130/Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic of
The Constitutional Court under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 43/10 decided on 13 June. April 2011 at
plenary in the composition of Stanislav Duchoň, Franz Package, Vlasta Formankova,
Turgut Güttler, Ivana Janů, Vladimir Crust, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jiří
Mucha, Jiří Nykodým, Pavel Rychetský, Miloslav Výborný, Eliška
April Wagner and Michael about the design of the Supreme Administrative Court on
repeal the provisions of § 33 para. 3 the first sentence of the Act No. 150/2002 Coll.
the rules of the Board, with the participation of the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament
the Republic and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic as parties to proceedings
as follows:
The provisions of § 33 para. 3 the first sentence of the Act No. 150/2002 Coll., the civil procedure
of the Board, shall be deleted at the date of publication of this finding in the statute book.
Justification
(I).
The subject of the proceedings and the arguments of the applicant
1. The Constitutional Court was on 12. October 2010 according to art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution
The Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") and the provisions of § 64 para. 3 of Act No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter also
"the law on the Constitutional Court") served the Supreme Administrative Court
(hereinafter referred to as "the applicant"), who is the President of advanced
Senate JUDr. Josef Baxa, for annulment of the provisions of § 33 para. 3 the first sentence
Act No. 150/2002 Coll., the administrative court rules.
2. In the design of the petitioner stated that under the SP. zn. 4 Ads 93/2009 leads management
about the applicant's complaint of Cassation s. m. (hereinafter referred to as ' the applicant '), represented
guardian JUDr. P. j., a lawyer, against the decision of the regional court in
Ostrava (hereinafter referred to as the "District Court") of 19 May 2003. May 2009 No. 38 Cad
15/2005-162. This resolution a regional court had appointed prosecutors for control
on the action against the defendant of the Olomouc region regional authority (hereinafter referred to as
"the defendant"), against the decision of the respondent dated March 2. May 2005 No.
j. KUOK/9881/05/OSV-DS/7025/SD-80 guardian advocate. Came out yet
the provisions of § 33 para. 3 the first sentence of the Act No. 150/2002 Coll. (hereinafter also
' the contested provisions '), because the plaintiff was the judgment of the District Court
of 16 June in Olomouc. September 1987 no Nc 1565/86-42 (17 Dream 16/87)
limited in the capacity to perform legal acts in a way that is "able to independently
do all the legal acts, in addition to the legal acts in the field of
labour, which is not able to conclude a contract of employment
and to pursue a job in which they reject the statement from disease
the causes could lead to a threat to his own health or foreign, or to
considerable material damage. "
3. This resolution of the regional court of provisions of the guardian attacked
Prosecutor's Office of cassation complaints, as the complainant in which it described the provisions of the
guardian for gross insult to his person, saying that the resolution was issued
ineligible person without legal education and is in conflict with the Constitution,
and, therefore, the matter should be submitted to the Constitutional Court.
4. From the documents of the regional court SP. zn. Cad 38 15/2005 concluded that
by decision of the municipal office in zábřeh, Department of social and health,
of 25 June 2002. March 2005 No. 552/Soc/2695/2005/Dv was not the complainant
granted a social assistance benefit for non-compliance with statutory conditions. In
appeal proceedings the defendant identified by decision changed the law
the decision by the request rejected. In the reasons pointed out that the applicant
(the plaintiff) unworkable the conditions applicable to the award of a benefit, did not allow the
the investigation needed to assess its total social and financial
ratios, rejects the increase revenue by oblige medical
the search warrant required for entitlement to the payment of a partial
disability pension, was eliminated from the list of applicants for employment, and
the Administration refuses to cooperate in the proceeding. In an action against the
This decision of the Prosecutor's Office said the violations of their constitutional rights, raised the
request for payment of social welfare benefits in the amount of 7 300 CZK per month and
designed by annulment of the contested decision and the payment of equity and non-material
the injury.
5. the Fourth Chamber of the plaintiff with the Fowles have not yet contradict
in the decisions of this Court, and specifically expressed in its judgment of
March 12, 2008 No. 6 Ads 97/2007-133 (available at URwww.nssoud.cz),
According to which "If the party is limited in the competence of the legal
capacity in matters of labour law, may not be in an action against the
decision of the administrative authority (section 65 et seq. with row s.) represented by
guardian ". This legal opinion is contrary to the express
the wording of the contested provision, according to which the procedural competence in
proceedings in the administrative judiciary possesses only one party to the proceedings, which
is not in the competence to perform legal acts not limited. Fourth Chamber, therefore,
matter the enlarged Board the appellant.
6. the extended composition of the claimant found the fulfillment of the conditions of section 17 para. 1
Act No. 150/2002 Coll., Also weighed whether the contested provision allows
account of the Court about the need for a party, the provisions of the guardian
that does not have full legal proceedings, and that this consideration at all
appropriate having regard to the meaning and purpose of the representation of the guardian in relation to
protection of the rights of the participant; arose from legislation in
the various procedural provisions of international treaties and the case-law
the various courts.
7. as regards the legislation process capability, the claimant stated,
procedural competence is part of the competence to perform legal acts and
her edit is contained both in Act No 99/1963 Coll., the code of civil
of procedure, as amended, and Act No. 150/2002 Coll.
8. the code of civil procedure in section 20 provides that each may before a court as a
participant separately to Act (legal proceedings) to the extent that, in the
What is the eligibility of its own operations, acquire rights and take on
obligations. According to § 29 para. Code of civil procedure if it is not
represented by a natural person who, as a party to the proceedings before the Court cannot
separately, appoint her to act the President of the Senate of the guardian, if there is
risk of default. Guardian may appoint pursuant to paragraph 4
lawyer. Another person may be appointed only if the participant
agrees. The guardian then, if the Court has not decided otherwise, in the proceedings
before courts of all instances. Appointed guardian has the same status as
a representative of the power of attorney on the basis of the process, and if the guardian is appointed
Attorney at law, has the same status as a lawyer, to which the participant has granted full
power (section 31, paragraph 1 and 2 of the code of civil procedure).
9. In contrast, in judicial proceedings, administrative proceedings, the participant is eligible
separately do the procedure acts only if it has the capacity to
capacity in full (article 33, paragraph 3, first sentence of the Act No. 150/2002
SB.).
10. The legal regulation of process capability in Act No. 150/2002 Coll. is
Therefore, a separate and much more stringent, since it does not allow to take into account that the
the participant limited in its substantive competence might be able to
participation before the Court in matters covered by the limitation does not apply. The explanatory memorandum
to the citovanému provisions are silent. The provisions of § 64 of Act No. 150/2002 Coll.
doing so allows the use of the code of civil procedure only where this
the law provides otherwise. According to the code of civil procedure can thus be
consider the Group of people from which to appoint a tutor, as well as a range of
representation, but not for legal guardian
related to each competency.
11. Legal proceedings is a prerequisite for personal access to
Court and thus to fulfil the right to judicial protection within the meaning of article 87(1). paragraph 36.
1 and 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, published under no. 2/1993 Coll.,
(hereinafter referred to as "the Charter"). The purpose of the provisions is undoubtedly that of the guardian
an individual who, due to their limitation is not able to in court
the process of properly to defend their rights, not their limitations of disadvantaged.
12. the provisions of the guardian, however, on the other side may not be so
formal to natural persons as a result of restrictions in its eligibility this
excluded from direct participation in the course of the judicial process, without, it was
must necessarily be. Such a procedure would have been interference in the rights guaranteed by the
in that article. paragraph 36. 1 and 2 of the Charter, in article. 5 of the Charter ("everyone is
seemed to have rights. ") and in the article. 10, paragraph 1. 1 of the Charter ("every citizen has the
the right to preserve his human dignity ... ").
13. the appellant in comparison to the adjustment of the eligibility and pointed out in the law
No. 141/1961 Coll., on criminal court proceedings (code of criminal procedure), as amended by
amended. He also assumes the provision of defence counsel in
the case, if the accused is deprived of or limited in the legal
operations [section 36, paragraph 1 (a)), and (b))], or if it appears necessary
due to the physical or mental defects of doubts as to the
competence to defend (§ 36 para. 2). According to § 33 para. 1
Code of criminal procedure, however, all of the rights that belong to the accused person, his
belong, even if it is deprived of or limited in capacity to
legal capacity and legal representative of the accused person deprived of or limited in
eligibility under section 34 the criminal procedure code the accused only represents, without
It represented of his rights.
14. the national adjustment process capability is considered by the
the applicant should be seen in the light of the European Convention for the protection of
human rights and fundamental freedoms, published under no. 209/1992 Coll.,
(hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"), which guarantees human dignity and access to
the Court. Tied access to court on the guardian then is in the jurisprudence
The European Court of human rights (hereinafter referred to as the "European Court")
seen as restrictions on access to the Court, if it is not associated with
convincing reasons. You cannot leave aside the attention or the Convention on the
the rights of persons with disabilities (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"), which
It was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 November.
December 2006 in New York City (published as no. 10/2010 Sb. m. s., as amended by
fix announced by under no 44/2010 Sb. m. s.), which protects persons with
disabled people from all kinds of discrimination and covers civil, political,
political, economic, social and cultural rights. Obliges the Contracting
Parties not only to adopt laws and regulations adhering to this principle,
but also to ensure that, in practical terms there was a better
integration of disabled people in society and their access to
the Court. The key is the article. 12 dealing with the legal status of persons
disabled persons and article. 13 governing access for the disabled
to justice; for the disabled must be considered
persons who have long-term mental impairments which in interaction with
various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in the
society on an equal basis with others.
15. The relevant recommendations of the Committee of Ministers is the Council of Europe no. R (99) 4
on the principles of the legal protection of incapable adults persons (hereinafter referred to as
"The recommendation") providing that the legislation has to be flexible and allow for
the measures "tailored to each individual case.
16. the appellant also referred to the case law of the European Court of
human rights, which already exists in the cases against Russia (case Shtukaturov
of 27 June. in March 2008, no. 44009/05), h. f. against Slovakia
(judgment of November 1, 2005, no. 55813/0) and Alajos Kiss
against Hungary (judgment of 20 may, 2010, complaint No. 38832/06),
all available in http://www.echr.coe.int, HUDOC database, stressed,
Although these rules do not have the force of law, define common
European standard in this area, which moved up from the
soft law
on the interpretative binding rules for the procedure of the public authorities.
Principle No 2 (2). 1 of the cited Recommendation establishes flexibility in
legal response when using the protective measures and other legal
the resources available for the protection of personal and economic interests
incapacitated adults and principle # 3 then provides that legal
the framework should as far as possible reflect the fact that they can
exist different degrees of incompetence and incapacity may in time
change. Protective measures should not lead to complete without further
deprivation of legal capacity. To limit the legal capacity should
only occur in cases where this is demonstrably necessary in order to protect the
of the person concerned.
17. to assess whether the legislation contained in the process capability
the contested provision is not contrary to fundamental rights, it is considered by the
the claimant's essential and perception of the Institute and a preview of the feature
guardian in the case law of the courts. For the assessment of the relevant issues is the core
the significance of the finding of the Constitutional Court, SP. zn. IV. TC 412/04 of 7 December 2004. December
2005 (N 224/39 SbNU 353) ^ *. Similarly, the Constitutional Court held in the award
SP. zn. II. TC 2630/07 of 13 March 2002. December 2007 (N 224/47 SbNU 941),
which assessed the proposal to repeal section 10(4). 1 of Act No. 40/1964 Coll.,
the civil code, as amended, (the possibility of depriving
competence to perform legal acts). In this case, the Constitutional Court emphasized that
through the competence to perform legal acts (acts) and process
eligibility shall be given in the life of the constitutional guarantee of legal personality
the individual, guaranteed by article. 5 of the Charter. Rights and entitlements, which would
lacked the means to protect their conservation, would be only empty
the Berezina River. The Constitutional Court itself challenged Institute waiver
competence to perform legal acts did not annul, but stressed the need for his
constitutionally, a conforming application.
18. the European Court of human rights in the cases against Ashingdane
The United Kingdom (judgment of 28 May 1985, complaint No.
8225/78), Klass and others v Germany (judgment of 8 September 1978
complaint No. 5029/71) and Salontaji-Drobnjak against Serbia (judgment of
October 13, 2009, complaint No 36500/05) said that the right of access to
the Court is not absolute and may be restricted. These interventions, however, cannot
restrict access to the courts in such a way that the compromising itself
the nature of access to a court. In addition, the restriction will not be in accordance with art. 6
paragraph. 1 of the Convention, if you do not pursue a legitimate aim and the means used
are not proportionate. In the matter of Zehentner against Austria
(judgment of 16 December 2003. 7.2009, no. 20082/02), the European Court of
directly addressed a procedural competence of the complainant before this Court and
the Government did not accept the objection, that the complaint should be dismissed for the
not represented guardian; Here, however, was based on the fact that in the procedure before the
This Court may not be so obvious as the need for representation in
cases of restrictions under its national law, which aims to
to persons with restricted legal capacity of their rights or nenakládaly
property to its detriment. In the already mentioned case Shtukaturov against Russia
The European Court noted that many countries of the world in recent years
changing its attitude towards people with disabilities and have gone through or are going through
guardianship reform systems. An important element of these reforms is
just noise removal and control institutes legal
capacity in their traditional form, and their substitution measures, in
as a result, the person does not lose the capacity to perform legal acts, but is
provided assistance with its application. The European Court recommends the so-called.
functional test, according to which the very presence of any disability
(including intellectual property) does not automatically lose eligibility decisions
. It must therefore be examined, what kinds of hearing person does not understand, and
can't control them and what effect has the mental illness on her social
^ life, health, property interests, etc.; the mere existence of mental illness, and
even serious, cannot be the only reason to justify the deprivation of
competence to perform legal acts. Similarly, it was the de facto standard of competence dealt with
in other decisions of the European Court (e.g. judgment of 24 July 2003.
October 1979 in the Winterwerp case against the Netherlands, no. 6301/73;
judgment of 17 December 2002. July 2008, X against Croatia, complaint No.
11223/04; and the top-cited judgment in Alajos Kiss against
Hungary).
19. The case-law of the Supreme Court relating to the adjustment process
competence in the code of civil procedure on the one hand, it highlights the binding process
eligibility restrictions (e.g. hmotněprávnímu opinion delivered on 23 September.
May 1979 SP. zn. CPJ 301/77, publ. under no R 34/85), and also
stresses the second page of the issue, and that, in the case of the provisions
the guardian, without the conditions were met, experiencing undue
withdrawal of the right to act before the Court. So in its judgment in SP. zn. 23 Cdo 107/2009
of 18 May. May 2009 (available at http://novyweb.nsoud.cz)
the Court dealt with the case of the provision of the guardian of a party that is
for a transitional period for medical reasons could not participate in the court hearing,
and said: "If the party appointed a guardian, although
the conditions have not been met, as formulated in section 29 para. 3 of the code of
Code of civil procedure and referred to with the result that the Court has not acted with
a participant, or any other representative, this is the case, when a party was
improper procedure the Court during the proceedings, able to act before the
Court. ". A similar conclusion reached this Court and in the decisions of SP. zn.
20 Cdo 2850/99 of 23 November. August 2001, SP. zn. 30 Cdo 1072/2005
August 31, 2005 (available at http://novyweb.nsoud.cz).
20. In conclusion, the appellant recalled that the provisions of the guardian has the function of
trade, and its purpose is to make the participant postrádajícímu full
competence to perform legal acts to the extent necessary in the trial helped
the person eligible to suffer harm to their physical or procedural
rights. On the other hand, however, restrictions or deprivation of the right of access
in court, if a party can apply to the Court and actively
participate in the proceedings, if it is able to. This is the case in particular if the
its restrictions on does not affect the rights of the court proceedings. The person of the
partial limited in capacity to employment capacity, therefore, cannot be
without further withdraw legal proceedings without being taken into account
its factual competences. However, such a procedure, the contested provisions
assumes that excludes from the process capability of a person having no
full capacity to perform legal acts. However, the Court in the proceedings must take care to
the balance of interests and to ensure due process in the case of difficult communications
with the party to the proceedings, without running out his rights. The modification is in addition to the
the national judiciary is unique and cannot be justified by any
the specifics of administrative justice. The appellant thus concluded that
the contested provision is in conflict with the obligations arising from article. 6 (1).
1 of the Convention, of the article. 12 and 13 of the Convention of the UNITED NATIONS and with the provisions of article. 5, art. 10, paragraph 1.
1 and 2 and article. paragraph 36. 1 and 2 of the Charter. This discrepancy is not, in the opinion
the appellant's interpretation of constitutionally Conformal Deletable, since that
I can not go
Contra legem
. The cancellation of the cited provision does not cause any problems because the
When you delete it you will be able to follow the code of civil
procedure (section 64 of Act No. 150/2002 Coll.), the adjustment of the above views
will stand.
21. for these reasons the rapporteur proposed to the Constitutional Court after the
carried out by finding control ruled that the contested provision.
II.
Recap the essential parts of the representation of the parties
22. According to the provisions of § 42 para. 4 and section 69 of the Act on the Constitutional Court posted by
The Constitutional Court of the proposal from the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament
Of the Czech Republic. President of the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament
Republic Miroslava Němcová in its observations of 4 December 2002. January 2011 has described
legislative procedure the adoption of Act No. 150/2002 Coll. and stated that
the legislature acted in the belief that the law is adopted in accordance with the
The Constitution and our legal system. To amend the draft explanatory memorandum
the Act, in respect of the contested provision, the only completely generally States that:
„... Introductory General provisions on procedure defining moment of your own
the initiation of proceedings and the parties; also with respect to them in the usual
way, the capacity to be a participant and procedural competence "(printing, 1080
explanatory memorandum, a special section, comment to section 31-38).
23. the President of the Czech Senate in the Milan Štěch
of 22 March. December 2010 also described the legislative procedure for the adoption of
Act No. 150/2002 Coll., with the expectation that the Senate acted within the limits of the Constitution
set out competences and constitutionally prescribed way. Further stated that the
the administrative court rules has long been the expected legislative achievement, which
should be replaced by not quite perfect adjustment of administrative justice,
enshrined in the fifth section of the code of civil procedure, as amended at the time.
The ambition of the Act No. 150/2002 Coll., was to remove the constitutional legal deficits
on the institutional plane, adjustments to anchor the position of administrative courts and
judges in so far as necessary in relation to the General Regulation
[Act No. 6/2002 Coll., on courts, judges, lay judges and State administration
courts and amending some other acts (the Act on courts and Judges Act)],
and comprehensively to lay down rules of procedure before the administrative courts. In the framework of the
discussing the reform of material kodexového the nature of the rule, Senate
does not have the space to pursue in more detail, in addition to the individual provisions of the
then, if he gets into the spotlight a controversial or
a moot question. So it was in the course of the hearing of the Court of
order administrative, when Senators discuss the deficiencies in the editing
due to disapproval of the "new" code of administrative procedure; the preferred option was also
the issue of the absence of accompanying amendments to the Constitution, moreover, frequently
discussed the choice of seat of the Supreme Administrative Court. However, even at top
zoomed way discussing the laws of kodexového type a
Code of civil procedure of the administrative details, including on some. even on the question of
process capability of the tenderer. The Vice-president Of The Senate Jan Ruml
in the debate to point out that although it is "proposed adjustment necessary
Regulation, its adoption should be a priority ", however there are
"some minor comments". Among those comments included the speaker just
the passage in subject matter that is contained in the contested provision, when a full Court
informed their opinion words: "... I don't see necessarily defend at all costs and
oprošťovat from already approved procedural rules of civil
the order and do not know why some institutes are being modified again and
In addition, with minor differences. Can then be reduced
the position of the participant that is in this Act in a Court of law-administrative
-stricter than in the civil I order. " J. Ruml, however,
protiústavností did not argue for such specialty or submitted
in the spirit of the amendments made by the rhetoric, but appealed to
"the complainant is heard and in other legislative activities with them
eventually he worked ". For the appellant Minister Jaroslav Bures
He responded: "the relationship to the Civil Court of law. There were two options. It,
what he said to Mr. Ruml, Senator is certainly a perfectly legitimate, preference was
given the fact that the readers here offered a basic procedural institutes in
editing needed for administrative justice. If there are deviations, then they are
given the nature of the proceedings before the regional administrative courts, and the Supreme
the Administrative Court ". The Senate, after hearing all the speakers in the debate
voted so that approved a Bill as a transferred by the
the Chamber of Deputies. The contested provision is unchanged from the very wording of the
the beginning part of Act No. 150/2002 Coll., in conclusion, the President of the Chamber said,
that is entirely up to the Constitutional Court, so that within the meaning of the Constitution and the law on the constitutional
the Court considered the constitutionality of the contested provisions.
III.
The abandonment of an oral hearing
24. According to the provisions of § 44 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll. may Constitutional
the Court, with the consent of the participants of the oral proceedings, to refrain from it cannot be
expect further clarification of the matter. Due to the fact that, as the applicant,
both parties expressed their agreement with the abandonment of the oral
the negotiations, it was from this hearing in the case dropped.
IV.
The conditions of the locus standi of the applicant
25. The Constitutional Court first examined whether the formal conditions are met
the factual assessment of the draft, and he as well as the question of whether the appellant
in the present case is actively open to submit this proposal.
26. According to the article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution, on which the application is based, if the Court
to the conclusion that the law to be applied in solving the case, it is in violation of the
with the constitutional order, refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court
notes that, in the case under consideration is necessary direct application
the contested provisions of the complainant. So the proposal was filed by authorized
the complainant.
In the.
The constitutional conformity of the legislative process
27. According to the provisions of § 68 para. 2 of the Act on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court
-In addition to the assessment of compliance of the contested provisions with constitutional order-
to determine whether a law was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down
competency and constitutionally prescribed way.
28. given that the applicant did not defect to the legislative
the process exceeded the Constitution laid down the competence or the legislature, not with
regard to the principles of procedural economy to examine this question more closely and
It is sufficient, in addition to taking into account the observations submitted by the
the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, formal verification
during the legislative process of publicly available information sources
on http://www.psp.cz.
29. Act No. 150/2002 Coll., has been approved by the Chamber of Deputies on 15 December.
February 2002 and by the Senate on 21 February 2006. March 2002. The President signed the Act of the day
March 28, 2002, and the law was promulgated on 17. April 2002 in the collection
the laws of the United States in the amount of 61 under the number 150/2002 Coll., Constitutional Court
therefore notes that the law was enacted and issued within the limits of the Constitution
set out competences and constitutionally prescribed way.
30. After this discovery went up the Constitutional Court to assess the content of the
the contested provisions with regard to its compliance with the constitutional order of the Czech
the Republic [article 87, paragraph 1 (a)) of the Constitution].
Vi.
The diction of the contested statutory provisions
31. The provisions of § 33 para. 3 the first sentence of the Act No. 150/2002 Coll.:
"A party is capable of separately do the procedure acts (hereinafter referred to as
"legal proceedings"), only if it has the capacity to perform legal acts in
full. ".
VII.
The content of the contested legal provisions compliance with the constitutional order
32. The Constitutional Court went to the review of the contested provisions with regard to
its compliance with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, primarily with the rights and
the principles set out in article 2(1). 5, art. 10, paragraph 1. 1 and 2 and in article 3(2). paragraph 36. 1 and 2
Of the Charter, in article. 6 (1). and in article 1 of the Convention. 12 and 13 of the Convention of the UNITED NATIONS.
33. the appellant deduced that on the basis of procedural law comparison
competence in the Act No. 150/2002 Coll., with analogue editing in the civil
judicial procedure and the code of criminal procedure and while the perception of the issue
in the light of the Charter, the Convention, the United Nations Convention, cited recommendations and further
also with reference to the case-law of the Constitutional Court, the European Court,
The Supreme Court and the plaintiff can be concluded that the contested
the provisions excludes contrary to the constitutional order of procedural
the eligibility of persons not having full capacity to perform legal acts.
The appellant also pointed to the uniqueness of the adjustment in an unreasonable
the Czech justice system, saying that: "the annulment of the contested provisions do not create
no problem, because when you delete it you will be able to follow the
Code of civil procedure (section 64 of Act No. 150/2002 Coll.), the adjustment of the
the above views will hold up. ".
34. the Constitutional Court has already in the past, stated that: "the Constitution accepts and
It respects the principle of legality as part of the overall concept of the legal
the State does not, however, the positive law on the formal legality of the just, but the interpretation of the
and the use of legal norms makes their content material
the meaning of. " (cf. e.g. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 7/2000 of 4 February. July
2000, promulgated under Act No. 261/2000 Coll., N 106/19 SbNU 45). Similarly, in the award
SP. zn. IV. TC 412/04, which is referenced and the appellant, and in finding sp.
Zn. I. ÚS 557/09 of 18 April. August 2009 (N 188/54 SbNU 325, see also
http://nalus.usoud.cz), the Constitutional Court held that: "the Centre of gravity of the constitutional
order of the Czech Republic is the individual and his rights guaranteed
the constitutional order. The individual is the starting point of the State. The State and all
its authorities are constitutionally committed to the protection of the rights of the individual and the investigation.
Our concept of constitutionality is not confined to the protection of fundamental rights
individuals (e.g., the right to life, ensuring legal personality), but in
accordance with the postwar in the understanding of human rights (which has found
representation eg. in the Charter of the UNITED NATIONS and in the Universal Declaration of human rights)
the base became the base from which is based on the interpretation of all basic
rights, human dignity, which, inter alia, precludes a man was
treated as an object or subject. Questions of human dignity are
in this concept should be interpreted as part of the quality of the man, part of his
humanity. Guaranteeing the inviolability of human dignity to man
allows you to fully enjoy your personality. These considerations, confirms the preamble
The Constitution, which declares the human dignity as a sacrosanct value
Standing at the base of the constitutional order. Similarly, the Charter guarantees
the equality of people in dignity (article 1) and guarantees the individual right to
the preservation of human dignity (article 10, paragraph 1). The Constitutional Court also considers the
the legal personality of the individual and the guarantee of its de facto
performance for highly important constitutional values that have a central position in the
constitutional order (article 1, article 9, paragraph 2, of the Constitution and article 5 of the Charter). To
the protection of these components comprehensively understood, the dignity of the individual
(preamble to the Constitution, article 1 and article 10, paragraph 2, of the Charter) is the Constitutional Court
Thanks (article 83 of the Constitution.) ".
35. In general, the legal standard to limit fundamental rights
must be interpreted and applied with the knowledge of the significance and breadth of relationships that
cover the toll of fundamental rights. This legal standard can be applied to
After a careful finding that must be expressed in the preamble itself
the decision, that the conflicting basic rights of third parties, or. What
public interests are in conflict with the fundamental rights of the person limited in
its rights. The case is in the subjective right to the conservation of collision
human dignity and the right to judicial protection to the qualifications
an individual with legal capacity and thus the procedural competence.
36. the Constitution recognises and guarantees in article. 5 Instruments each
ability to have rights, i.e.. each guarantees a legal personality. Therefore, it is
any intervention must be examined from the perspective of potential interventions to
fundamental rights, in particular article guaranteed omezovaného. 5 and article. 10
paragraph. 1 and 2 of the Charter, landed in a range that limits the human
dignity. Because the Charter guarantees this right. Basic
absolute rights, can go only to their limits in order to protect
the basic rights of others or for the protection of the public interest,
that is in the form of a principle or value contained in the constitutional order as
a whole (constitutionally immanent limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms). If
such a purpose is not found, you cannot apply the provisions of the Act, which would
fundamental rights and freedoms omezovaného broken (cf. find SP. zn.
PL. ÚS 42/02 of 26 April. March 2003, promulgated under Act No. 106/2003 Coll., N
42/29 SbNU 389, available also at http://nalus.usoud.cz).
37. in the light of the purpose and the effects of the contested provision, it is clear that this
provisions does not pursue a legitimate purpose, or it is not about the enforcement of the objectives,
that is essential for a free democratic society, as it is not
guaranteed to be a fair balance between the interests of the
the one hand, and respect for individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by the
on the other side. Person defined legal personality has the right to
action and therefore preventing the application of the contested public power
the provisions in the application of its procedural competence, such a procedure cannot be
held to be a harmonious, that is in a free and democratic
the company required.
38. Currently, the issue of disability an important topic
human rights and freedoms. Proof of this is also cited by the applicant already
The UN Convention, which is the first legally binding international instrument in the
the field of human rights, which are the European Union and its Member States
bound [cf. Council decision of 26 April 2004. November 2009 on the conclusion
The UN Convention the European Community (in the official journal of the European Union of
27 June 2002. January 2010 L 23/35) and the European strategy for assistance to persons with
disabilities 2010-2020: a renewed commitment to a barrier-free
A Europe of 15 July. November 2010 in http://eur-lex.europa.eu], but also
the growing jurisprudence of the European Court in the area of
disability law
. The European Court. Point of interest in the case against Switzerland (judgment of 30 September.
April 2009, no. 13444/04 in http://www.echr.coe.int, HUDOC database;
RoESLP # 4, year 2010, pp. 235, and an overview of the judgments of the European Court of
in ASPI under no JUD 190926CZ) assessed the question of the availability of adequate
alternatives to military service for people with disabilities. It is the first thing in the
that finding violations of the prohibition of discrimination of people with
disabilities (article. 14 of the Convention) and in which applied the principle of the so-called.
"reasonable adjustments" with regard to the Convention of the UNITED NATIONS, the wider definition of the
This concept in order to guarantee the fulfillment of article. 1 this Convention (Editor's Note:
The United Nations Convention), which is to promote, protect and ensure the full and
of equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons
with disabilities and the promotion of respect for their natural
dignity.
39. With regard to the current perceptions of process capability
The Constitutional Court and the European Court of human rights, from the comparison of
the current legal regulation of process capability in the individual regulations
podústavního rights of the complainant carried out the analysis of the whole thing
clearly follows that the contested provisions are contrary to the principle of
proportionality with the maximou, according to which the intervention in the rights must reflect the
the specifics of each individual case. For situations where a constitutionally
Conformal interpretation of the contested provisions is not possible, the Constitutional Court
notes that such a situation persists, consisting in the fact that
persons who have limited capacity to perform legal acts is prevented from
in their procedural competence in administrative court proceedings under the Act
No. 150/2002 Coll., even though their restrictions on does not affect the rights
the court proceedings. Such a conclusion is apparent from the role, no doubt
the administrative judiciary, which has as one of the most important mission
the protection of the rights of the individual during his contact with administrative authorities.
40. From the above předestřených considerations with regard to the effects of the contested provisions
public subjective rights of the individual, it is clear that it is not
identify with the opinion of the applicant referred to in its proposal, namely, that
the application of the contested provisions would be in violation of the fundamental rights of the
guaranteed the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, specifically referred to in
article. 5, art. 10, paragraph 1. 1 and 2, and in paragraph 36. 1 and 2 of the Charter, in article. 6 (1). 1
Convention and in the article. 12 and 13 of the Convention of the UNITED NATIONS. The Constitutional Court therefore the contested
the provisions of § 70 para. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court to annul it.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
* Note. Red: a collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, Volume 39,
find no. 223, p. 353