parts of the

the proposals are kept separate under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 1/08 and PL. ÚS

2/08.



Under the brand pl. ÚS 24/07 so it is proceeding on the remaining

under the proposals, i.e.. on the proposal to repeal section first (Amendment of the law on

income taxes), part of the second (Amendment of the Act on the amendment of laws

related to the adoption of the law on accident insurance employees),

part three (Amendment of the Act on provisions for the determination of the tax base of the

of income), part four (Amendment of the law on value added tax), part of the

the fifth (Amendment of the law on real estate tax), part of the sixth (to change the law on

inheritance tax, gift tax and real estate transfer tax), part seven

(Amendment of the law on registers) part eight (Amendment of the law on

the administration of taxes and fees), part of the ninth (Amendment of Act No. 545/2005 Coll.),

point 1 in article. XVII, part ten (Amendment of the Act on administrative fees),

part of the eleventh (Amendment of the law on excise duty), part of the twelfth

(Amendment of the Act on the subsistence minimum), part of the thirteenth (change the law on

Awards participants in the struggle for the formation of and the liberation of Czechoslovakia and some

survivors after them, for a special contribution to the income of any person,

a one off cash amount to some participants in the national struggle for

exemption from 1939 to 1945 and on amendments to certain laws), parts of

Fourteenth (change the law on registered partnership and amending certain

related laws), part of the forty-fifth (a tax on natural gas and

some of the other gases), part of the forty-sixth (a tax on fossil fuels),

part of the forty-seventh (electricity tax), part of the 50th (Amendment of the law on

accounting), part of the fifty-first (repeal), part of the

fifty-second (effectiveness) of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll., on stabilisation of the

public budgets, on the draft proceedings for revocation in

This paragraph referred to parts of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll., on stabilisation of the

public budgets, and on the proposal to repeal the provisions of § 6 (1). 4 sentences

First, section 6 (1). 13 and 14, § 7 (2). 8 the first sentence, § 16 and § 21 para. 1 and

§ 38 h of paragraph 1. 1 (b). b) of Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income tax, in the

as amended.



II.



Participation and intervention



By the applicant of the procedure is a group of 67 members

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, represented by a member of

Mgr. Michal Hašek. The Constitutional Court found that the submitted design meets the

all the legal procedural requirements and prerequisites, and that therefore nothing

does not prevent the discussion and the decision of the merits of the case. Within the meaning of the provisions of § 69

paragraph. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court are parties to this proceeding, also 1.

The Chamber of Deputies and 2. Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.



The proposal, the Constitutional Court delivered on 19 December. November 2007, seeking

repeal of Act No. 261/2007 Coll., or its individual design,

concretized the provisions more closely, also a group of 43 members of Parliament,

represented by a member of JUDr. Vojtěch Filip. This proposal, the Constitutional Court

its resolution of 23 March. 11.2007, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 28/07 according to § 43 para.

2 (a). (b)) in conjunction with § 43 para. 1 (b). e) of the Act on the Constitutional Court

He refused because of lis pendens. The Constitutional Court has put on weight this

a group of 43 members of Parliament within the meaning of the provisions of § 35 para. 2 of the Act on the constitutional

as the intervener present to the Court, before the proceedings initiated on

67 members of the group design. The intervener has the same rights in the proceedings

and responsibilities as participants (article 28, paragraph 2, of the law on the Constitutional Court).



The proposal, sent to the Constitutional Court on 7 December. December 2007, seeking

repeal of parts of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll., concretized in the draft closer,

also, a group of 19 Senators of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, represented by

Attorney, JUDr. Catherine Šimáčkovou. This proposal for the Constitutional Court to its

in its resolution of 12 April 2005. 12.2007, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 28/07 according to § 43 para. 2

(a). (b)) in conjunction with § 43 para. 1 (b). e) of the Act on the Constitutional Court

He refused because of lis pendens. The Constitutional Court has put on weight this

a group of 19 senators in the meaning of the provisions of § 35 para. 2 of the Act on the constitutional

as the intervener present to the Court, before the proceedings initiated on

67 members of the group design. The intervener has the same rights in the proceedings

and responsibilities as participants (article 28, paragraph 2, of the law on the Constitutional Court).



Submission of 21 September 2005. 11.2007 is reported as the "notice of the municipal court in

Brno, about joining the already initiated proceedings, the participant "

The municipal court in Brno, he sought to make it according to § 35 para. 2 of the law on

The Constitutional Court treated as intervener, for its

the previous proposal of 12 July. 11.2007 by order of the Constitutional Court was sp.

Zn. PL. TC 27/07 of 21 June. 11.2007 rejected for an obstacle

lis pendens.



With the municipal court in Brno, however, could not be in this proceeding as

intervener treated, for the following reasons: Secondary

abetting arises in the event that the Constitutional Court has already, in the same case

He handed a later draft a legitimate claimant. This authorized

the plaintiff could be in General and the Court, on the basis of article.

95 para. 2 of the Constitution. This article states that if the Court concluded that the

the law, which is to be used in solving the case, is in conflict with the constitutional

order, refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. The crucial question in the

the present case is, as seen on the condition that it must be a

the law, "which is to be used in solving the case." There is no doubt that the

This condition is always met, if this is about the law, or

each of the provisions whose application has to be immediate, so it has to be


such provisions are used when a decision on the merits. The Constitutional Court in the

its case law deduced that to ensure that the Court could call into question the constitutionality of the

legislation is necessary to its inevitable application in the matter and

not just a hypothetical use, or other wider context (cf.

resolution SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/2000, a collection of findings and resolutions of the constitutional

Court (hereinafter referred to as "the decision"), volume 20, usn. No 39, p. 353;

resolution SP. zn. PL. ÚS 20/02, ECR, Volume 28, usn. # 42,

p. 477).



In the case of the municipal court in Brno, SP. zn. 50 C 259/2007, from which emerged

the above proposal for a municipal court, was filed on 5 December. 11.2007

judge of the municipal court in Brno. Michael Vrtkem action, which

against the Czech Republic-the municipal court in Brno, is seeking payment of a sum

in the amount of 4.000,-CZK, of which he will be for the month of January 2008 truncated salary and

flat-rate reimbursement of expenses, which would be entitled, were it not for the freezing of salary

carried out by the provisions of the article. XLVI, part of the thirtieth of the Act No. 261/2007

SB.



According to the settled judicial practice and doctrine can exercise their rights in the courts in the

When happens, or entitlement actio nata. This entitlement becomes

then, what should the debtor for the first time to meet its commitment. In the present

the case, however, it is a premature claim, because it is not certain whether and

how much will actually harm caused to the plaintiff. Therefore, the municipal court

didn't get to reflect on the possible unconstitutionality of Act No.

261/2007 Coll., for he had dismissed as premature. Of the provisions of the

article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution imply for the ordinary court of the right and the obligation to

refer the matter to the Constitutional Court only when the existence of a real dispute and

not in order to determine the opinion of the Constitutional Court on certain legal

questions. Based on the above, the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that

The municipal court in Brno has not been authorized by the applicant within the meaning of § 35 para.

2 of the Act on the Constitutional Court. By order of 15 October 1998. 1.2008 No. pl. ÚS

24/07-158, the Constitutional Court ruled that the municipal court in Brno is not side

party to the proceedings.



III.



The argument of the appellants and the interveners lodged challenging the constitutionally

the method of acceptance and release of Act No. 261/2007 Coll.



III/a



Arguments of groups 67 members of Parliament of the Czech Republic

challenging the constitutionally prescribed way to acceptance and release of Act No.

261/2007 Coll.



A group of 67 members of Parliament of the Czech Republic, represented by a member of

Mgr. Michal Hašek, the annulment of the entire Act No. 261/2007 Coll.

about the stabilization of public budgets. The appellants argue that the contested Law

No. 261/2007 Coll. was adopted institutional manner and got it to

contrary to the constitutional order. Reasons of unconstitutionality in violation of

the principle of souladného, intuitive and predictable justice, in violation of

the principle of the separation of powers, and in violation of the principle of democracy, which

the principles make up the attributes of the democratic rule of law according to art. 1 (1).

1 of the Constitution. They point to the previous case law of the Constitutional Court, which is

constitutional requirements for legislative process dealt with already in several of its

decisions, in particular in the findings, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 21/01 (collection

the decision, volume 25, usn. # 42, finding no 14, MRO. under Act No. 95/2002

Coll.), pl. ÚS 5/02 (promulgated under no. 476/2002 Coll.) and PL. ÚS 79/06 (collection

the decision, Volume 28, finding no 117, declared under no. 37/2007 Sb.) and

They point out that, when adopting the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. these requirements

violated.



The specific complaint, the plaintiffs, dovozující violation of the constitutional rules

the legislative process (leaving aside the arguments against so far

content-related violation of specific provisions of the law with the constitutional

order), can be used to briefly summarize in particular to these claims:



1. the basic defect of the law is that in a single novelizujícím

the Act has been to link the many novel various laws, which together

are not immediately related to creation policies are violated, souladného

predictable and lucid law to be measured against not only

amendments, but also bills.



2. Link the complex standards-stabilization of public budgets-is too

vague, comparable for example. the "law on changes in the legal order".



3. adjustment contained in many of the laws does not apply at all

stabilization of public budgets. authorities of the alignment of the General

health insurance company or network of health care facilities.

The plaintiffs, therefore, for various reasons, formally accepted the

only part of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, in part

Tenth, eleventh, thirteenth, fourteenth, twenty-third and twenty-

the fourth of the contested act.



4. In the Act are in addition to the amendments of the existing laws contain three new

laws on environmental taxes, which is contrary to. Legislative rules

the Government.



5. In the form of amendments to the Act have become part of the so-called.

"poor quality", which does not hold water when considering the content and purpose of the original

the draft law and draft amendments: a new system of price regulation of medicines,

the law on accounting and the law on prices. Amendments can be criticised for not having

the brevity of time to study on the part of members and to inform the public.

Limited was also the parliamentary debate as a form of transparent

governance and control of the opposition and the public. For the so-called. the "poor" are

further expressly considered: 1. in the fourth (Amendment of the Act on tax on

value added) in the article. VIII-points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 15 to 21; 2. in part

10th (Amendment of the Act on administrative fees) in the article. XVII-sections 3 and 4;

3. in the twenty-second (Amendment of the Act on organisation and implementation

social security) in the article. XXXV-points 1, 2 and 12; 4. in the twenty-

the fourth (Amendment of the Act on pension insurance) in the article. XXXVIII-points 1, 2,

3 and 5; 5. at the fortieth (Amendment of the Act on public health

insurance) in the article. LXIV ...-points 1 to 9, 14 to 17, 24 to 26, 29, 30 and article.

LXV (transitional provisions); 6. at the forty-eighth (Amendment of the law on

the scope of the authorities of the Czech Republic in the area of prices)-article. LXXV and LXXVI; 7.

in the forty-ninth (Amendment of the Act on prices)-article. LXXVII; 8.

part of the 50th (Amendment of the Act on accounting)-article. LXXVIII. The Appellants

indicate in particular the constitutional court sentencing request "...

the amendment actually only pozměňoval presented by the legal

editing, IE. in accordance with the requirements of the so-called. the rules of marriage, according to the

the amendment must relate to the same subject matter, which is

currently being discussed in the legislative process, the amendment

not yaw from the limited space dedicated amendments in

the form of a broad subject of the present proposal exceeded the law. "

The appellants are reminiscent of the opinion of the Constitutional Court, that the non-fulfilment of this

request occurs "-a breach of the separation of powers, with implications for understanding

making souladného, intuitive and predictable law Constitutional

the Court has previously teamed up with the attributes of the democratic rule of law, further to the

circumvention of the Institute of legislative initiative pursuant to article. 41 of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC and

violation of the right of the Government to comment on the draft law according to art. 44 of the Constitution. "

The finding of the Constitutional Court (SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/07, promulgated under no. 37/2007

Coll., paragraph 73).



6. the amendments were not discussed in the committees of the

the Chamber of Deputies, they lack justification. Prime Minister Mirek TOPOLANEK is handed

as a member, on the basis of coalition negotiations, which, however, cannot

replace the Government's decision as the law of the petitioner.



7. adoption of a resolution in the Senate, in which he expressed the will of the draft law

to dwell, to silence the opposition.



8. The legislative process short of not only the requirements of making souladného,

a predictable and intuitive rights but not the requirement of democracy.

From the article. 6 of the Constitution is clear that behind every major political

the decision has become the will of the majority. Since it is a summary of the law in question

numerous decisions intended, however, to a single final vote

most relevantly existence could not be tested.



9. The legislative power as the power to determine the content of the law, which they enjoy under

article. 15 of the Constitution, the Parliament was unable to show up and moved to the side

the Government, or its Chairman. However, the Government would be able to legitimately

strengthen the just decision ústavodárce, which did not happen.



10. the Act came into force on the day of its publication, for some of the provisions of this

refers to the effectiveness. Because of the way the laws of distribution of amounts

so should the recipients the right to adopt the newly prescribed manner, which, however,

After at least two days did not have the ability to discern. Prejudice is so problem

de facto-retroactivity of the law.



11. After the technical page, the emergence of gaps in the legal system, because

If multiple points of adjustment with a different date, applies the

the last point under the principle lex posterior derogat legi priori. This, however,

for the period from 1 January 2005. January 2008 abolished income tax rate.



12. The intention of the Government was to get the Parliament under pressure, moreover, there is a

short vacatio legis.



The plaintiffs also describe in detail the legislative procedure when

the adoption of the contested act and they complain that many of her misconduct. Claims that


already at the stage of preparation of the law-no later than the approval of his

the design of the Government-originated the proposal materially inconsistent, so for

the legislature was the proposal of quirky, surprising, inaccessible,

incomprehensible and confusing. The time spent on the creation of such a comprehensive and

elaborate standards was too short and not providing sufficient space

to get familiar with the contents standards, think of all the contexts and for

Democratic debate.



In the legislative process was said to have brought a large number of

unrelated amendments, some of them up in the final

stages of the discussions in the Chamber of Deputies, without proper justification. It

everything should have a negative impact on the ability and quality of parliamentary debate

and thus on the ability and quality of the public debate, the right companion

groups to make their views heard, and finally to information

the public about the ongoing political decisions.



Violation of the principles of the separation of powers and the democratic nature of the appellants '

reinforced by an unrelated amendments came from the circles of the Government.

The President of the Government (in the position of a Deputy) significantly changed the Government Bill

a few days before the final vote, neither members of the available

the reasons for the new legislation, the time to study and discuss,

let alone the real possibility for her to submit additional amendments.

The Prime Minister, or Government officials with their extensive apparatus

then totally dominate the legislature, which does not have a

sufficient professional background to make a surprising Government proposal could

in the created time constraints effectively making the face. The influence of the members of the

the legislature (and both opposition and Government) to the specific

the form of the law was effectively minimized.



The fact that the Senate of the Czech Parliament, which is dominated by the same political

mostly as the Chamber of Deputies, expressed willingness to dwell on design

the law (article 48 of the Constitution), made it impossible to debate in the full Senate; the opposition

the views could effectively be heard even in the Chamber of Deputies nor in

The Senate.



The promoters will summarize the design and adoption of the de facto Government

(more precisely: "Prime") of the amendment that materially

nothing to do with the master, is in breach of article. 1 (1). 1, art. 2 (2). 1,

article. 6 and article. 15 paragraph 1. 1 of the Constitution, is bypassing the legislative Institute

the initiatives referred to in article. 41 of the Constitution and contradicts the article as well. 44 para. 1 and article. 76

Of the Constitution. The fact that the Parliament did not take into account previous case law,

The Constitutional Court, in addition, adopted not long before the adoption of law No.

261/2007 Coll., also article has been tampered with. 89 para. 2 of the Constitution.



The promoters pronounced the opinion that the procedure chosen by the Government when

discussion of the contested act would, if accepted, could lead to

absurd: "-in an extreme case, the Government could concentrate

Once a year all of its legislative intentions of the draft law «about editing

legal relations in the Czech Republic» or even «about improvement in law

the fate of the citizens of the United States, and force the political pressure to

the Government approved the draft law, the majority being in this version. This would

a de facto influence on the content of the laws of the members of the completely marginalizován and Parliament

would become almost unnecessary. The Government should Parliament essentially needed

only for formal acknowledgement of their expressed will to a flat rate and could

to prevent any public parliamentary debate by the Council

most refused to admit other points on the agenda. Such a Parliament

He was no longer just a facade completely denying the principles of democracy and

the separation of powers. "



The appellants therefore conclude that the submission of and the adoption of a comprehensive,

the content of the inconsistent and indecipherable governmental draft Bill

contrary to the preamble of the Constitution (expressing the commitment of citizens to drive with all the

the best principles of the rule of law), as well as the article. 1 (1). 1, art. 2

paragraph. 1, art. 6 and article. 15 paragraph 1. 1 of the Constitution.



For these reasons, petit 67 members group contains the design on the first

place a request to the Constitutional Court to annul the whole Act No. 261/2007 Coll.



If the Constitutional Court was not canceled the entire Act No. 261/2007 Coll., then

a group of 67 members of Parliament proposes in the alternative remedies under point E) cancel

those parts of the Act that are not related to its main subject,

Alternatively, the purpose of the Act. In the context of the present proceedings, now maintained by the

under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/07, are proposed to the repeal of these sections of the Act

No. 261/2007 Coll.:



-part seven (Amendment of the law on registers)-article. XIV,



-part nine (Amendment of Act No. 545/2005 Coll.)-article. (XVI),



-part twelve (Amendment of the Act on the subsistence minimum)-article. XX,



-part of the forty-fifth (a tax on natural gas and some other gases)

-article. LXXII,



-part XLVI (tax on fossil fuels)-article. LXXIII,



-part of the XLVII (electricity tax)-article. LXXIV,



-part of the 50th (Amendment of the Act on accounting)-article. LXXVIII and LXXIX,



-part of the fifty-first (repeal)-article. LXXX,



-part of the fifty-second (effectiveness) and that in the article. LXXXI, in point 1, point (a)

and the words "article.) XXVIII points 37 and 38, 40 to 49, 51, art. Point 1, article XXIX.

XXXV point 7 ", letter (b)), in subparagraph (c)), the words" article. XX points 4 and 7, article.

XXIII points 4, 11 and 27, article. Paragraph 13, article XXV. XXXV points 3, 6 and 5, XLII

section 2, point 6, article XLIX. (L) point 2 and article. LII-LVIII ", and the letter d).



On all of these parts of the Act, the appellants argue that are not related to

subject matter and purpose of the Act, and their adoption would require a form of

a special law. The valid legislative solution is confusing and

legislatively the erroneous.



If the Constitutional Court was not canceled the entire Act No. 261/2007 Coll., or

those parts of the Act that are designed to cancel in an alternative

the remedies under point (E)), then the Group of 67 members of Parliament proposes in the alternative

the remedies under point F) to repeal those sections of this Act that the Act

received by way of amendments and to the nature of the so-called. "přílepků", IE.

do not meet the criteria of a close relationship to the subject matter of the law, but it is the de facto

on a completely different law with non-legislative master. In the framework of the

Now these proceedings, held under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/07, are

designed to cancel these parts of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll.:



-part four (Amendment of the law on value added tax)-in the article. (VIII) points

1, 3, 4, 5 and 15 to 21,



-part of the 50th (Amendment of the Act on accounting)-article. LXXVIII.



III/b



Arguments of a group of 43 members of Parliament of the Czech Republic

challenging the constitutionally prescribed way to acceptance and release of Act No.

261/2007 Coll.



One of the alternatives the remedies the draft group 43 members of Parliament also includes

(as in the case of a group of 69 members) request to cancel

the whole of Act No. 261/2007 Coll., for no constitutional defects in the legislative

process. A group of 43 members of the argument in that part of the proposal, which

argues the unconstitutionality of the way the adoption and release of Act No. 261/2007 Coll.

It is largely the same as the argument contained in the draft group 67

members of Parliament.



The plaintiffs complain that the adopted law serious legislative errors.

They point out that the law is not the usual amendment or law, but

file partial modifications, representing both the amendment of several tens of

the laws, on the one hand adjustment which would have stood as a separate law. Are

e.g. by them. changes in the tax legislation, including the introduction of the so-called.

environmental taxes, the legislation of almost all social systems,

especially the State social support system, and the existential

minimum, the sickness insurance system, edit the wage base for

determination of the amount of the salary of constitutional agents and prosecutors,

employment, and the legal regulation of the public health insurance,

premiums on health insurance, this changes the scope of ministries

AJ.



Incomprehensibility of the Act is, according to the appellants caused by for example. by

has been cancelled only the provisions of novelizujícího of the law, without the prior

the revised law; There was for example. the amendment to the Act No.

218/2007 Coll. (accident insurance (Amendment) Act and the amendments to the other

laws) yet, that law No 218/2007 Coll. at the time of the hearing of law No.

261/2007 Coll. still has not come into effect.



Discussions in the Chamber of Deputies, according to the appellants '

marked by time pressure, members did not have sufficient time to

review of the draft law as large, changing 46 of law.

The hearing was delayed by numerous amendments from

which is mentioned in particular the amendment of Prime Minister Topolánek, who

Eighteen existing touched parts of the Government's draft law and, moreover,

expanded the Government proposal on changes to the other three laws. Recurring proposals

more opposition members of Parliament on the extension of the deadline for consideration of the Act, or

on his return to completion were always rejected. The Senate proposal

the law, despite the resistance of the opposition.



The plaintiffs argue the contradiction of the legislative process for the adoption of this

Act with legislative rules of the Government (for example, with article 2, paragraph 2, which

stores ensure that the legislation was in accordance with the legislation of

higher legal force and with the findings of the Constitutional Court and became an organic


part of the whole legal system and that it was conceived at a glance and

formulated in clear, accessible language and linguistically and stylistically

perfectly).



The legislative process in this case disregarded the Constitutional Court

SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06. For the so-called. "poor" by the appellants

the provisions on the management of general health insurance company, Supplement edits

the system of making payments and the price of medicines and foods for special

medical purposes on the regulation of drug prices, the introduction of the so-called. environmental taxes,

as well as the change of the legislation of almost all social systems, etc.



The unconstitutionality of the method of adoption and release of the law is in the design of the dovozována

violations of the prohibition of arbitrariness in the legislative procedure, resulting from the

the provisions of article. 1 (1). 1, and of article. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution. Furthermore, it is argued

also a violation of article 6(1). 23 para. 3 of the Constitution and article about the promise of a Deputy. 44 of the Constitution of the

competencies of the Government when discussing the Bills.



III/c



Arguments of a group of 19 Senators of the Parliament of the Czech Republic

challenging the constitutionally prescribed way to acceptance and release of certain

parts of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll.



The appellants point out that your proposal do not dispute the content compliance

the contested law with the constitutional order, but only the way its

the approval, which they consider unconstitutional.



In that part of the proposal that is the subject of this proceeding, conducted under SP. zn.

PL. ÚS 24/07, cancellation is required, part of the 50th (article. And article LXXVIII.

LXXIX-amendment of the Act No. 563/1991 Coll., on accounting, as amended

provisions) Act No. 261/2007 Coll.



Notice of opposition shall in the first instance against the decision of the Senate to focus instead

the draft of the law. This decision is in accordance with the opinion of the appellants in breach of

with the constitutional role of the Senate and with the content of section 63, § 101 and 102 of the law on the rules

the order of the Senate. It is also in contradiction with the present parliamentary practice and with the purpose of

This Institute.



The argument for this group of 19 Senators coincides with the arguments of the Group

67 members and 43 members of the groups in the design are hastech

legislative procedure alleged to have defects inherent in the so-called. "přílepcích",

replenishment proposals contained in Deputy Mirek Topolánek.



Those part of the Act, that a group of Senators proposed to repeal, pursuant

the opinion of the appellants received in violation of the Constitution and the statutory

the legislative procedure. Specifically, it is alleged a violation of the principle of

clarity, lucidity and clarity of the law and policy

respect for democratic principles in the legislative process, violations of the

the prohibition of arbitrariness in the legislative procedure and breach of the principle of the protection of

political minorities-therefore a violation of article 6(1). 1, art. 2 (2). 3, art. 6, art. 37

paragraph. 2, article. 41 and 44 of the Constitution and article. 2 (2). the Charter of fundamental rights and

freedoms ("the Charter"). There was also reportedly to circumvent the Institute

legislative initiative pursuant to article. 41 of the Constitution and for infringement of the rights of Senators

According to the article. 46 and 48 of the Constitution. Accused of violating several provisions of the further

the law on the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies and of the law on the rules of procedure

The Senate.



The appellants refer to several of the findings of the Constitutional Court, in which the

emphasized the importance of respect for the constitutionally prescribed method of adoption

the laws, for example. the findings SP. zn. PL. ÚS 33/97 (ECR, volume

9, finding no 163, proclaimed under the No 30/1988 Coll.), pl. ÚS 5/02, pl. ÚS

21/01 and in particular find pl. ÚS 79/06 (see above). The principles expressed in

These findings of the Constitutional Court were said to be in adopting law No.

261/2007 Coll. respected. The latter finding of the Constitutional Court according to the

the opinion of the appellants also opened important questions before the Senate, that would

should be mj. also fuse the constitutionality and the quality of legislation.



The process of adopting the Act No. 261/2007 Coll., in the opinion of the appellants again

It highlights the need for compliance with the principle "that the parliamentary majority cannot

everything it rules of procedure explicitly forbid ". The appellants pronounced

expected that the Constitutional Court in its decision will contribute to the cultivation of

the parliamentary legislative process and identify the boundaries where it is only

a violation of the legal culture and where the breach of the rules of the legislative

the process gets the constitutionally sanctioned.



IV.



The appellants ' arguments challenging the consistency of the content of the law to the constitutional

laws (with respect to the subject of proceedings for the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/07)



IV/a



Arguments of groups 67 members of Parliament of the Czech Republic against the content

law



Petit design groups 67 members requests due to content

the defects of the cancellation provisions of banned § 6 para. 4 first sentence, section 6 (1).

13 and 14, § 7 (2). 8 the first sentence, and article 38 h of paragraph 1. 1 (b). b) of law No.

586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended; the impugned

defects caused by the plaintiffs ' amendment made by Act No.

261/2007 Coll.



The essence of these changes introduced by the Act No. 261/2007 Coll., consists in the

the fact that the newly to be from 1. January 2008 taxed not only the mandatory contributions

in the health and social security systems, but also the payments

are stored to the employer [section 6 paragraph 13 and 14, § 38 h, paragraph 1 (b))

Act No. 586/1992 Coll.]. Tax on income from employment and

emoluments (and an advance on the tax) of these amounts has to pay

the relevant natural person-an employee. The law, therefore, to receive the physical

person for the purposes of taxation the newly counted as the Medicare premiums, so

payments imposed on employers. Although the law talks about the income tax, in the

the calculation of the tax liability of the staff to be in their income

counted, and thus taxed, also charges imposed on employers

by special laws. These charges but nothing to do with employee income

in common and are not subject to his employment contract. In fact, it is

factually about public service obligation imposed on the employer by law, which

through the employer contributes to the maintenance of public

insurance. The appellants believe that the challenged legislation does not match

your terminology is contrary to the facts and any other valid provisions

Act No. 589/1992 Coll. and raises the unequal status, since the tax is forced to

pay a body which is not in any way connected with the subject of taxation.

Violated the principle of equality is not only, but also the principle of at least

minimum of rationality and justice law, which is

another of the assumption of the existence of the rule of law. This article has to be broken. 1

paragraph. 1 of the Constitution and article. 3 (2). 1 of the Charter in conjunction with article. 11 (1) 5, art.

30 paragraph 2. 1 and 3 and article. 31 of the Charter.



The unconstitutionality of the affected provisions of the Act is, in the opinion

the appellants in their conflict with the principles of the rule of law,

also include the clarity and seznatelnost rights, rationality, and

Justice legal editing. The law uses terminology which not only

does not correspond to the actual situation, but even it assigned obscuring, when

the present znejasňuje and got the terminology obscures. Where spoken in

If contributions to the health and social security system

on the taxation of income, it is in fact a tax on the health and social

insurance. However, this completely blurs the crucial difference between the system of taxes

and charges which has its constitutional basis in article. 11 (1) 5 of the Charter, and

public social and health insurance, which are based on

article. 30 and 31 of the Charter.



For more on the design of the presumed content of the defect relates to part four of Act No.

261/2007 Coll. (Amendment of Act No. 235/2004 Coll., on value added tax,

in the wording of later regulations). The Government draft Act No. 261/2007 Coll.

He is accompanied by new legislation the new entity

-groups of related taxable persons registered as a payer

through class registration (new section 5a to 5 c, § 28 para. 11, §

93A, § 95a, § 99 paragraph 2. 11, § 100 para. 5, § 105 para. 2, § 106a, § 107

paragraph. 3 of Act No. 235/2004 Coll.). It is a completely new, the law on the taxation of

the added value of unknown legal Institute, which has not been discussed in the

the committees of the Chamber of Deputies and was not justified. This new legal

According to the plaintiffs, the Institute brings a variety of outstanding issues,

in particular, the question of what nature has a "group" within the meaning of the applicable legal

procedure (whether it is a natural or legal person) and what is the position in the

tax proceedings.



Collectively, they are the proposal was opposed by changes in social benefits, and in the process

the social security law. In that part of the subject of the proceedings, that is

discussed in this case SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/07, is part of the

the twelfth of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. (Amendment of law No 110/2006 Coll., on

life and the subsistence minimum, as amended).

The promoters pronounced the view that this significant and extensive metamorphosis

the entire social security system, contained in the comprehensive amendment, would

should be for reasons of predictability of law and democratic legitimacy

law-making in a separate Act, or rather in more laws.

The right to social security is different from the legal sector of the financial

rights and their links in the same legal template makes no sense.



Is the draft explicitly questioned the fact that the Act No. 261/2007


Coll. occurred (in the seventh, ninth and fifty-first) de facto cancelled

Act No 215/2005 Coll. on registers, as amended

rules, as in the title section of the seventh legislature deceptively pretending to be

It is merely a "change in the law". The method of registration of tax documents

through the cash register while remotely connected with tax

law, but not with the stabilization of public budgets. Cancellation of de

facto all over the law on registers would require clear

the political decisions of the parliamentary majority, expressed a free

the vote (article 6 of the Constitution). Abrogation of this law, which has been in the past

years the subject of sharp political conflict, should be made

transparently, not be hidden in the middle of a huge law changing

dozens of other laws.



The appellants criticize as a serious defect in the legislative process

the fact that in the framework of the General amending "the package" was conceived

the material completely separate edit new taxes to protect the environment

environment (part of the forty-fifth tax from natural gas and some

other gases, ččást XLVI-tax on fossil fuels, ččást

XLVII-electricity tax). Modifying environmental taxes, although

generally related to the issues of taxation and has their same constitutional law

Foundation in the article. 11 (1) 5 of the Charter, this area of financial law, however, had

be adjusted when no separate law (for each tax separately)

so in at least one separate Act relating to a given type of taxes.

Legislative solutions in the opinion of the appellants is cluttered and

legislatively the erroneous.



As the appellants ' part is defective according to the 50th Act No. 261/2007 Coll.

(Amendment of the Act No. 563/1991 Coll., on accounting, as amended

regulations). Accounting issues related to the stabilisation of public

budgets only very indirectly. This can be changed in terms of the principles of

democratic State to the detriment and the fact that the

the contested act was on the way as unrelated amendment

the proposal (the so-called. "přílepku").



Finally, the appellants challenge the part onto the first (cancellation

in the remedies provisions) and closer to the provisions of section fifty-second defined

(efficiency). These parts that are not related to the subject matter and purpose of the

Act No. 261/2007 Coll.



IV/b



Arguments of a group of 43 members of Parliament of the Czech Republic against the content

law



Petit design group 43 members, related to content defects

Act No. 261/2007 Coll., is worded very vaguely and requests (next to

the cancellation of the entire Bill because of the constitutional procedure of adoption and

release of the law) "cancel those parts of the unconstitutionality of the law-

will be found to be ". Specific sections of the Act which are alleged against the content

defects, are therefore not detectable from the remedies, but only from the grounds

the proposal (in part III.). Specific content in that part of the complaint

the subject of the proceedings, which is being discussed in the matter of SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/07,

refer to these parts of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll.:



In part one of the contested act (Act No.

586/1992 Coll., on income taxes) in the article. I are attacked, paragraphs 16, 69 and

58; in the article. (II) is challenged by paragraph 18. Newly introduced is criticized construction

the so-called. "the Super-gross wage", consisting in the fact that the tax base of the employee

increases the amount that the employer and the employee that

employee pays for itself on public insurance. It is argued that the

These amounts are not in fact part of the income of the employee, and, therefore,

He cannot be taxed. The unconstitutionality is seen also in the fact

that for the self-employed has ceased to be paid by them

social and health insurance deemed expense (cost).

To increase the basis of calculation of the tax and for the calculation of

health and pension insurance, so these persons (entrepreneurs)

pay any amounts twice. Breach of the principle of non-retroactivity

fro the appellants that, according to the new provisions of article. II, paragraph 18

the revised section 38na of Act No. 586/1992 Coll. has retrospectively use

for the assessment of the facts that occurred after 1. January 2004.



In part two (article. IV) of the contested act (relating to amendments to the law

No 267/2006 Coll., amending the laws relating to the adoption of the law on

accident insurance of employees) is accused of legislatively defective cancellation

part of the seventh law No 267/2006 Coll., which merely supplement the earlier

the text of § 4 para. 1 of Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on letter zo); the error said

lies in the fact that it has been cancelled only the provision amending provisions, without

This was reflected in the "body" originally the amended law on taxes from

income.



In the fourth (article. VIII) of the contested act (relating to amendments to the

Act No. 235/2004 Coll., on value added tax, as amended

regulations) is challenged by point 4, inserting Article within the text of the amended law

the new section 5a and misleading completely unknown tax entity called "the group". Is

unclear what the legal nature of such "group" has, as it is with her

responsibility, what is the position of the members of the group. This entire structure is

said to be dubious and is contrary to the principles of Czech law.



The appellants expressed the view that the content of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. was

violated article. 1, art. 2 (2). 2, article. 4, art. 26 paragraph 2. 3 and article. 31 of the Charter,

Furthermore, article. and article 10 of the Constitution. 14 of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental

freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"). They argue, too, that the contested act

does not honor the case-law of the Constitutional Court, for example. findings SP. zn. PL 77/06

and (IV). TC 167/05.



In the.



Representation of the parties



The Constitutional Court pursuant to the provisions of § 42 para. 4 and section 69 of the Act on the constitutional

the Court sent the proposal to repeal the contested provisions

The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.



V/a



Representation of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic



The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in its observations dated

30.11. 2007, signed by its Chairman Ing. Miloslav Ethiopian, recapping

the appellants ' objections and supports them with disapproval.



The plaintiffs apparently incorrectly argue Constitutional Court, SP. zn.

PL. ÚS 79/06 (relating to the so-called. "přílepků") and chose the wrong

the expansion interpretation, and conclusions of law, expressed in the Constitutional Court,

lay not only in the way the submission and adoption of amendments in

Parliament, but also on how to handle the Bill itself.

The plaintiffs apparently took advantage of the fact that the preamble of the cited award

The Constitutional Court "is so rich that it is making the offer in principle,

different interpretations of what it meant to the Constitutional Court by finding

comment ". In expressing the opinion that the judgment of the constitutional

the Court is to be interpreted restrictively, in the sense that it concerns

"above all, the issue of amending the draft law submitted in the course

the legislative process, i.e.. in the houses of Parliament ".



The observations also argues with some other findings, handsfree in the

Constitutional Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06 on request

predictability, souladnosti and rationality, the rights to which they point

the appellants. If the Constitutional Court consistently coming out of it

voiced, ".. so he would have to cancel or modify the laws as long as the

should the legal order of the Czech Republic does not become accessible even without the help of

the legal information system, which would be in the current legislative

the situation not only unrealistic, but this would constitute a serious

exceeding the competence of the Constitutional Court. -If, in the broad sense

understood the unpredictability and inconsistency, vagueness of the law should be

the reason for the repeal of the law by the Constitutional Court (as a violation of its

abstract «right to good laws "), it would mean that we would

dovozovali competence of the Constitutional Court to repeal any law, without

had to in search of the grounds for annulment of the Act limited to the wording of the

specific provisions of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court would, at the same time he formulated

the legislative policy of the State. However, it is for policy making

representation by the people in democratic elections, to choose, and that is

also people from their activities responsible. " The Constitutional Court cannot be said to be

"the guarantor of the quality of legislation", as assessed in accordance with criteria

predictability, souladnosti and rationality of law, because it said

"-contrary to the constitutional definition of the status of this Court".



In expressing disagreement with the statement pronounced the appellants, that the Government

the draft law, and the law itself is materially inconsistent. The subject of the proposal

the Act was apparently intended "-Government, unifying aim that according to the explanatory memorandum

the message was a revenue optimization for the State budget, which

at the same time, should be promoted through economic growth and the protection of

of the environment ". From the scope defined the subject of the draft law said

nevybočily or amendments tabled, adopted at third reading.



The expression of dissenting opinion also contains the application for annulment

individual provisions of the contested act or amended laws


for the non-compliance of their content with the constitutional requirements. The subject of this proceeding

refers to the controversy with the applicant, in respect of their objections to the change

the design of income tax of physical persons by the so-called. "the Super-gross wage",

that brought the amendment to Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income taxes,

in the wording of later regulations. Representation of the Chamber of deputies in polemics

with the applicant expresses the belief that the new legislation that extends the

the taxable amount of social security and health insurance premiums paid by employee and

the employer is correct, because the expenses are income

natural persons. The new legislation is said to be understandable and reveal a name and

transparently makes clear, what are the actual wage costs people

paying tax from dependant activity.



Finally, it expressed the opinion that the summary the Chamber of Deputies

acted in the belief that the law is adopted in accordance with the Constitution,

the constitutional order and the rule of law.



In a/b



Expression of the Czech Senate



The Senate of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, represented by its Chairman MUDr. Přemysl

Sobotka, in its observations of 28 June. 11.2007 described the procedure, in particular,

assessment of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. by the Senate.



He stated that a draft law approved by the Chamber of Deputies, was after his

referral for consideration of the Senate commanded by three committees-the Committee on

economy, agriculture and transport (which featured as a guarantee

the Committee), the Committee for territorial development, public administration and the environment, and

Committee for health and social policy. All three committees

recommend to approve the Bill as amended by a transferred by the

the Chamber of Deputies. The Senate has acted on the Bill on his 8. meeting on 19 December. 9.

2007. In States that in the full Senate did not complete the "classic"

debate within the meaning of the rules of procedure of the Senate. Before the vote on the proposal to

the Senate Bill did, however, have taken advantage of their rights.

preferential granting of words (section 69 of the law on the rules of procedure of the Senate) some

officials of the Senate, and the Chairmen of the clubs.



The President of the Senate in the observations that at a meeting of the Senate, as well as

before in the Senate committees, opinions, that the Bill

represents an extensive, unclear and in our legal system, a unique

legal standard. Criticized was the procedure by which they were when discussing in

The Chamber of Deputies added to the Government's draft law, some new

parts, and some have been raised further objections.



The Senate apparently by its resolution No. 192 of 19 May. 9.2007 majority-

approved a Bill expressing the dwell, acted in

the belief that this standard is in accordance with the Constitution and the Charter. Although

the law apparently-"at first glance can remind file together

unrelated separate partial legislation compiled only to

one comprehensive law, "yet ..." contains the supporting the idea of unifying the

... the stabilization of public budgets ". The analogous procedure is said to be in

the Czech legislative process, the same applied also

for example. the establishment of counties (Act No. 132/2000 Coll., amending and cancelling

Some laws related to the law on regions, law on obcich,

the Act on municipal offices and the Act on the capital city of Prague, as amended by

amended) or when stopping the activities of the district offices

(Act No. 320/2002 Coll., amending and repealing certain laws in

connection with the termination of the activities of the municipal authorities, as amended

regulations). In terms of unifying ideas of the Bill, the Senate also accepted

complex amendments (members of Topolánek, Tluchoře and Rovana)

adopted by the Chamber of Deputies.



Representation of the Chamber also contains some dissenter's opinion on the proposal for

on cancellation of the individual provisions of the contested act or

revised laws of their content for non-compliance with constitutional requirements.

The subject of this proceeding concerns the controversy with the applicant, as regards the

their objections to changing the design of the tax on the income of natural persons

According to the so-called. "the Super-gross wage". Advocates wonder why

the plaintiffs are challenging the unconstitutionality of the tax base to increase expenditure on

public insurance only if the provisions of the first sentence of section 7 (2). 8

Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, and not also in the case of

the provisions of § 25 para. 1 (b). (g)) of the same Act, in which it is contained

the same construction of the tax base. If they comply with the proposal, there would be

apparently unequal access to generically the same groups of entrepreneurs.



The Senate leaves it to the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of adopted

the law and decided.



V/c



Representation of the Ministry of health



27 June 2002. 12.2007, the Constitutional Court received (without asking for them)

The Ministry of health of 19 December. 12.2007, signed by the Minister of

MUDr. Tomáš Julínkem. The Ministry of health in it

Notice that as the Central Government authority for health care,

mandatory respect for the public interest, gives its opinion on the draft

a group of MPs and senators as amicus curiae.



In the opinion of the Ministry of health is therefore a sharp disagreement with

submitted by the proposal. The Ministry is of the opinion that the appellants are

try to implement your own design through its political

the program, for which it did not find sufficient support in Parliament. The vast

part of the representation of the Ministry of health advocates constitutional conformity

established regulatory fees for provided health care. Because

This issue is not a subject in the present proceedings, maintained by the Constitutional

Court under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/07, will be here this opinion

The Department of health discussed closer.



The Ministry of health in its opinion expresses the view that also

the legislative process of the adoption of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. was in accordance with the

respective constitutional requirements. The objections raised by the applicant against the parts of the fortieth

Act No. 261/2007 Coll. (Amendment of the Act on public health insurance),

that lies in the fact that the content of the new legislation contained in the head of the fortieth

is not related to the basic subject, where appropriate, the purpose of the Act is to be

"the stabilization of public budgets", indicates that the Ministry of health

for odd. The Ministry contends that the new regulation establishing payments

and the price of medicines has the same scope as the whole law,

that apparently has a clear "unifying idea", IE. "optimize the revenue of the State

the budget ". The Ministry of health further claims that don't stand up nor

objections raised against the procedure of submission and acceptance of amendments

Member of Tluchoře (the proposals relating to the determination of payments and prices

medicinal products), because even these amendments they said were linked to the

subject of the entire Bill.



Vi.



A replica of the appellants to express



The plaintiffs-a group of 67 members of Parliament posted on 18. 12.2007

an expression of the President of the Chamber of Deputies and the President of the Senate of its

contradicting the replica. They point in particular to the fact that the participants

proceedings before the Constitutional Court are the Chambers of the Parliament, not their

Presidents-representing the Chamber just outside. The Presidents of the Chambers are not

According to the replicas are entitled to independently form the will of the Chamber, which shall be chaired,

but can this play-that is created according to the rules laid down by the Constitution and

law-only outwardly communicate and manifest. If the President of the Chamber of Commerce

Parliament fails to submit the proposal for approval by the representation of the party

Chamber of the Constitutional Court may, by virtue of their function to tell only the factual and

the undisputed circumstances of the discussion of the draft law. Reviews approved

the law and application for its annulment by the Constitutional Court over this limit is not

the relevant expression of the Chambers, but only the personal opinion of its President.



The plaintiffs complain that the representation provided by the Chairman of the Senate Přemysl

Sobotka, that in it the President interprets the position of the Senate to the contested

the law, although in the full Senate, has taken place or, as debate

The Senate passed that Bill does not deal with.



The appellants dispute the relevance of the observations of the President of the

the Chamber of Deputies Miloslav Vlcek and because of his belonging to a group

Members that the proposal to repeal the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. presented.

One and the same person so acting on the side of two of the parties-

the applicant and the authority that issued the contested regulation.

Miloslav Vlček, therefore, as a member of the unconstitutionality of the contested claim

Act No. 261/2007 Coll., while as Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies, no

procedural or substantive defects on the approved law does not find it.



In its reply, the appellants take issue with the observations of the President of the

the Chamber of Deputies, that the application for annulment of the law ' vague application

the principle of predictability in the law ". In contrast, the appellants argue that

argue a violation of specific provisions of the Constitution, in particular article. 41 of the Constitution

(to circumvent the legislative initiatives), art. 6 of the Constitution (political decisions

based on the will of the majority expressed free vote). 15

The Constitution (legislative power of Parliament) and article. 89 para. 2 of the Constitution (General

binding nature of enforceable decisions of the Constitutional Court).



The appellants do not agree with the fact that in the comments the President of the


the Chamber of deputies are bagatelizovány the principle of legislative techniques contained in

The legislative rules of the Government. It is said to be a wonder if and only if

is a co-author of the Bill, the legislative rules of the Government, which itself

set. The appellants believe that the gross violations of these

very traditional and proven principles of making laws can have a devastating

effects on the level of legal certainty, and thus constitutionally protected foundations

the rule of law.



Replica responds to the observations to taxation also called. "the Super-gross wage",

If the President of the Chamber of Deputies has already made payments to tax advocates

on the social and health insurance, and if the claims that these paid

the payments "are the income of a natural person". Identification of expenses with receipts in this

the sentence apparently just shows how protismyslná and arbitrary is the new design in

the contested act.



The remarks by President of the Senate, who defended the practice of accepting

complex laws, summarizing the file unrelated component

the laws of the United supporting the uniting idea, pointing to similar

the laws adopted in the context of the creation of regions (Law No. 132/2000

SB., no. 320/2002 Coll.), a replica of the claims that these laws differ significantly

the more intense the thematic and the teleological sevřeností and scope

far smaller than the Act No. 261/2007 Coll.



The plaintiffs-a group of 67 members Additionally posted on 17. 1.2008

The Constitutional Court its opinion on the representation of the Ministry of health

of 19 December 2003. 12.2007, which pronounced the fundamental disagreement. The bulk of the

This opinion of the appellants is a polemic with the arguments of the Ministry of

health care in respect of regulatory charges in the health sector and on the

the new legislation determining the reimbursement and pricing of pharmaceuticals. Because of this issue

is not part of the subject of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, will not be on

This place mentioned. The appellants, however, at the same time sharply code words

against claims that the Ministry of health, the aim of their design said

It is not a review of constitutionality, but only the "delegation of political struggle ...

the field able to court ", to which such a role for the Court. The plaintiffs again

They recall that their proposal towards the protection of constitutionality and legitimacy

the legislative process and to the protection of the fundamental constitutional rights and freedoms.



VII.



The evidence obtained by the Constitutional Court from public sources



The Constitutional Court as a basis for its decision to enlist-reporting

the records of the proceedings of the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate, and their committees,

their resolutions and Council publications freely available in the digital library on

the website of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Czech

the Republic of www.psp.cz and www.senat.cz.



VIII.



A description of the legislative procedure, the adoption of Act No. 261/2007 Coll.



From the observations of both chambers of the Czech Parliament, the attached annexes and

from the documents available electronically, the Constitutional Court found:



-The Government has submitted to the Chamber of Deputies the Government Bill on 24. 5.

2007 (print 222/0). The Bill was circulated to members on 25 April. 5.2007.

The Organising Committee of the Chamber of Deputies discussing the draft law

recommended on 24. 5.2007. Determine the newsletter Mgr. Bohuslav Sobotku and

suggested order proposal for discussion of three committees: 1. the Committee on the

health, 2. the Committee for social policy, 3. the Budget Committee.



-The first reading took place on 6-7. and 7. on 15 June 2007. a meeting of the

the Chamber of Deputies. The Bill was referred to the discussion of the aforementioned committees

(resolution No. 335).



-House Committee on health to discuss the Bill on 20 April.

June 2007, did not adopt any resolution. The Committee for social policy

discuss the Bill on 2 February 2005. 7. in 2007, and in its resolution recommended

reject the proposal. The Committee discussed the draft law on 8 June 1998. 8.2007

and in its resolution recommended to reject the proposal.



Second reading in the House-passed Bill in General and detailed

the debate on 14 June 2005. and 15. on 18 August 2007. meeting. Brought by the amendment

the proposals have been handled as print 222/3, which was sent to 16. 8.2007.



-The third reading in the House took place 21. 8.2007 at 18. meeting. A proposal from the

the law was approved; of the 200 deputies present voted for the adoption of

101 members, 99 votes were against.



-The Chamber of Deputies has progressed on 31 December 2004. 8. the 2007 Senate Bill

as printing 106/0. The Senate included the print on your 8. meeting and discuss it

on 19 December. 9.2007. Resolution No. 192, the Senate expressed its will to design

the Act is not to bother.



By-law was delivered to the President of the Republic to sign the 25 June. 9.2007

and the President signed it on 5 December. 10.2007.



-The law was promulgated on 16. 10.2007 in the amount of the collection of laws under the 85

number 261/2007 Coll.



IX.



Oral proceedings before the Constitutional Court



At a hearing before the Constitutional Court, which was held on 31 March 2004. January

2008, the parties and the interveners reiterated arguments

contained in their proposals. observations of the Constitutional Court and the

remained on its opinions, as well as proposals for the decision

The Constitutional Court in the case. In Addition, JUDr. Vojtech Filip, in

the position of the person authorized to act on behalf of the intervention-group

43 members of Parliament of the United Kingdom,

content to the introduction of the new entity of value added tax

-a group of persons registered as a payer of tax through

group registration. The content of objections was the fact that the subject

does not have legal personality.



Furthermore, JUDr. Vojtěch Filip presented the proposal on additional evidence

analytical material drawn up a draft law on the stabilisation of

the Legislative Department of the Office of the public budgets of the Senate

Of the Czech Republic.



The Constitutional Court according to § 48 para. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., as amended by

amended, the proposal on additional evidence,

because of the nature of things, it is apparent that the analytical material affects the

laws, and not of the factual circumstances.



X.



Constitutional competence and conformity of the legislative process



According to the provisions of § 68 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., the Constitutional Court within

proceedings for review of the standards review the three components that make up your

a summary of the issue of compliance of the law with the constitutional order, in the case of

other legislation and laws. These components are the competences

the authority which issued the legislation procedure, which was

prescription issued, and its contents. A sequence of review is determined by precise

algorithm: the nature of things, the Constitutional Court deals with the first competency

competent public authority draft legislation,

then, in the event of an affirmative answer to the existence of such a competence,

the respect of the constitutionally prescribed way the issue of the contested legal

Regulation and, ultimately, for finding compliance with the procedures, terms and conditions

assessing the content of the contested regulation compliance with the constitutional order,

or laws.



In assessing the constitutionality of the contested act, the Constitutional Court accepted the

plea of the applicant, according to which the Presidents of the Chambers of Parliament

are not entitled to separately form the will of the Chamber, in the comments

party to the proceedings are entitled to communicate on behalf of the Chamber of the Constitutional Court

just factual and undeniable circumstances, consideration of the draft law. Reviews

the contested act and the controversy with a proposal for its abolition of the Constitutional Court

above this limit is no longer an expression of the Chamber, but her personal opinion

of the President.



The subject of the review of constitutionality in the matter is decided by the accurately marked

parts of the Act on the stabilization of public budgets and Tax Act

income. Competence of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, which has adopted such laws,

It follows from article. 15 paragraph 1. 1 of the Constitution.



The constitutionality of the procedure the adoption of Act No. 261/2007 Coll., form the first

a group of opposition the applicant and interveners.



Proposal to repeal those parts of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. is based in

first and foremost on opposition falling on the alleged violation of the constitutionality of

the adoption of the act as a whole. As to the objection

inconsistency of the law and the objection of the other secondary

participant (groups of senators) protiústavností the decision of the Senate

to dwell on the draft law on the public budget stabilization.



From the perspective of procedural objections thus conceived should be recalled

maxed out, which in this context implies for petit decided by things (find

The Constitutional Court, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 7/03, ECR, volume 34,

find no 113, promulgated under no. 512/2004 Sb.): "If the plaintiff in

proceedings for review of the standards in the absence of a violation of the constitutional order, as defined

skills and technique to the legislative process (§ 68 (2) of law No.

182/1993 Coll.), is then given by the circuit, all provisions of the petit forming

the legal provision that the constitutionality of the impugned deficits turn out. "



Procedural misconduct relating to individual parts.

the provisions of the Act on the stabilization of public budgets are then

by the applicant and the interveners seen in the absence of the close relationship between

amendments to the subject matter of the proposed Act, in exceeding the

the legal framework for the administration of legislatively-technical proposals in the third

reading of the Bill and in breach of the Legislative rules of the Government in those


parts of the law, which represent the original new

(nenovelizující) legislation.



X/a



Inconsistency of the law proceedings



Inconsistency, internal nesouladnost, vagueness of law No.

261/2007 Coll. by the applicant is in breach with the principle of the rule of

State and, secondly, the fact that has resulted in a real restriction options

Parliament to discuss such a law is in conflict with the principle of parliamentary

democracy and the separation of powers between the Executive and legislation.



Act No. 261/2007 Coll. is legislatively-technical law

the joint. Contains the amendment precisely designated laws (sections 1 through

36, 38 to 44, 48 and 50), on the original new Congressmen (section 37,

45, 46, 47), and finally the cancellation provisions (part 51) and provisions on the

efficiency (part 52). In other words, it is a law that is

some "waste amendment" and, in part, the new legal arrangements.



The Constitutional Court to the constitutionality of the so-called. "collecting short novel" uttered in the award

SP. zn. PL. ÚS 21/01 (ECR, volume 25, finding no 14,

promulgated under Act No. 95/2002 Coll.). The Court held that "practice, when one

the law is also amended accordingly several different laws, is in

the legislative practice of relatively frequent ... this practice is in principle constitutionally

Conformal, but only if the amendments are mutually

rule is associated. On the contrary, the adverse phenomenon, nekorespondující with a sense of

and the principles of the legislative process, it is necessary to indicate a situation where one

the Act amended laws are mutually content immediately

unrelated, which occurs for example. to speed up the legislative

procedures, often in the form of amendments proposals. Such

procedure does not conform to the basic principles of the rule of law,

include the principle of foreseeability of the law, its clarity and the principle of

its internal control. If one of the law (in the

in the formal sense) is interfered with in several laws being edited materie

in other and these laws are not substantively together and systematically linked,

arises often greatly confusing the legal status of that principle

predictability, clarity and internal control Act already

not respect. " The Constitutional Court notes that, in this case decided an unfavourable

the statement, and therefore request the internal consistency of content "collection

the amendment is contained in the relevant "the award cannot be evaluated in terms of the

If pointing argument.



Similarly, for the practice of "collecting short novel" in the award of 16 April 2003. March

2001 (G 150/00-12) the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Austria. To address "common

the legislative practice of taking collection novel "stated that it is" of the utmost

harmful to poznatelnost rights ". However, even in this case referred to

the complaint was not derogatory, but the only reason obiter dictum.



In the current case-law of the Constitutional Court is disturbing because of the uncertainty,

obscurity, confusion, only the individual statutory provisions,

not a law as a whole. This stemmed from the understanding of the

the concept of uncertainty of the law itself, which was defined by the absence of

determination of its normative content using common interpretative

procedures. The listed aspect can be transparently and convincingly

apply only in relation to an individual, a test certainty podrobenému

the statutory provisions. In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 10/06 (promulgated under no.

163/2007 Sb.) In this context, the Constitutional Court explicitly said: "in General,

It can be concluded that the vagueness of a provision of the law

to be considered rozpornou with the requirement of legal certainty, and thus

the rule of law (article 1, paragraph 1, of the Constitution), only if the intensity of the

This excludes the possibility of determining the uncertainty of its normative content

by using the usual interpretation. " (findings SP. zn. PL. ÚS 4/95

(A collection of decisions, volume 3, finding no 29, declared under no. 169/1995

Coll.), pl. ÚS 9/95 (ECR, volume 5, finding no 16, announced

under Act No. 107/1996 Coll.), pl. ÚS 2/97 (ECR, volume 8, no.

91, promulgated under no. 186/1997 Coll.), pl. ÚS 23/02 (collection of decisions,

Volume 33, no. 89, promulgated under Act No. 480/2004 Coll.), pl. ÚS

40/02 (ECR, volume 30, no. 88, no.

199/2003 Coll.), pl. TC 44/02 (ECR, volume 30, finding no 98,

promulgated under no. 210/2003 Coll.), pl. TC 25/06) (promulgated under no. 487/2006

SB.).



The cancellation of the entire Bill, if applicable, its compact parts founded the Constitutional

the Court in its previous case-law, the reason for this difference of constitutional and legal

procedure the adoption of the law, diversity, which falls on the individual

the structural section. In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 21/01 (ECR,

Volume 25, no. 2, promulgated under Act No. 95/2002 Coll.) expressed in

following the adoption of the law on the State budget the following proposition:

"Because the Constitution in relation to the law on the State budget does not allow

ingerenci of the Senate in the legislative process, and this Act may be-on

the design of the Government-negotiated and authorized only the Chamber of Deputies, it is

clearly the only potential constitutionally conformist to do so when it is

This law is being discussed and approved individually. Therefore, also

rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies (Act No. 90/1995 Coll.) §

paragraph 101. 3 expressly provides that the part of the law on the State budget

cannot be changes, addition or repeal other laws. ' (Note:

Law No. 10/1993 Coll., on the State budget for the year 1993 was approved

even before the entry into force of Act No. 90/1995 Sb.) According to the

the opinion of the Constitutional Court can be inferred from the statutory language, that even

part of the current ' law, cannot be the change, addition or cancellation of

the law on the State budget. The situation, when together with the draft of the law on

the State budget also are proposed laws of the other, or when one

the law is amended, the law on the State budget and other laws, it is therefore

-as already mentioned-a status that is not in accordance with the Constitution or even

the law (see the cited law No. 90/1995 Sb.). "



If the applicant argues the inconsistency of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll.

establishing the reason for its unconstitutionality, the argument differs from the

the current line of argument because of the legal provisions, if necessary. violations of the

procedure the adoption of law due to its differences with respect to the

each of its parts.



It has already been stated that Act No. 261/2007 Coll. is in terms of

legislatively-technical law mixed, i.e.. It contains both

the amendment precisely designated laws (section 1 to 36, 38 to 44, 48 and 50)

the original new legal laws (section 37, 45, 46, 47), and

Finally, cancellation provisions (part 51) and provisions on the effectiveness of (the part of the

52), that is the point about the law, that is, in part, "a Novella collection" and in part

new individual (nenovelizující).



In case, if the law is adopted in the form of 50 separate

laws, of which 46 novels and 4 separate laws, the argument

inconsistency would lose its substance. Its content, therefore,

There is no objection to the impossibility of reconstruction of the normative content of the statutory

the provisions of argumentačních by using the usual procedures, nor the objection

failure to comply with the different procedures for different parts of the adopted

the law. Recall that in the "capture" the provision amending the provisions of the

become part of the "full version" of each amending laws and

they are the addressees as follows in automated legal information accessible

systems, the provisions of the new, nenovelizující, are the addressees of the accessible

as well, as is the case with other legal provisions.



The contents of the objection of unconstitutionality is "clutter" and "uncertainty",

which is based on "mass" of the newly adopted law, both for the addressees of the

law and, secondly, in terms of real competence Parliament such a

the "meat" of the right to discuss in the context of the adoption of the single act, IE. in terms of the

the principles of parliamentary democracy and the separation of powers. Referred to the content of objections

"inconsistency" is expressed in the following statement

applicant: "in the absurd extreme case, the Government could concentrate

Once a year all of its legislative intentions of the draft law on the adjustment of

legal relations in the Czech Republic ', or even in the law, to improve the

the fate of the citizens of the United States ' and force political pressure to

the Government approved the draft law, the majority being in this version. This would

a de facto influence on the content of the laws of the members of the completely marginalizován ... Such

Parliament would be only a facade of completely denying the principles of

democracy and the separation of powers. "



The second component of the plaintiff put forward objections inconsistency is

voucher valid for constitutional limits on the legislature in shaping system

the right content and structure design adopted laws.



From the perspective of the constitutionality in this connection should be to protect the two constitutional

order the guaranteed values:



The first is the value of parliamentarism, and the separation of powers, reflected in the

procedure that even in such cases must allow fair assessment and

discussion of the draft Parliament (and in particular the parliamentary opposition).



The other is then the value of the material rule of law reflected

the maxims, such as in the Constitutional Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06:


"The law in the formal sense of the rule of law in the material cannot be understood

as a mere carrier for a variety of changes throughout the rule of law.

Material nazíraný in contrast, the law requires that the law was both from

as to form and content in a predictable, consistent source of

rights. "



Ad and) the Government Bill on the public budget stabilization was

The Chamber of deputies at its 18. meeting held on 21 February 2006. August 2007

adopted in the vote under Order No 23, in which 200 of the present

MPs and MEPs voted for the proposal, 101 against 99 (see

a verbatim record of the proceedings of the Chamber of Deputies, digital archive

The Chamber of Deputies, URwww.psp.cz). The proposal was on 19. September 2007, discussed

8. a meeting of the Senate, this adopted resolution No. 192 expressed the will to

It does not deal with the resolution of 80 senators present and

senátorek voted in favor, 49 against and 27 voted absentee voting 4

(see the record of the Senate vote, URwww.senat.cz). After the signing of the relevant

constitutional actors was promulgated on 16. October 2007 in the amount of 85

The collection of laws under no. 261/2007 Coll.



From the perspective of the protection of the values of parliamentarism, and the separation of powers reflected

the legislative procedures necessary to examine the possibility of a real assessment and

discussion of the draft Parliament (and in particular the parliamentary opposition).



It establishes the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies for each reading of a draft

the law limits designed to create sufficient time

the parliamentary discussion of a legal masters (article 89, section 91 paragraph 2.

2, § 95 para. 1 of law No. 90/1995 Sb.). One of these time-limits, a period of sixty

days for the discussion of the Bill in Committee, as part of the first reading

the draft law, the Chamber of Deputies according to the provisions of section 91 paragraph 2. 3

the law on the rules of procedure of the Chamber of deputies to extend up to 20 days. It comes

about the legal tool that is used to create a larger time frame for

discussion of the larger legal masters.



During the first reading of a draft law on the public budget stabilization

January 6. and 7. June 2007 (see a verbatim record of the 15th meeting of the

The Chamber of Deputies held on 6-7. and 7. June, 2007, www.psp.cz)

the deputies Bohuslav Sobotka, Stanislav Hamster, Václav Votava, Zdeněk

Jičínský and Jerome Tejc have pointed out the extent and internal inconsistencies

the present outline. Bohuslav Sobotka in this context, the proposal made

on the commandments of the law to individual master discussion committees

After each section, Kosta Dimitrov suggested rejection of the Government's

the draft law on the public budget stabilization, in the case of non-acceptance

This proposal suggested "extension of the deadline for his Committee

30 days ". Jerome then submitted a procedural proposal Tejc on the extending

the deadline for the review of the draft because of his range of about 20 days.



As a response to the proposal of a Deputy Finance Minister, Bohuslav Sobotka

Miroslav Kalousek on 7 December. June 2007 presented the Chamber of Deputies

the proposal that "this whole print 222 was commanded by the Budgetary Committee,

social and health. Not in parts, but that the entire printing

commanded by these three committees. " In the vote under order number 60 of

the present proposal for 197 of the Finance Minister spoke, 113 against

voted 8 members. It follows that for the go-ahead and MEPs

the opposition, or voted against.



Suggestions and Tejce Dimitrova, members without the content of the argument of

any of the members of the Government responded. members of the ruling coalition, have been

rejected (of 198 MPs and MEPs for their rejection

97, 94 voted against).



From the perspective of compliance with the law on the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies

defined time and discuss procedural framework in which the

constitutional guarantee of protection projects of the real functioning of parliamentarianism,

all time limits and procedural techniques in the framework of the consideration of the Government's

the draft law on the public budget stabilization followed, in which the

the period according to § 95 para. 1 of law No. 90/1995 Sb.



If the extended for the discussion of the Bill in Committee, also

This technique does not breach parliamentary procedure. In this

context but the phenomenon, while turns out "only" to the area

political culture, but which cannot be used in the assessment of the course of the hearing

the draft law on the public budget stabilization. The principle of the

democracy does not exhaust the only Government most, but found your content

in the democratic competition of ideas, in a democratic debate. It is hard to

Imagine a legal template, where a proposal for the extension of the deadline to

its consideration with regard to its scope and complexity could be

opodstatněnější. If the proposal is rejected, the opposition nota bene without

any kind of argument, this fact is considered as

the deficit of democratic political culture on the part of the Government's majority. The same

complaint turns out even on the circumstances of the presentation of the amendment of the law

the Prime Minister on 15 December. August 2007, design, comprising 37 pages of text

-However, the period was 72 hours between the second and third reading of the draft law

observed (article 95, paragraph 1, of Act No. 90/1995 Coll.), by the Government of the majority

has been made an attempt to create a parliamentary minority more adequate time

space for the assessment of such magnitude and significance of the proposed changes.



Ad b) searching for answers to both of the above components objections

inconsistency, IE. breach of the principle of parliamentarianism and the separation of powers and

clutter received by the law and the structure of law, can be

merge into a single topic. This topic is, if it can be "reform" plans

parliamentary majority to perform only method compatible with traditional

ideas on the system of the law and legislative technique, how these

developed from the late 19th century. century, or it is not. So, if from

the perspective of the principles of parliamentarism, and the separation of powers acceptable reform

private law by the adoption of the new civil code, comprising over

2700 sections, why then not but acceptable reform

public finances in the form of a comprehensive bill that includes, in part,

"the collector novel" and in part new Congressmen. Some categories are

Indeed, becoming a natural part of legal thought up with the benefit of hindsight,

While the original had long since forgotten how controversial it is. To

the most famous legal polemikám European legal history belongs to the dispute

Friedrich Carl von Savigny and Anton Friedrich Thibauta from Justuse

the beginning of the 19th century. the century of the need, on the contrary, the codification of them respectively.

civil law in Germany (see Thibaut und Savigny. Ein

Rechtsstreit auf Grund ihrer programmatischer Next. Hrsg. J.

Stern, Darmstadt, 1959)-teeing, that it was the opinion of

Savignyho, against kodifikačnímu effort in the field of private

the law, which has prevailed in what was then Germany and shifted so the adoption

civil code in comparison with France and Austria on one hundred years later.



Substantial changes in the legal regulations in the field of public and private law

they are an inevitable part of social development and is in the present

the democratic legislature to determine the structure of rights and define while

the subject of legal regulation of various laws-in that context also to consider the

the degree of implementation of significant changes for a particular segment of the legal system

in part, by making amendments to the applicable laws and in part by the adoption of new

statutory adjustments. The reform, within the meaning of fundamental changes in a specific segment

private and public rights in one Act, is not equivalent to the

codification, but can she make another legislatively-technical

method. At this point, it must be an empirical exercise, referring to

the shift in methods of making law. Quantitative research of the Czech legal

the order shows that the laws and ordinances "production of amendments after 1990

not in the history of the Czech legal order equivalent ", while" in principle,

they have been updating especially the provisions adopted in the previous legislature, and

the provisions of the current parliamentary term. Interventions in the distant past

they are rather exceptional. It seems that at present, with some hyperbole

speaking, Parliament focuses on amending their own novel. "

(F. Čvrček, basic quantitative parameters of the Czech legal order.

Lawyer, no. 4, 2006, p. 442-443).



This consideration by the Constitutional Court but is not in favour of the adoption of filipikou

"collecting short novel". It is merely pointing to the changing form of the rule

system and on the diversity of the legislative purposes of the present and the past

times. Is an expression of discretion as regards the rating, but not bezvýjimečné

acceptance.



To be the maximum content consistency Act, of the finding made in the

SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06, according to which "the law in the formal sense, not in the

the material law understood as a mere carrier for various

carried out across the legal order ", understood in the sense of derogačního

because then only for extreme situations, which would be for example.

the claimant referenced example, in which the Government would concentrate "

each year all their legislative intentions of the draft law on the adjustment of

legal relations in the Czech Republic ', or even in the law, to improve the

the fate of the citizens of the United States ' ". Despite all the possible doktrinárním


doubts about the plausibility and suitability of the extensive combination of collection

the amendment and the original legal provisions for such a case in the present case

It's not.



According to the explanatory memorandum to the draft law on the public budget stabilization

"presented by file legislation relates to the field of taxation, including the

environmental taxes, almost all social systems (in particular

changes in the State social support system, and the existential

minimum, the sickness insurance system, the area of pay and region

employment) and the public health in the health field

insurance premiums on such insurance, and the activities of the health

insurance companies. Its purpose is to optimize your revenue of the State budget

promote economic growth and by modifying the environmental taxes to strengthen the protection

of the environment, on the expenditure side, the measures proposed shall monitor

to stop the rise of the funding referred to in

systems, which, with a view to increasing the proportion of these expenses to the

the development of public budget deficits could not be sustained. " In other words, respectively.

other "dictionary", described the purpose of the draft law on the stabilisation of public

budgets in his appearance in the House of Commons on 6. June 2007 on the

its 15. meeting at 1. read the proposal, Prime Minister Mirek

Topolanek said: "we are trying to pull the emergency brake in

several areas. And here against opponents, who argue that it is

unconstitutional, I want to say that the constitutional analysis exists. It is not no

přílepek, it is named after the stabilization of public budgets and all standards

concern the stabilization of public budgets. No přílepek is not there. "

Recall that the term "přílepek," the Prime Minister did not use the meaning,

which was used by the Constitutional Court in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06

the amending proposal in second reading, in which the close relationship with absentuje

the present Bill, but different in meaning, in

the importance of the substantive parts of the original draft law inconsistency.



Act No. 261/2007 Coll. consists of three crucial parts-edit

taxes, social welfare system and public health insurance-to

content link to a range of public budgets. Not in his case

Therefore, the Court concludes on the extreme system which was arbitrary decisions in the

relation to it as a whole, the derogatory reason for violation of the principles of

the material rule of law and parliamentary democracy.



X/b



To the objection of unconstitutionality of the decision of the Senate Bill does not deal with the



In addition to the opposition's objection to the other General discrepancies incident to

Act No. 261/2007 Coll. as a whole is an objection of unconstitutionality of the decision

The Senate does not deal with the draft law on the public budget stabilization.



According to the article. 46 para. 2 of the Constitution, one of the forms of consultation of the draft law is

the expression of his will to bother it. For a more detailed reflection is

the constitutional provisions mentioned in § 107 of Act No. 106/1999 Coll., on rules

the order of the Senate, according to which "after the performance of newsletters that do not contain

recommendations of the Committee proposal that the Senate has shown the will of the draft law is

pursue prompts President told the senators, whether such a proposal

want to submit. If such a proposal was included in the recommendations of the Committee, or

filed, the vote on it without debate. If this proposal is adopted,

the Senate negotiations on the Bill ends. " If the Senate expressed the will of the

instead Bill, is this resolution within the meaning of article 87(1). 48 of the Constitution

the Bill received.



In this case the Chamber of Deputies referred the Bill to the Senate the day

August 30, 2007. The Organizing Committee the next day he ordered the Senate

the press to discuss the committees, and that the guarantee of the Committee by which the Committee was to

economy, agriculture and transport, which discussed the proposal on 13 June. September

2007, and the Committee on health and social policy, which the proposal

discuss on 12 June 2006. September 2007, and finally the Committee for territorial development,

public administration and the environment, which the proposal has been examined on the same day,

i.e.. September 12, 2007. Discussion of the draft law on the stabilisation of public

the budgets of 19 December. September 2007 was in the full Senate initiated extensive

zahajovacími manifestations of the Prime Minister and Ministers of finance, labour and

Social Affairs and health. As already mentioned above, on his 8.

the meeting, held on 19 December. September 7, 2007, the Senate expressed its will of the

to dwell for the proposal made by Senator Jiri

Oberfalzerem of 80 senátorek and senators present when quorum 41

49 voted in favor, 27 against it (see URwww.senat.cz).



Senator Jiri Oberfalzer proposal does not deal with the proposal of the law on the stabilisation of

public budgets motivated as follows: "in the submission of this proposal

the law here has already fallen, that its current form was approved by PS only

tight and fragile political majority. In other words, on the

improvement in the form of amendments and return to the House of Commons is not

political space. On the improvement of this proposal and its return to PS

nor is it a physical time. This cookie laws is a prerequisite

stabilization of the budget, or the form of the acceptable amount of its deficit.

Such form of the budget again is needed so that the CZECH REPUBLIC had complied with the convergence

the program. And compliance with the convergence programme is a necessary condition for the

drawing on resources from the European funds. I think that in and of itself

are sufficiently compelling reasons to allow this most easily

the proposal to go through the Senate. This print were discussing three committees of the Senate and

all have concluded their actions in the same design-recommended the plenary this

to approve the proposal. "



In response to a proposal referred to the Presidents of the Senate speakers clubs, eventually.

Vice-Presidents of the Senate.



Part of the proposal she submitted with regard to limitation of the principles of criticism

parliamentary democracy. According to Senator Alena Gajdůškové "this suggestion

Indeed, because we consider him towards a

authoritarian regimes, processes. Because if it is not possible to admit

or discussion, so we are not in a democratic and legal State. ...

Indeed, we consider this situation-in a democracy-a very

non-standard. Prime Minister Topolanek said that the law, on which at this moment

We are discussing, it is crucial that the scope of the Senate deserves a more general

debate. In direct contravention to the proposal by the ODS on a vote of

the fact that this Act we will not deal. If I remember, five

years in the Senate, here I am, this Institute we used always

exceptionally, and only there, where it was a decidedly technical

Affairs. Those standards, which the Senate did not consider it so to speak good

their interest. If so, the ODS in the Senate does not consider worthy of your interest

This standard, then honestly I don't see the astronomical clock at the beginning of the hearing of this

point, starting with the Prime Minister and three other Ministers, continues in the

contrary to the rules of procedure of the Senate. If the Senate actually voted for by design

Instead, and avoids the General or detailed debate, then it

will mean that the Czech Republic has come once again to the Government of one party. And

then, anyone who's really serious about democracy and human rights in

This country seriously, should quickly and seriously and in great detail to deal with levels of

the current Czech democracy. " According to Senator Joseph Novotny to be

"the words of the President of the Senate, recalled that in late August rejected attempts to

an accelerated form of discussion of this standard, and promised that this standard

the Senate will be seriously considered and that it responsibly. The Institute does not deal

with this promise, completely denies that the President of the Senate. ... I'd just

wanted to point out that if we vote instead, so we

the conclusion of the negotiations here. " Vice-president Of The Senate Of John Berger

said, "that in the introduction, the Prime Minister said that the law's merits in

The Senate sufficient debate and debate. Unfortunately, there is no longer, but he understood

I do so, it has to be heard as well as the other party. A month ago I read,

how our Mr. President of the Chamber, Mr. Dr. Sobotka, which I really appreciate,

He said that the Senate is not the voting machine and needs at least a month on the proper

consultation. I could understand it and so that in some way it here

We will discuss. So as I understand section 107, maybe I'm wrong, it's the law

Instead, I regarded it as an accelerated Yes, I considered it

as an effective method for marginal acts that we have enough

time on laws that are very important. Maybe it's

thought but that if we vote approval instead, we return

before the year 89, when the regime and the Government is worried about the words, sentences and made

opinions. Instead, in this case means the end of freedom of speech. "



On the other hand, the Senator Adolf Jílek stated, "that we should

Today, with this law. If someone claims that there is not

space, so they're just the ones who want to space due to the fact that the

There are cameras and at night our action will transfer THU on the second

program sometime between the third to sixth in the morning and some are happy,

When they see there. Therefore, they want to have the opportunity to appear here. I

I would like to remind you that this law, which was discussed in PS,

all the rapporteurs of the committees, as well as both clubs have watched since its beginning.


He was here with us a seminar on this topic, the Minister was on the Committee, was on a

clubs that have applied to him. So those discussions, I think that I

was a lot and I don't see a way out of this. "



The Presidents of the clubs while their performances not only used to express

opinion on the draft of Senator George Oberfalzera to dwell on design

the Act on the stabilization of public budgets, but also to a recitation of his

opinions on the merits, i.e.. the draft law on the stabilisation of the

public budgets, and their performances have responded in substance

Finance Ministers of the M. Kalousek and health t. Julínek (see

těsnopisecká message from 8. meetings of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic,

held on 19 December. September, 2007, URwww.senat.cz).



The relationship of both chambers of the Czech Parliament is not symmetric. Up to

The Constitution provided for exceptions to the adoption of constitutional laws and clearly identified

the laws of their approval of the two sněmovnami (article 39, paragraph 4, article 40

The Constitution) rule is a procedure in which the Chamber of Deputies has

a stronger position, allowing the Senate to reverse opposition to the proposal

the law (article 47, paragraph 3, of the Constitution). Thus constitutionally defined the relationship of both Chambers

is a necessary starting point for the interpretation of the article. 46 para. 2 of the Constitution. Article. 46

The Constitution enshrines the two forms of the procedure, in which the Bill is

accepted without his hearing in the Senate. It is both an alternative

passivity of the Senate (article 46, paragraph 3, of the Constitution) and, secondly, an alternative to explicitly

expresses the will of the Senate Bill does not deal with. The original intentions of the

ústavodárce in this context is associated with the concept of the selection of proposals

the laws relating to the Senate in the legislative process will address [see J.

Syllová, the constitutional characterization of the Parliament of the CZECH REPUBLIC and its implementation. In:

J. Kysela (ed.), ten years of the Constitution of the United States: background, status,

perspective. Prague 2003, p. 263 et seq.]. According to j. Kysela but "it is not possible

trace a clear concept in the use of the Institute, the US design

the law ', because in addition to the perfectly fair because of the absence of

-opposition (accelerated approval) are formulated in the debate and the reasons

other (bad, but required by law), or it is possible to speculate about

the reasons for implied (to prevent debate eligible affect

undecided, to prevent criticism of the likely voting Coalition

speed up the progress of the meeting by the minority, in its final stages, etc.). In

some cases are this way, approved ' bills

free of material and legal defects, sometimes while

not completely perfect, but Sung, technical ' amendment to the laws. But you cannot

talk about the apparent restriction of the interest of the Senate on a particular type of laws that would

the resolution on the US ', the word itself. " (J. Kysela, Double-Chamber

systems. Theory, history and comparison of the bicameral parliaments. Prague

2004, pp. 552-553). In other words, from the perspective of the present

Unable to articulate a clear legislative practice of constitutional practice in

the procedure of the Senate pursuant to art. 46 para. 2 of the Constitution and article 107 of Act No. 106/1999

Coll., on rules of procedure of the Senate. To interpret the article. 46 Moreover, the Constitution should be

Note that in a situation where ústavodárce did not limit the range of laws, the

possibility to receive by the decision of the Board, their

proposals to dwell, the interpretation of this heading as a result of the procedure,

i.e.. the Senate vote on individual cases. If the contents of the

This circuit then formed (ex post), the case-law of the Constitutional Court in the

proceedings for review of the standards, it would mean the legislative process for a significant

degree of uncertainty on the issue of the validity of the accepted laws.



The difference in the procedure of the Senate, which approved the Bill and conveying

It will pursue is reflected in the fact that, in the case of the second

the ability to debate and thus the possibility of critical opposition

reviews of the proposal given by is not. At this point should be to answer basic

the question of whether the situation in which the majority in the second Chamber of Parliament may

by its decision to prevent the public discussion of the draft law and the

to prevent the free expression of minorities, parliamentary or not in

accordance with the principles of parliamentarism. In a collision with the stated

the character of the democratic functioning of the Parliament, i.e.. parliamentary law

minorities to freely discuss laws to their content

Express, is in the case under consideration the principles of mutual respect of both

Chambers in the constitutional design of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.



We cannot be at this point that a bicameral structure

The Parliament of the United Kingdom is an expression of the principle of separation of powers as well as inside the power

the legislative. In order to ensure the viability of its operation the Constitution in

article. 18 paragraph 1. 1, 2 docked for elections to both Chambers different electoral

system to achieve their different political structures, i.e..

the State should not become merely a Senate political copies Of

the Chamber of Deputies, and was therefore able to realistically control function of the brake and counterweight

inside the Act meet. In this way the constitutional model koncipovaném

the current potential for misuse does not appear the US Design Institute

in his discussion in the Senate. Different situation but will occur when

If the original intentions of the ústavodárce were not fulfilled, and the Senate is from the perspective of

its political structure only copy of the Chamber of Deputies. However,

This note appears rather viciously de constitutione ferenda, in cases

extreme (i.e. in cases of repetition and the overuse of this procedure,

leading in its consequences for the scrapping of the second Chamber of the Parliament of the

its real participation in the adoption of laws) may also become

interpretative basis for the relevant provisions of the Constitution and establish a

the reason for the derogation for violation of constitutional technique adoption laws.



In a system in which the Chamber of deputies in the legislative process has

dominant position, with the constitutional and legal kautely discussion

Bills excluded the possibility of avoiding a parliamentary debate in the

The Chamber of Deputies, in a situation where, in this case was the Bill

discussed in the three committees of the Senate and the real content of the debate on the draft

Instead the public budget Stabilization Act on the part of

the Presidents of the clubs was for the most part the content of the Act itself, and finally, for the

a situation in which it was not a repeat so far indicate the efforts

the parliamentary majority of the second Chamber of the Parliament of the real

participation in the adoption of laws, cannot be in the procedure of the Senate pursuant to art. 46

paragraph. 2 of the Constitution and article 107 of Act No. 106/1999 Coll., on the rules of procedure of the Chamber,

in the subject case seen as a violation of the principle of parliamentary democracy.

It can be seen as rather a manifestation of incident in the area, which from the

the constitutional review, into an area already amounts to a level of democratic

the political culture of the Senate majority.



X/c



The absence of objections to the close relationship between the amendments with the subject

law and exceeding the statutory framework for the administration of

legislatively-technical proposals in the third reading of the draft law



In relation to the following provisions of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. appellant

argues the absence of a close relationship between the amendments to the content of the proposal

the following provisions of the Act itself:



-in the fourth (Amendment of the law on value added tax) in the article. (VIII) for

points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 15 to 21,



-part of the 50th (Amendment of the Act on accounting) in the article. LXXVIII and LXXIX.



In the case of the first appellant in support of its line of argument points out the

the fact that the amendment made by the second reading of the proposal

law Prime Minister m. Topolanek include new body

value added tax-taxable persons registered as a payer

through class registration (section 4, 5, 15 and 21 article. (VIII)

Act No. 261/2007 Coll., which was amended and supplemented by Act No. 235/2004

Coll., on value added tax, as amended, and in the

the provisions of section 5a to 5 c, § 28 para. 11, section 93a, § 95a, § 99 paragraph 2. 11, §

100 paragraph 1. 5, § 105 para. 2, § 106a, § 107 para. 3. In the case of the second)

then the second intervener contends that according to his belief, the law on

accounting is not legislation that would ever touch the reforms

of public finances, in particular as to the law governing the accounting technique,

not about the law affecting the tax system or affecting the expenditure of the

the State budget.



In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06 kautely formulated the Constitutional Court constitutionally

consistent interpretation of § 63 para. 1, 5, of Act No. 90/1995 Coll., on rules

the order of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Republic of Heské, which regulates

the right to submit amendments to the present Bill.

In this context, he emphasized the close relationship between the subject of a condition

the proposal, which is currently being discussed in the legislative process, and

the amendment put forward the second reading of the Bill. In

the case decided by the Chamber of Deputies discussed the proposal from members of the M.

Hašek, m. Krause, and j. Dolejše on the issue of the law amending the Act No.

178/2005 Coll., on the abolition of the national property Fund of the Czech Republic and the

the scope of the Ministry of finance during the privatisation of the assets of the United States

(law on the abolition of the national property Fund) (print no 1222/0). In

second reading of the proposal was a member of m. Doctor brought


amendment and inserted into the press no 1222/3, which was supplemented by the name of the

the original draft of the Act the words "... and Act No. 320/2001 Coll., which

amended Act No. 21/1992 Coll., on banks, as amended ", and

which for the article. And the draft law was inserted a new part two, including

the title was: "PART TWO-the change of Act No. 318/2001 Coll., on banks,"

and which contained provisions which amended and supplemented the adjustment payment

additional compensation from the deposit insurance fund. About this amendment

the proposal then was at 3. reading on 23. May 2006 to 56. the meeting votes

under serial number 16 when his being voted in favor of 167

MPs and MPs 142, against 3. NATO has been so modified

the draft law approved by the Chamber of Deputies (resolution No. 2470).

The result of this procedure was created when the original status of the Bill

include change in § 5 para. 3 (b). j) Act No. 180/2005 Coll., on the abolition of

The national property Fund, according to which the assets designated for privatization, income from

the sale of the assets and profits of the involvement of the State in commercial companies

can also be used for the transfer of EUR 2 billion. CZK to the Ministry of labour and social

things to support the construction of the homes of pensioners, the amendment contained

but completely different editing area, the adjustment payment of additional

the refund of the deposit insurance fund. In other words, the subject of the draft law

was the issue of the purposes of the use of the national property Fund,

the subject of the amendment, then the issue is completely different, and it

the payment of compensation out of the deposit insurance fund in banks.



The case of such a deviation from the frame of the subject that the original

the draft Bill in the races things it is not.



He argues in the case of the first appellant the fact that amendments

the proposal can be submitted in the second reading the draft law, the Prime Minister M.

Topolanek contained new subject to value added tax-

a group of persons registered as a payer of tax through

group registration (section 4, 5, 15 and 21 article. VIII. Act No. 261/2007

Coll., which was amended and supplemented by Act No. 235/2004 Coll., on value added tax

values, as amended, in the provisions of section 5a to 5 c,

§ 28 para. 11, section 93a, § 95a, § 99 paragraph 2. 11, § 100 para. 5, § 105 para.

2, § 106a, § 107 para. 3), was a case in comparison to the things under consideration

in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06. Amendment nevybočil from

framework of the present of the original Bill, which was a change and

Supplement to the income tax act.



A similar finding applies also in relation to the opposition of the second secondary

the participant, according to which the law on accountancy, which regulates in particular the technique

accounting and does not interfere with the tax system does not affect the expenditure, respectively.

the State budget, not by a law which would have ever touched

the reform of public finances.



At a joint meeting of the House of the people and of the House of peoples of the Federal

the Assembly, held on 12 June 2006. December 1991, Deputy Prime Minister and

Finance Minister Vaclav Klaus of the ČSFR formulated the purpose and meaning of the law of

accounting as follows: "the law on accounting, the scope and method of guidance

accounting and its relevance according to all legal entities and to

individuals who operate a business or other gainful

activities according to the specific provisions for tax purposes

In addition to his income and expenses based on achievement, reinsurance and

keep these receipts. Of the natural persons who operate the business

or other gainful activity, the law does not apply to those to whom it is

fixed income tax the population in a lump sum or

tax expense is deducted, shall lay down a fixed percentage of income by tax

the law. Therefore, these persons are subject to the obligations imposed on them under only

the tax authorities in accordance with tax legislation. " (see the digital archive of the

the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, URwww.psp.cz).



Similarly, the purpose of the Act and sets out the judicial case law:

"Accounting tax subject is properly conducted and presented in the framework of the

tax the tax control is the basic direct evidence for the assessment

income tax. When the incompleteness of accounting must then tax entity in

under its burden of proof to bear such evidence such

the incompleteness and would undoubtedly have replaced so show all revenue and

deductible expenses the tax entity in a tax return, he said. Is

the fact that the facts relating to the amount of taxable income

shows the tax entity of its accounting that is required to keep, if

for tax purposes applies and demonstrates their expenditure incurred for the

reach, ensuring and maintaining income. " (Decision of the regional court in

Hradec Králové, SP. zn. CA 25/2005 of 31 May 2005. October 2005.).



If properly conducted according to the law of accounting essential precondition for the fulfilment of

the tax liability, and set out to, involving amendment of the Act on accounting

the defining character of the legal definition of circuit of the natural persons who are

entrepreneurs and are not registered in the commercial register, for the purpose of conducting

According to the accounting Act No. 563/1991 Coll., as amended,

then in the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. not to recognise the close link between the tax

the legal and legitimate by modifying the accounting.



To procedural misconduct relating to the individual parts.

the provisions of the law on the stabilisation of public budgets and the appellant ranked

exceeding the statutory framework for the administration of legislatively-technical proposals

in the third reading of the Bill.



According to the provisions of § 95 para. 2 Act No. 90/1995 Coll., on third reading

the debate takes place, in which can be designed to apply only

legislatively-technical errors, grammatical errors, or mistakes

print, edit, logically resulting from the presented amendments

proposals.



In the third reading of a draft of the Government on the adoption of the law on the stabilisation of public

budgets (222), held on 21 February 2006. August 14, 2007, Rep. Daniel Rovan

presented to those parts of the Act, the review of the constitutionality of which is

the subject of this procedure before the Constitutional Court, in its marking,

Dlegislativně-technical amendment ", which" relates to the clarification of the

point 7 of section 222 of the sixth printing. Paragraph 7 would read correctly-and I quote: in section

13 a paragraph. 2 (a). (d)), after the first word, ' the words if

so the municipality establishes the generally binding Decree pursuant to § 4 paragraph 2. 1 (b). in)

or to insert a word into the existing text, the first ' due to the

the word tax is in the text three times. " (see

a verbatim record of 18. a meeting of the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament

of the Republic, held on 21 February 2006. August 2007, URwww.psp.cz).



In terms of its content, you can evaluate the proposal in terms of repair

legislative, technical and, therefore, as a suggestion that the limits

the provisions of § 95 para. 2 Act No. 90/1995 Coll. does not deviate.



X/d



On the objection to infringement of legislative rules of the Government



The applicant further argues that violations of the Legislative rules of the Government in those

parts of the law, which represent the original new

(nenovelizující) legislation.



For the assessment of this type of procedural complaints raised in proceedings for review of

the standards formulated by the Constitutional Court in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 7/03 (collection

the decision, volume 34, no. 113, declared under no. 512/2004 Sb.).

He stated that the violation of Legislative rules, without more, IE.

without violating the Constitution and statutory competence. without breaking

constitutionally prescribed method of acceptance and release of the Act. another

law, derogation reason according to § 68 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993

Coll., for failure to comply with the constitutionally prescribed method of adoption of the law, or

other legislation does not establish.



Buckling of the methodological rules of the breakdown law pursuant to art. 28

The legislative rules of the Government, adopted by the Government resolution of 19 June.

March 1998 No. 188, acknowledging a contradiction with the constitutional principle of the rule of

the State only if the legislature would not have allowed the used mark

law (law) the precise identification, distinguishing it from

other legislation (laws) or other legislation

(the Act).



For such a case but part of the forty-fifth to forty-seventh (article.

LXXII-LXXIV) of Act No. 261/2007 Coll. can't. All legal

the provisions contained therein are marked for sure and in the legal system

the order of unmistakably identifiable.



XI.



Content compliance of the contested statutory provisions with the constitutional order



The Constitutional Court in its established case-law the Court held that the amendment of the legal

the regulation does not have a separate existence of normative, but becomes part of the

the revised law (find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/96 (collection

the decision, volume 6, finding no 98, promulgated under Act No. 286/1996),

resolution SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/2000 (a collection of decisions, volume 19, no.

27), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 21/01 (see above), pl. TC 33/01 (collection

the decision, volume 25, finding no 28, declared under no 142/2002 Coll.)), and

as such, it is considered and its constitutionality. If in proceedings for review of

the reasons for the absence of derogačními regulatory standards of competence, or violations of the


constitutionally prescribed method of adoption law, is then

considered the constitutionality of the amendment (see findings SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/02,

PL. ÚS 7/03).



A lot of the settled case-law is the subject of the content

a review in the case only:



-part of the forty-fifth (a tax on natural gas and some other gases),



-part XLVI (tax on fossil fuels),



-part of the XLVII (electricity tax) Act No. 261/2007 Coll., and



-the provisions of section 6 (1). 4 first sentence, section 6 (1). 13 and 14, § 7 (2). 8

first sentence of § 16 and § 21 para. 1 and § 38 h of paragraph 1. 1 (b). b) of law No.

586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended by the Act No. 261/2007 Coll.



Where the oral proceedings the first intervener, the fact that according to the

Act No. 261/2007 Coll., the new entity of value added tax-group

the taxable persons registered as a payer through class

registration-does not have legal personality, but not by the

the proposal to extend the remedies of the claimant, who would the argument in

conformity with the above mentioned maximou explicitly expressed.



However, the Constitutional Court has repeatedly stressed that in the assessment of conflict

the law, if necessary. its individual provisions, with the constitutional order is

bound only petite and not his reasoning (find SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

16/93 (collection, volume 1, decision finding no 25, promulgated under no.

131/1994 Coll.) and more), does not follow from this conclusion, according to which the

the plaintiff in proceedings for review of the standards, argues the content

non-compliance of the law with the constitutional order, does not burden the burden of claims.

In other words, if the applicant oppose against content-related non-compliance of the law with

the constitutional order, for the purposes of constitutional review is not sufficient only

to cancel the proposed designation of the Act. its individual

provisions, but it is necessary on his part and indicate the reason of the opposing

unconstitutionality. The Constitutional Court then under review is not this the reason

bound-bound only Petite, but not scope review, the

the reasons contained in the proposals on inspection standards. If the applicant can carry in

proceedings for review of the standards the burden of claims of unconstitutionality,

consider such a proposal as contradictory with the provisions of § 34 paragraph 1. 1 of law No.

182/1993 Coll., and thus unfit to the substance of the discussion (see sp.

Zn. PL. ÚS 7/03).



The consequences set out fully hit the maxims of those parts of the remedies, in which the

the applicant (the interveners) seek the annulment of parts of the 45, 46 and 47

Act No. 261/2007 Coll. of the besides the procedural objections against these parts of the

Indeed, the law was not from their side raised no display

(substantive) complaints.



XI/a



Design points to the income tax act



Unlike parts 45, 46 and 47 of Act No. 261/2007 Coll. to the provisions of §

6 (1). 4 first sentence, section 6 (1). 13 and 14, § 7 (2). 8 the first sentence and article 38 h

paragraph. 1 (b). b) of Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended by

Act No. 261/2007 Coll., the appellant provides the specific objections to the contrary

their content with the constitutional order.



Points out that income tax was computed on income

the individual, after deduction of social security contributions, which

includes insurance on pension insurance, sickness insurance

insurance and contribution to the State employment policy (paid according to

Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on social security and the contribution of the

the State employment policy, as amended) and

premiums on health insurance premiums (paid according to law No.

593/1992 Coll., on premiums for general health insurance, as amended by

amended, and this principle applies to both the income from

employment and functional benefits (section 6 of Act No. 586/1992 Sb.)

for income from a business and from their self-employment (§ 7

of the cited Act). As a result there was thus the only reception, which can

the individual to dispose of after deduction of compulsory premiums to

public social and health insurance systems.



According to the appellant, it was up to the adoption of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. on this

claims that it is not regarded as part of the basis for the calculation of the

income tax (§ 6 para. 1, § 7 paragraph 6, 7 and 10 of the law of the

income, as amended by 31 December 1998. December 2007), in the absence of income

persons, but of its contribution to the maintenance of public insurance,

or guaranteed by the State benefit schemes. The impugned legislation

It creates a fiction that premiums income, or parts of

natural person's income in the wider sense of the word. In addition to the breach of article. 30 and 31

Of the Charter, with the Convention on the minimum standard of social security (article 102)-

(communication from the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs No. 461/1991 Coll.), with

The European Social Charter (Ministry of Foreign Affairs notice No.

14/2000 Coll.) and the European code of social security (communication

Ministry of Foreign Affairs No. 90/2001 Coll.) claims in this

context, as well as the principle of clarity and lack of possibility of the rights,

whose fulfilment is one of the basic assumptions of the existence of

the rule of law.



In addition to levy insurance premiums paid by the income of natural persons, especially

tax on income from employment and functional benefits, additional payments to the

public social and health insurance systems pay also

the employers. The applicant in the description of their legal nature highlights

that the employers ' contributions are not included in the income of employees and related to

the income of the employee only indirectly. In a situation where they are from 1.

January 2008 taxed not only the mandatory payments to health systems and

social insurance, but also the payments that are stored

the employer (§ 6 para. 13 and 14, § 38 h, paragraph 1 (b)) of law No.

586/1992 Coll.), a new legal provision to the income of natural persons for

taxation purposes includes the Medicare premiums, so the stored payments

to employers. Charges imposed on employers but by the petitioner

reception staff do not have nothing to do and are not subject to its

a contract of employment, as this is a public service obligation imposed on

employers law, through which the employer contributes

the maintenance of the public insurance systems. The argument the appellant

exploits a reference to the provisions of section 2 of the Act No. 589/1992 Coll., on insurance

on social security and a contribution to the State employment policy, in

as amended, under which is a premium income of the State budget, from the

which concludes that in the case of employers ' contributions as to the transfer of

financial resources of the State, from their own income, not from the

the income of the employee, therefore in the present case as to the law based

bilateral public relationship between the employer and the State whose

an employee is not a member. Referred to the legal structure, which according to him

raises the unequal position in which it is forced to pay tax on an entity which

is in no way affiliated with the subject of taxation shall be deemed rozpornou

with the principle of equality (article 1 and 3 of the Charter) and the principle of minimum of rationality

and justice legislation, which is another of the assumptions

the existence of the rule of law (article 1 of the Constitution).



According to the appellant to tax on insurance premiums paid by individuals and

contributions paid by the employer cannot be regarded as taxation,

that arise in the future, since between the odvedeným and the possible

future income in the form of one of pensions, health care, respectively.

medical AIDS. medicinal products, is not "a direct link

What a time draining and above "(nor is it guaranteed that the specific

the insured person shall be entitled on payment of pensions at all, and thus whether a

gets in the future income to be taxed at the present time). In this

the context is adduced and a contradiction of the contested legal construction is the basic

the principle of the taxation of the income, according to which this always occurs at the time of his

the occurrence and not in advance. So according to the law in question appellant

used terminology that does not correspond to the current state, so far

clarification of terminology, as znejasňuje where it talks in the case

contributions to the health and social security system of

taxation of the income, it is in fact a tax on the health and social

insurance, thereby according it blurs the crucial difference between the system of taxes and

the fees, which has a constitutional basis in article. 11 (1) 5 of the Charter, and

public social and health insurance, which are based on

article. 30 and 31 of the Charter.



In addition, the applicant argues that the unconstitutionality of § 16 and § 21 para. 1 of law No.

586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended by the Act No. 261/2007 Coll.,

because of their uncertainty, establishing the principle of contradiction with the legal

State.



Article I of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll., in paragraphs 49 and 50 sets out the same

provisions of the law on income tax (§ 16), with otherwise identical

the text contains a different tax rate-section 49 15% tax rate

basis, paragraph 50, then the rate of 12.5% of the tax base. Within the meaning of

the eventual procedure contemplates the petitioner of the possibility to put in

the interpretation of those provisions, to point 50 of priority, on the basis of

argument of the lex posterior derogat legi priori.




In accordance with section 64 of the same article, in the section 21 para. 1 of the law on income tax

the number "24" is replaced by "21", in paragraph 65 of the same provisions of the law on

income tax is the number "21" is replaced by "20" and, in paragraph 66,

again in the same provision number "8" is replaced by "19". According to the article.

LXXXI, point 1(a). (c)) of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. then article. (I) section 65 of the said

the law takes effect on January 1. in January 2009, according to the article. LXXXI, point 1(a).

e) Act No. 261/2007 Coll. article. (I) section 66 of the Act shall take

from 1 January 2000. January 1, 2010. The result of this adjustment, as claimed by the

the appellant is the uncertainty in the determination, based on what rates will be

legal entities taxed after 1. January 2008, when the law

does not contain any express provision.



XI/b



The diction of the contested provisions in the law on income tax



It was pointed out that the appellant, in its proposal, the remedies it seeks

repeal the provisions of § 6 (1). 4 first sentence, section 6 (1). 13 and 14, § 7 (2).

8 the first sentence, § 16 and § 21 para. 1 and § 38 h of paragraph 1. 1 (b). b) of law No.

586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended by the Act No. 261/2007 Coll.



According to the first sentence of section 6 (1). 4 Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income taxes,

as amended by the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. "revenue billed or paid

employer with a registered office or residence in the territory of the Czech Republic and

revenue from taxpayers as defined in § 38 c are following an increase pursuant to paragraph

13 separate tax base for taxation tax charge deduction rate

tax according to § 36 odst. 2, if it is about the revenue referred to in paragraph 1 (b). and)

and (d)) and pursuant to paragraph 10, the total amount before increasing by

paragraph 13 for the same employer in a calendar month shall not exceed

the amount of CZK 5,000.



The provisions of § 6 (1). 13 and 14 of Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income taxes,

as amended by the Act No. 261/2007 Coll., provides:



"(13) the taxable amount (partial tax base) are income from dependent

activities or functional benefits, except as provided in paragraphs 4 and 5,

increased by the amount corresponding to the contributions to social security and

contribution to the State employment policy insurance in General

health insurance is of such income under special laws

the laws of the employer be obliged to pay for itself, and for the employee, the

which is subject to mandatory foreign insurance of the same type,

increased by the amount corresponding to the employer's contributions to this

foreign insurance.



(14) in the case of income arising from sources abroad,

the taxpayer referred to in § 2 (2). 2 tax base its income from dependent

the activities carried out in the State, with which the Czech Republic has not signed the contract

for the avoidance of double taxation, increased by the amount corresponding to contributions

the employer's compulsory insurance paid under paragraph 13 and decreased

of this income tax paid abroad. If the dependent activity

exercised in the State, with which the Czech Republic has an agreement for the avoidance of

double taxation, is the basis of the tax income from dependent activities carried out

in this State, increased by the amount corresponding to the employer's contributions

compulsory insurance under paragraph 13 and paid less tax

paid on this income abroad, but only to the extent to which

This tax has not been included on the tax liability in the territory of the country under section 38f in

the previous tax period. "



According to the first sentence of section 7 (2). 8 of Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income taxes,

as amended by the Act No. 261/2007 Coll., "where a taxpayer expenditures by

paragraph 7, it is considered that the amount of expenditure are included

expenses incurred by a taxpayer in connection with the achievement of income from

business and other self-employment. "



The provisions of section 16 of Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended by

Act No. 261/2007 Coll., which is another of the contested provisions of the

the law provides: "a tax on the tax base, less nezdanitelnou part

the tax base (section 15) and tax-free allowances from the tax base (section 34)

rounded up or down to the nearest hundred Eur 12.5% is down. " According to § 21 para. 1 of the same

the law then applies: "tax rate is 19%, if in paragraphs 2 and 3 is not

unless otherwise provided for. This tax rate will apply to the tax base is reduced by

items under section 34 and section 20 (2). 7 and 8, which is rounded up to whole

thousand of thousand of down. "



The diction of the last of the contested provisions-section 38 h of paragraph 1. 1 (b). (b))

Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended by the Act No. 261/2007

Coll., added: "the taxpayer calculates the advance personal income from

dependent work and emoluments of the basis of calculation of the advance.

The basis for the calculation of the advance is the sum of income from employment and from

emoluments paid by the taxpayer or zúčtovaný for the calendar

month or during the tax period, excluding income taxable taxes

taxes collected by deduction under section 36 rate of taxes and incomes that are not

the subject of taxes, increased by the amount corresponding to the contributions to social

Security and contribution to the State employment policy premiums

for general health insurance (hereinafter insured '), which is referred to in

special legislation from cleared or paid income

the employer shall be obliged to pay for itself, and for each employee, on which

by compulsory foreign insurance of the same type, plus

the amount corresponding to the employer's contributions to this foreign

insurance. "



XI/c



The subject matter and the tax base for the income tax in relation to the maximum certainty and

clarity of the legal system, such as the principle of material legal component

State



The first group of Supreme Court decision on the questions of the constitutionality of the laws,

adjustment of taxes and fees make up case law to the interpretation and application

the provisions of article. 11 (1) 5 of the Charter in relation to the provisions of article. paragraph 79. 3

and article. paragraph 104. 3 of the Constitution in matters of the limits of subordinate legislation, taxes and

fees (see in particular the findings SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/95 (ECR,

Volume 4, no. 59, declared under no. 264/1995 Coll.), pl. ÚS 63/04

(A collection of decisions, Volume 36, no. 61 promulgated under no. 210/2005

Coll.), pl. ÚS 20/06 (promulgated under no. 164/2007 Sb.)).



The second group consists of the review of the constitutionality of legal provisions, tax, fee,

eventually. other similar statutory mandatory benefits (in which the

the statutory compulsory insurance), as well as monetary penalties.

The Constitutional Court has outlined for him following kautely [SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/02

((A collection of decisions, Volume 27, no. 105, pp. 177, declared under no.

405/2002 Coll.), pl. ÚS 12/03 (collection of decisions, volume 32, no. 37,

str. 367, promulgated under Act No. 300/2004 Coll.), pl. ÚS 7/03 (collection

the decision, volume 34, no. 113, pp. 184, proclaimed under no. 512/2004

SB.)]: from the constitutional principle of separation of powers (article 2, paragraph 1, of the Constitution), as well as

from the constitutional definition of the legislative power (article 15, paragraph 1, of the Constitution) implications for

the legislature wide scope for decisions about the subject, to the extent and scope of the

taxes, fees, and financial penalties. Legislature carries the consequences

This decision-making political responsibility. However, it is a tax, fee,

eventually. financial penalty shall be governed by the compulsory financial performance of State

and thus the intervention into the property of substrate, and therefore the right of ownership

a statutory body, without the fulfillment of other conditions, does not constitute prejudice

in the constitutional order protected the ownership position (article 11 of the Charter, article 1

The additional protocol to the Convention). The constitutional review of tax, fee, and

includes the assessment of monetary penalties from the perspective of compliance with technique resulting

from the constitutional principle of equality, both neakcesorické (article 1 of the Charter),

i.e.. arising from the exclusion requirement of arbitrariness in the distinction between operators and

rights, as well as incidental to the extent defined in the article. 3 (2). 1 of the Charter

(hypothetical illustrations of violations of the technique to incidental inequalities would be

Edit different taxes with regard to religious beliefs, which would in

meaning of article 87(1). 3 (2). 1 of the Charter was discriminatory and would hit the

the basic rights arising from article. 15 paragraph 1. 1). If the subject

the assessment of the constitutionality of the incidental inequalities due to the exclusion of

equity discrimination, or merely an assessment of the facts

does not constitute a tax, fee, or. financial penalties, if any, prejudice

in the law of ownership (article 11 of the Charter, article 1 of the additional protocol

Of the Convention), such a review is limited to cases in which the boundaries of the

public mandatory cash by an individual State to

ownership of the substrate of the individual acquires the restrictor (rdousícího)

the action; in other words, if the assessed tax, fee, or.

monetary sanctions, in effect, the effects of confiscation in relation to the

estate of an individual.



Finally, the third group of decisions on questions of the constitutionality of legislation

taxes, fees, or. other similar statutory benefits,

represents the finding of the Constitutional Court of the CSFR SP. zn. PL. ÚS 22/92 (collection

resolutions and findings of the Constitutional Court of Czechoslovakia, No 11, p. 37), as established by the

tax equality, in terms of a review of tax proportionality. Said,

that "neither the sovereignty of the State does not create for the State the option of saving

any taxes, such as would happen on the basis of the law. In the area of


the tax should be required to substantiate your legislator

the decision by objective and rational criteria. In principle, cannot be

to exclude the legislator provides differentiated taxes according to the principle that the

a more powerful entity will pay higher taxes. However, it is possible to do

Conversely, and more economically and socially loaded with weaker bodies. It is for the

the State, in order to ensure its functions, decided that a certain group of

provide fewer benefits than others. Even here, however, must not proceed arbitrarily. "

The binding effect of decisions of the Constitutional Court of CZECHOSLOVAKIA for its case-law

The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic then in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 9/01 (collection

the decision, volume 24, finding no 192, declared under no. 35/2002 Coll.)

He stated the following: ", the Constitutional Court ' within the meaning of § 35 para. 1

the law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court cannot be regarded as the CZECHOSLOVAK FEDERAL REPUBLIC '.

A systematic interpretation of § 35 para. 1 this Act leads to the conclusion that the

that provision has in mind only the Constitutional Court of the CZECH REPUBLIC, as it is part of the

that part of the Constitution, establishing the Constitutional Court of the CZECH REPUBLIC. ... Even if the

the findings of the Constitutional Court of CZECHOSLOVAKIA do not create for the Constitutional Court of the CZECH REPUBLIC formally

hurdle decided things are for him real authority

based on the fact that the Constitutional Court of CZECHOSLOVAKIA was, by the judicial authority of the protection

the constitutionality of ' within the territory of the Czech Republic, which is now himself.

The assumption of continuity of the protection granted, which is typical of

decision of a judicial authority, which shall enter the place of the defunct authority

or canceled, has two pages. On the one hand, the new court permits

to derogate from the rule of the prior opinion of the Court, if it has changed

the circumstances in which the previous court decisions, on the other hand he

stores the previous decision of not undermining the Court, if such a

There has been no change in circumstances. "



None of the design points of the unconstitutionality of section 6 (1) namítajících. 4 sentences

First, section 6 (1). 13 and 14, § 7 (2). 8 the first sentence, and article 38 h of paragraph 1. 1 (b).

b) of Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended by Act No.

261/2007 Coll., under the framework of the review of constitutionality thus hinted at by the legal

adjustments of tax, fee, or. other similar statutory compulsory

benefits cannot be accommodated. Therefore, to answer the question should be whether does not constitute

one of these design points for more reasons in cases of derogačních

the constitutionality of the legislation, the tax charge. other similar law

set out the mandatory benefits.



Legal theory defines the category of the subject and the tax base of the following

way: "the object of the tax or subject to tax is an economic

fact, based on which it is possible to save the taxpayer tax

duty. It can be a certain income, thing, action or thing. Object

taxes also decides on the name of taxes (e.g. income tax, land tax, tax

of buildings). The determination of the tax object is the starting point for the determination of the

the tax base. The taxable amount, in cash, or otherwise

established by the tax object, from which tax was assessed. While the object of the tax

tells us what is the reason for the determination of the tax liability, the tax base

Specifies the amount of the tax. The aim of the survey of the tax base is

determination of the total amount of taxable object. " (M. Dan B.

Financial law, 4. vyd., Prague, 2006, p. 194).



The income tax Act, as amended by Act No. 261/2007 Coll. defines these

the basic elements of the structure of income tax legal definitions. The subject of the

tax on the income of natural persons are income from employment and functional

benefits [§ 3, paragraph 1, point (b) of the Act)], the taxable amount is

income from dependent activity or functional benefits, increased by the amount of

the corresponding social security premiums, and contributions to the State

employment policies and premiums for general health insurance,

that is of such income under special legislation obliged to

employer to pay for itself (§ 6 para. 13 of the Act).



Assessment base of sickness insurance, pension insurance and

levy to the State employment policy, both for the employees and

and employers, is the sum of the receipts that are subject to tax on the income of

individuals in accordance with the income tax Act [§ 5 para 1, § 5a (a).

a), b) of Act No. 589/1992 Coll., as amended],

assessment base for public health insurance is, the sum of

income from employment and functional benefits, which are subject to

tax on the income of natural persons according to the law on income tax (section 3, paragraph 3.

1, § 5 para. 1 of Act No. 586/1992 Coll., as amended, section

9. 2 of Act No. 48/1997 Coll., on public health insurance).



In other words, sickness insurance, pension insurance,

for State employment policy, as well as public health

insurance is calculated from the so-called. "the gross" wages, income tax from

a different subject. "the Super-gross wage", involving, in addition to "gross"

wages and employer contributions and employee sickness insurance,

pension insurance, the State employment policy, and public

health insurance. The basis for the calculation of income tax is therefore different

object (the subject) than is provided for by law, the subject of taxes on income from

in terms of the actual subject is therefore adjusted Tax Act No. 592/1992

Coll., as amended, of taxes on income from employment and

emoluments and of contributions to sickness insurance, pension

insurance levy on national employment policy, and public health

insurance. Unable to take in that context a counterargument, according to which the

contributions to the sickness insurance, pension insurance, the State

employment policy, and public health insurance

any income of the taxpayer of the tax in the future. In the case of acceptance

such a construction would be taken to absurd consequences, then it can be

for income tax considered (e.g. income tax), as its

they are financed through public goods (public good), on

the use of the tax body in the future eventually will participate in.



To be at this point to respond to the objection, according to which that arbitrariness

the legislature in defining the legal concepts of management and establishes a contradiction with

the principle of the rule of law because of the financial uncertainty and the

confusion.



According to settled case-law of the Constitutional Court "the uncertainty of a

the provisions of the legislation to be considered rozpornou with the request

legal certainty and, therefore, the rule of law (article 1, paragraph 1, of the Constitution), only the

If the intensity of this uncertainty precludes the possibility of determining the

its normative content using the usual interpretation. "

(findings SP. zn. PL. ÚS 4/95, pl. ÚS 9/95, pl. ÚS 2/97, pl. ÚS 24/02,

PL. ÚS 40/02, pl. TC 44/02, pl. ÚS 10/06, pl. ÚS 24/06-see above).



The requirement of certainty of tax treatment law is contained in the economic

Science. According to Karel Engliš Prize, "where required to tax obligations have been

standardised law, looking for the protection of taxpayers against the will of the public

the volume, and therefore is also the obvious requirement that this obligation was

Certainly, normalized way as discretionary power, certainly in the mandatory

body, the base of the tax and the payment obligations, the scope and

the times "(k. Engliš, System of the national economy. Vol. II., Prague 1937

s. 193; the same Financial science. Outline of a theory of public economy

volumes. Brno 1929, p. 196).



However, you cannot regard the applicant than that the legislator used the

the category of the subject and the tax base in Act No. 586/1992 Coll., as amended by

Act No. 261/2007 Coll., arbitrarily, and as a result, the law establishes the

the tax, which are not only the actual subject of the income of the dependent

activities and emoluments, but also contributions to sickness insurance,

pension insurance, the national employment policy and the public

health insurance, despite this fact, involving edit

does not create uncertainty that would exclude the possibility of fixing its contents

by using the usual interpretation (or to establish the basis and

tax rates).



Should therefore respond to the result of that from the foregoing. Is

constitutionally acceptable taxation of any subject? If you leave the

the legislature in the statutory definition of the traditional conceptual adjustment of income tax,

her conflict with the constitutional order would be given only if it had a

This design impacts of confiscation, if it was an extremely

disproportionate, or if it was vague, to the extent that

exclude the determination of its content, but the usual interpretation techniques.

None of these alternatives, the founding of derogatory reason, in this

the case, in particular with regard to income tax rates according to law No.

586/1992 Coll., as amended by Act No. 261/2007 Coll., has not been populated.



Only the left side note, or in the language of the Court of obiter dictum.

Taxation tax charge. other similar statutory compulsory

the dose is definitely the idea at present, "the original". Recalls but

one in the history of the famous Roman Emperor Vespasian tax, which in response

on the complaint of his son Tito, on the nedůstojnosti, he said,


the famous sentence: "Pecunia non olet".



XI/d



The objection of the legislative and technical defects



If the applicant argues that the unconstitutionality of § 16 and § 21 para. 1 of law No.

586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended by the Act No. 261/2007 Coll.,

because of their uncertainty, establishing the principle of contradiction with the legal

State, cannot be identified with his arguments.



Article. (I) Act No. 261/2007 Coll., in paragraphs 49 and 50 sets out the same

the provisions of the income tax Act (section 16)-otherwise identical text

contains a different tax rate (point 49 rate at 15% of the tax base,

paragraph 50, then the rate of 12.5% of the tax base), and according to the article. LXXXI para.

1 of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll., the provisions of section 16 of Act No. 586/1992 Coll.

the text of the article. I, section 49 of Act No. 261/2007 Coll., shall take effect on 1 January 2000.

in January 2008, according to the article. LXXXI para. 1 (b). (c)) of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll.

the provisions of section 16 of Act No. 586/1992 Coll., as amended by article. I, section 50 of the Act No.

261/2007 Coll. then takes effect only on 1 January 2000. January 1, 2009. For

no uncertainty between the points 49 and 50 of the article. (I) Act No. 261/2007 Coll.

does not arise.



As already indicated, in accordance with section 64 of the same article, in the section 21 para. 1 of the law

the income tax number "24" is replaced by "21", in paragraph 65, in the same

the provisions of the income tax act is the number "21" is replaced by "20"

and again, at paragraph 66 of the same provisions of the number "8" is replaced by

"19". According to the article. LXXXI, point 1(a). (c)) of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. then article. (I)

section 65 of the Act shall come into force on 1 January 2000. in January 2009, according to the article.

LXXXI, point 1(a). e) Act No. 261/2007 Coll. article. (I) section 66 of the said

the law takes effect on January 1. January 1, 2010. The rate, which will be legal

persons taxed after 1. January 2008, is the intended article. LXXXI para. 1,

According to which the provisions of § 21 para. 1 of Act No. 586/1992 Coll., as amended by article.

I, point 64 of Act No. 261/2007 Coll., shall take effect on 1 January 2000. January 2008,

Therefore, even in the present case does not arise in the legislation nor the uncertainty or

the gap in the determination of the effective date.



XII.



On the basis of all of the above reasons, the Constitutional Court for annulment of part

the first part of the second, part three, part four, part five, part six,

part seven, part eight, ninth section, point 1, in the article. XVII, part nine,

part of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, part, part, parts of the fourteenth, parts of

forty-fifth, forty-sixth section, part of the forty-seventh, part

the 50th, part of the fifty-first and fifty-second section of Act No.

261/2007 Coll. and the repeal of the provisions of § 6 (1). 4 first sentence, section 6 (1).

13 and 14, § 7 (2). 8 the first sentence, § 16 and § 21 para. 1 and § 38 h of paragraph 1. 1

(a). b) of Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended

legislation, rejected the [section 70, paragraph 2, of Act No. 182/1993 Coll.].



The President of the Constitutional Court:



JUDr. Rychetský in r.



Different opinions under section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,

as amended, the decision of the judges of the plenum

Francis Skinner, Jan Musil, Pavel Rychetský and Elisabeth Wagner.