In The Matter Of The Application For Revocation Under Section 33 Para. 3 Of The 5-Administrative

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zrušení části § 33 odst. 3 soudního ř. správního

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now

Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=74289&nr=130~2F2011~20Sb.&ft=txt

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