Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=67252&nr=269~2F2008~20Sb.&ft=txt
On behalf of the Czech Republic
The Constitutional Court ruled on 29 January 2008 at the Plenum, composed of Stanislav
Balik, Frantisek Duchon, Vlasta Formánková, Vojen Güttler, Pavel Holländer
, Ivana Janu, Vladimir Kurka, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jiri Mucha, || | Jan Musil, Jiri Nykodým, Pavel Rychetsky, Miloslav Vyborny and Eliska
Wagner on the proposal of the Municipal court in Prague to repeal provisions
item 14a point 2. a) Annex to the Act no. 549/1991 Coll. ,
On court fees, as amended, expressed in the words: "The action
or other application instituting proceedings in administrative proceedings a)
against an administrative decision CZK 2000, - '|| |
The petition is denied.
Definition matter and recapitulation draft
Constitutional Court on 21 September 2006 received a petition from the Municipal Court in Prague
to annul item 14a point 2. a) Annex
Law no. 549/1991 Coll., On Court Fees, as amended,
expressed by the words: "In a complaint or other application instituting proceedings in matters of administrative justice
a) against an administrative decision
CZK 2 000, - ".
Petitioner did so under § 64 par. 3 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll. In
amended, and once in connection with its decision
activities in accordance with Art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic
(hereinafter "Constitution") and § 48 par. 1 point. a) the Administrative Procedure
(hereinafter "s. r. s.") concluded that the provisions of item 14a point 2
point. a) Annex law on court fees, which should be applied solutions
things sp. Ref. 9 Ca 52/2006, 9 Ca 53/2006, 9 Ca 54/2006, 9 Ca 55/2006 and 56/2006 9
Ca used, is in conflict with Art. 36 para. 1 of the Charter of Fundamental || | rights and freedoms (the "Charter") and Art. 1 of the Constitution.
In those cases, sp. Ref. 9 Ca 52-56 / 2006 of the Municipal Court in Prague decided on five
actions of a company FAD, Inc., headquartered
Wenceslas Square. 1/846, Prague 1, against the Financial Directorate for the Capital City of Prague
, for the annulment of 162 decisions by the defendant, which
was rejected appeals against payment assessments for tax on transfer of real estate
issued by the Tax Office for Prague Said fifth
decisions were not the applicant in tax proceedings recognized the right to
exemption from property transfer according to § 20 para. 7 point. a)
point. b) Act no. 357/1992 Coll., on inheritance tax, gift tax and real estate transfer
, which it applied to the transfer of residential and non-residential units in
precisely identified real estate, while the purchase agreement with the relevant transferee
- individuals and companies - are different
data and legal effects of the transfer of ownership hammered out agreements also included
always occurred to another moment (date).
Administrative decision of the tax assessment and the decision of the Board
in administrative proceedings, financial authorities have been released as a single decision
factually and legally assessing the specific case of the transfer.
Applicant in the context of freedom of disposition of administrative decisions challenged 162 5 actions,
directed against those administrative decisions that fit a
object transfer (eg. The apartment with residential space) or a non-residential space
certain character ( eg. cellar, garage).
Outset justification of the proposal to repeal the statutory provision
Municipal Court in Prague based on voucher at one of the conditions for the application
lawsuits before the Administrative Court, which is the fulfillment of the fee duty
by Act no. 564/1991 Coll ., on court fees, as amended
regulations. According to § 1 point. a) of the Act, the court
charges levied for proceedings before the courts of the Czech Republic, the operations listed in
Tariff of court fees, the matters of administrative justice
under item 14a point 2. point. a) Tariff of court fees, which forms an attachment
law on court fees, the court fee of 2
000, - CZK defined as a fee for the action against the decision of the administrative authority
. In cases in which the plaintiff affects more administrative decision, then
According to the petitioner asking what action is actually action in terms
item 14a point 2. point. a) Tariff of court charges. In other words
expressed, if this act purely formally disregarding
content and the circumstances leading to the issuance of an administrative act a written submission
Marked as action, or is every complaint sought in
such written submissions, as he seeks to always against another
decision must also be action. The petitioner in this regard
recalls that in administrative justice proceedings before the administrative court of
defined not only of the parties, which are the plaintiff and administrative
authority in administrative proceedings held in the 2nd stage, but also subject
procedure, which is always an autonomous individual, separate
administrative decisions, as regards the assessment of the legality of such a decision after
the material and process.
Municipal Court to justify its locus standi in proceedings on review of norms
notes that the statutory provisions of item 14a point 2. a)
Tariff of court fees to be included in legal matters
applied as a prerequisite for consideration of actions brought.
Determining the amount of court fees in those proceedings odvisí but since
inclination towards one of the two alternatives outlined explanatory item 14a point 2.
point. a) Tariff of court charges. When considering their
petitioner states that the fee determined by the number of written submissions
would be inconsistent with the number and scope of the factual content of the application and according to according
§ 65 and following of the Administrative Procedure conducted by management and should only depend
the will of the plaintiff in actions colic - the pleadings -
exercise their right to judicial protection against a number of issued
administrative decision that they should initiate proceedings
amount charged by the will of the plaintiff regardless of the subject matter of the proceedings. In his free disposition
proposal would prosecutor schedule proposals to individual complaints
determine the amount of court fees alone. Such a result layout
permission plaintiff petitioner considers a breach of the constitutional principle of equality
(with reference to Art. 4, paragraph. 1 of the Charter), since according to him
create inequality in the right to access to court. For that reason
Prague Municipal Court in similar cases based on the fact that the rise
fee obligations, it is irrelevant how an action is brought, whether
things are related, whether they concern the same parties, whether | || court will be discussed and decided on the basis of the same facts and
law and that the contested decisions of administrative bodies or
was not issued the same date, but under item 14a point 2. a)
Tariff of court fees in connection with § 1 point. a) Act on Court
charges against a fee for each claim, directed against one
independent administrative decision.
The court procedure was not found to be a constitutional
finding of the Constitutional Court. . I. ÚS 664/03 [Collection of Decisions
Constitutional Court (hereinafter "Collection"), volume 40, judgment no.
56]. After reproducing the content of this finding, as well as reproduction of this finding
respective judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court ref. No. 2 As
53 / 2004-76 and ref. No. 1 Afs 127 / 2005-105 Prague Municipal Court notes ,
the reason of absolute commensurability procedural question
fee obligations and the merits of the dispute feels
in the above mentioned cases, in connection with which this proposal serves to repeal
provisions of item 14a point 2 point. a) Annex to the Law on Court Fees
bound by the opinion of the Constitutional Court, under which it will not stand
interpretation, according to which the party is obliged to pay a court fee
action against any individual administrative decision.
If, therefore, the administrative judiciary is the Constitutional Court considered
constitutionally conforming recess court fee of $ 2 000, - CZK from
action against any administrative decision or other modification recess
court fees in administrative proceedings the law does not, then you can not
according to municipal court other than to conclude that provisions itself
item 14a point 2. a) Tariff of judicial fees, which must be
applied only in connection with § 1 point. a) of the Act on Court Fees
unconstitutional. According to the petitioner, this conclusion follows from
reasoning of the Constitutional Court in its judgment. . I. ÚS 664/03, according to which
procedure applied by the Municipal Court was a disproportionate amount of the fee
in relation to the amount of tax assessed (40% of total tax assessed).
In comparison with deciding the matter petitioner But with that argument
argues, because in it he total amount of court fee (324.000, -
CZK) in proportion to the total amount of taxes assessed, determined by the sum of taxes levied
individually (each tax amounting to tens, hundreds and also
million) seems very reasonable.
Aspect disproportion between the amount of court fees and the possible outcome of the proceedings can not be applied according to the petitioner
eg. The procedure for review of administrative decisions in matters
offenses, as due to the amount of the fine according to law no. 200/1990 Coll.
on misdemeanors, represents the amount lower than the court fee.
Municipal Court in Prague on the edge of the merits of the comparison highlights the different things
view of the Constitutional Court on the subject of proceedings in administrative proceedings if the
judgment no. . I. ÚS 664/03 argues consideration "business case"
while further states that originally had very evident that the existing wording
item 14a point 2. point. a) Tariff of court fees can be as
payment of court fee scale derived only by administrative decision
since this tariff item refers to administrative justice, which is
review procedure, an individual administrative act and the court assessed
legality, not only materially, but also formal features
issued an administrative act. For this reason, individual tax
a procedural decision in separate proceedings as an administrative case, respectively.
Case of an individual administrative act, which is why the terms
court fee lawsuit against several decisions not examined
as a business case according to the facts and legal issues
nature of relationship which were the basis for the issuance of tax decision.
Payment notices are issued to the tax separately and are independent
From the perspective of the legal opinion contained in its judgment. . I. ÚS 664/03 but
According to the petitioner the legal regulation in their diction Constitutional Court
indicated terms silent. The situation arose after the adoption judgment file.
Brand. I. US 664/03 is convinced that the Municipal Court in Prague does not allow
in the matter of five lawsuits against 162 administrative decision to impose judicial
fee of action against any administrative decision, since such
procedure would be unconstitutional. Municipal Court, however, according to his beliefs
not able to assess the applicant court fee or formal
terms according to the number of complaints, it bears the responsibility for selecting judicial
fee in the correct amount and that amount can not be determined will of the plaintiff and || | its selected route of administration actions, while other criteria selecting
court fee of Act no. 549/1991 Coll., as amended
regulations is not clear. The Court expresses bound by the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court regarding
assessing ties court fee
subject to the proceedings, ie. On the need to decide on the fee
case by case basis, which would mean a possible conflict with the principle of equality and | || predictability of the law and to the principle of procedural economy (
due to the necessity in this case, thorough familiarity with the assessment of the case
at the commencement of proceedings).
Given the above reasons petitioner is of the opinion, according to which
by statutory regulation of court fees in the administrative courts had exactly
determine the rules under which the act or under what procedure and to what extent can the court fee
the plaintiff is selected so that the court in the application of the relevant provisions of the Act
been exposed to different interpretative alternatives.
As the Municipal Court in Prague, according to his conviction on the basis
referred to the Constitutional Court finding himself in a procedural situation in which no
on a certain standing in what amount should lead the applicant to pay a court fee of
actions brought so fulfilled its legal obligation
choose a court fee in accordance with the provisions of item 14a point 2. point. a)
Tariff of court fees in connection with § 1 point. a) Act no. 549/1991 Coll
. and if under Art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution bound by the law as well
order to proceed in a constitutional manner, reached for that
to conclude that provisions of the legislation item 14a point 2. a)
Tariff of court fees is ambiguous because it allows different interpretations
court fee of appeal against the decision
administrative authority and thus, in effect, constitutes unequal status
parties in their constitutionally guaranteed right to
access to a court under Art. 36 para. 1 of the Charter, and also violates one of the fundamental
Principles of the rule of law and the principle of legal certainty and confidence in the law
according to Art. 1. 1 of the Constitution, which is guaranteed by the principle of predictability
law, its clarity and its principle of internal consistency.
For such reasons unloaded Prague Municipal Court proposes that the Constitutional Court
finding after conducting proceedings ruled that the provisions of item 14a
point 2. a) Annex to the Act no. 549/1991 Coll., on Court Fees,
amended, which reads: "In a lawsuit or other
instituting proceedings in administrative proceedings) against a decision
governors CZK 2000, - "is annulled, which
the Constitutional court states.
Recap essential parts of the statement of the party as well as replicas of the petitioner
According to § 42 para. 4 and § 69 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll., On the Constitutional Court,
amended, the Constitutional Court sent the petition to the Chamber of Deputies
. At the outset of his statement dated November 1, 2006
Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic Ing. Miloslav Vlcek
states that item 14a, including the contested clause 2
point. a) tariff was in court fees inserted
accompanying law to the Court of Administrative Procedure, which was published under no. 151/2002 Coll
., the bill was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies
Government on 4 October 2001 discussed then as printing 1081. on the question of compliance
contested statutory provision with the constitutional order, the position statement
refers to the explanatory memorandum to the proposal, according to which "
proposed amendment is consistent with the Czech constitutional order
Republic and international treaties binding on the Czech Republic ". The first reading, as further
statement contains, held on 25 October 2001 at the 39th meeting
Chamber of Deputies, in voting no. 234 was commanded
draft Constitutional Law Committee, taking him from attending
117 deputies in favor and 109 against nobody. Print 1081 discussed constitutional
Committee at its 97th meeting on 18 January 2002, but unlike the original text
government proposal containing the amount of 5000, - CZK,
constitutional committee adopted a resolution designed to reduce this amount
at $ 2 000, - CZK (committee resolution no. 235 was subsequently discussed as
print 1091/1). The second reading took place at the 46th session of the Chamber of Deputies,
general debate on the draft took place on 30 January and 8 February 2002
8th February followed by a detailed discussion. Amendments
resulting from it were summarized in the press 1081/2. The third reading took place at the same
- ie. 46th session of the Chamber of Deputies on 15 February 2002
final draft resolution, which the Chamber of Deputies approved the bill
adopted, according to the press in 1081, in the wording of the amendments
was adopted, when, out of 159 deputies present, 149 voted in favor and none against
. Subsequently, the bill was referred to the Senate that it
addressed. The president signed the Act on 28 March 2002.
On the basis of Chamber of Deputies chairman states that the Act
was approved by the necessary majority of deputies in the Chamber of Deputies, was
signed by the appropriate constitutional authorities and was duly promulgated.
With regard to the Chamber of Deputies adopted amendments to the
contested provision only affected in the amount of the amount proposed, and having regard to the explanatory memorandum
position statement notes that the legislature
acted in the conviction of compliance adopted law with the Constitution and legal
order, and that it is up to the constitutional court, in accordance with the "
filed constitutional complaint of the Municipal court in Prague" (sic!) and its proposal to repeal the provisions
item 14a 2 point. a) Tariff of court fees
Act no. 549/1991 Coll., on Court Fees, as amended by Act no.
151/2002 Coll., in the part which reads: "For instituting proceedings
control in administrative proceedings) against a decision of the administrative authority
CZK 2 000. - "evaluate the constitutionality of the law and issue an appropriate decision
Conclusion the Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies highlights not exactly
proposal formulated by the Municipal Court in Prague, which proposes the abolition
words "For action to initiate proceedings in matters of administrative justice and)
against an administrative decision CZK 2 000, "while in item 14a
point 2, introductory sentence reads:" in a lawsuit or other petition to open proceedings
Matters of administrative justice ", and the text is divided into letters a) to d
). By deleting the words cited above would, in the party in Item 14a point 2.
remained only in the introductory words" or any other proposal ", and the text
letters b) to d), which would in practice lead to confusion and the non-applicability of this provision
According to § 42 para. 4 and § 69 of Law no. 182 / 1993 Coll., as amended
regulations, sent the petition to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
introduction to his statement dated November 7, 2006 its Chairman, MD.
Premysl Sobotka , according to a statement the Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies,
attention to incorrect formulation design requested relief points while
grammatical irregularities have an appointment diction over any derogation
(apparently by example. dwelt words "or else"), further | || comparability of legislative and technical [proposed to remove the letter and)
item 14a, paragraph 2, among others. the words "the application for initiating proceedings
matters of administrative justice," although those words ever point a) does not
] and finally to discrepancies content [
deletion of the word "action" would not be in terms of further interpretation completely covered
letter d), point 2. item 14a, ie. "other cases", which now includes such
. action for failure to act]. The contents of his statement then
participant adds that it will cover variants of the petition to annul letter a), point 2
item 14a of the Schedule of Fees.
The genesis of the contested statutory provision in the observations that
receipt of item 14a of the Schedule of Fees fell into a period
legislative debate reform of the judiciary in 2002 [with the exception
newly inserted provisions of point 2. d) that has been given
items by Act no. 159/2006 Coll., on conflict of interest].
Was done by Act no. 151/2002 Coll. Draft bill was referred to the Senate
submitted on 25 February 2002, under no. 224 was the petition
organizing committee of the Senate commanded by the Constitutional Law Committee, as
guarantee committee, and the Committee for Regional Development, Public Administration and | || environment. Both committees Resolution no. 83 dated March 6, 2002,
respectively. no. 94 dated March 12, 2002, recommended that the Senate approve the proposal in
version passed the Chamber of Deputies. On 21 March 2002 the draft Law
discussed at its 15th meeting of the third term
plenum of the Senate and Resolution no. 327 expressed their intention not to deal.
In voting no. 95 There were 38 of the 43 senators present for the proposal, one against
According to the contested provision was not in content
during the legislative debate in the Senate questioned in any way, as evidenced by
form of the draft law, which is the de facto approval
bill by the Senate in plenary without debate. From the above, then the participant
procedure is concluded, according to which the Senate debated the bill within
constitutional powers and decided, as already mentioned.
In its opinion on the merits, then the party is based on the interpretation of §
1 the Court Fees Act. Says his diction prima facie
allows to distinguish between the management fees, fee
act and the court fees for the court administration, while in response to
inconsistent application practice with the significance of this distinction dealt Supreme || | court in an opinion dated July 4, 1996 sp. Ref. Cpjn 68/95 and Opjn
1/95. In another development recapitulates the rules of court charges
starting an imperial order no. 279/1915 l. A., Through Act no. 173/1950 Coll
., Regulation of the Minister of Finance no. 3/1951 Coll., Respectively. no. 22/1959 Coll., further
Act no. 116/1966 Coll. Act no. 147/1984 Coll. to Act no. 549/1991 Coll
. and the amendment of the Act no. 255/2000 Coll. If it was according
participant for the first of these modifications characteristic clarity and
relatively high specificity for editing from the period after 1948, then
characterized by a higher degree of generality and ambiguity
mixing of different legal institutions ( eg. in the legislation of 1951 and 1959 charges for mixing
action or proposal to the charges for different listings, testimonials
In relation to the provisions of § 1 of Act no. 549/1991 Coll., As amended by Act no. 255/2000 Coll
., In a statement by the Chairman of the Senate states that the item
14a, which includes a question provisions in the Tariff ranked among
fees charged for management, although neither the wording of § 1 point. a) by
Which the management fees collected "from the acts referred to in tariff
fees" nor the introductory sentence of the second paragraph item 14a of the Schedule of Fees
sounding "an action or another motion to initiate proceedings in matters
administrative justice "or the combination of both can not be inferred that it would not be charged
management as a whole. The legislature is convinced
specified subscriber fees by the requirement of availability
judicial protection, the nature of the matter under consideration and according to the demands
determining authority - the court. Given the fact that the petitioner in his submission
considering the concepts of management action and administrative action
contested decision, the participant takes the view according to which the legal structure
fee law remains over varying means of expression at a time in
essentially unchanged, while its base is divided into
management fees and fees for tasks taking into account the difference between
court acts and acts of judicial administration. For that reason formulates
following interpretation of the relevant provision: in proceedings before
administrative court against the decision of an administrative body charged
performance of the judiciary in one instance, namely EUR 2 000, - CZK payable upon filing
The party emphasizes freedom of expression legal entity
therefore considers it appropriate to bind the court fee for action (dispositional act
prosecutor) and not to be understood as an economic contribution to the state
expenses for official duties. Part of dispositional freedom plaintiff his right
its filing to define the subject of the proceedings (eg. One complaint to the administrative court of
request a review of several administrative decisions). On the side
second participant (with reference to the Supreme Administrative Court ref. No.
2 As 53 / 2004-76 and ref. No. 1 Afs 127 / 2005-105) draws attention to the permissions
court case unite to discuss joint infested or more
administrative decisions conceived in one action to eliminate independent
discussion, unless joint management possible or appropriate (§ 39 par. 2.
r. s.). From the above analysis, the statement concluded, according to which
in the case which is being challenged by several administrative decisions only
administrative action, decisions are factually and legally identical and relate
the same parties, must be conducted one proceeding, charged once
rate - one of the management fee according to the tariff. In this context
emphasis on interconnection fee obligations and meet
guaranteeing access to the courts.
Based on analogous elements between civil litigation and administrative judiciary
the participant agrees with the doctrinaire opinion
for the purpose of court fees (V. Hora, Czechoslovakian civil right
process. Part II., Prague 1923 p. 71), according to which the judiciary, on the one
"may be profitable now," on the other hand, there should be no "to
sudičství, to abuse of the court and the court proceedings and therefore
to the detriment of the whole." In other words, a potential plaintiff has a judicial
fee motivating effect (not to abuse the judiciary), in terms
company fulfills the role of a fee of economic activity equivalent per
Court (judicial power). This legal conclusion, according to the party
follows from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Buffalo, sr
o. In liquidation against Italy). Based on the proportionality relationship
these purposes the Chairman of the Senate for a reasonable amount of court and
fee (ie. 2000, - CZK).
The objection of ambiguity on the part of the petitioner then
party notes that in his opinion, are the legal rules in this matter
set sufficiently clearly, and so general as to allow the court
apply the standard case-by case
while leaving sufficient room for maneuver. Considers further that the Constitutional Court
sp. . I. ÚS 664/03, under which "interpretation of the law no. 549/1991 Coll
., according to which party is required to pay a court fee for each
administrative decisions that are factually and legally completely identical,
concern the same parties and are published the same day, the same administrative
body is not only disproportionate but also unconstitutional, "represents
clear and understandable basis for resolving eventually.
interpretative doubts. Based on the foregoing points to the principle
constitutional interpretation of simple law, which should be the starting point
Procedure for the petitioner in the case.
Conclusion, the statement notes that it is completely up to the Constitutional Court to
"assess the constitutionality of the petition to annul the contested provisions."
In its reply to the Assembly of Deputies, delivered to the Constitutional Court on
17th January 2008, the petitioner points out that in its proposal based on Article.
11 paragraph. 5 of the Charter, under which fees can be stored only on the basis
Act and Art. 37 par. 3 of the Charter, according to which all | || equal participants in the proceedings, from which it derives the conclusion according to which even if
action against several decisions must be above the financial costs of the dispute
determined without depending on the discretion of judges drawn from studying
merits of the case. Argumentation principle of equality of the parties
Prague Municipal Court in reply and illustrates examples from their own experience.
Puts a further question, if in case, if it depends determine the amount of court fee
from consideration of the court, had to be given within the meaning of § 34 para. 1 s.
Row. a. the Ministry of Finance, as a person involved in the proceedings, the possibility
each amount of court fees to comment. The wording of the statement of claim, then
petitioner maintains that it is within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under § 70 para. 1
Act no. 182/1993 Coll. decide that a law or other regulation or their individual
provision shall be abolished upon which the findings will determine
which is given by the tool prevent unwanted disproportion. Finally
replicas then notes that its proposal takes, which makes
is referring to the recent jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court (resolution file. Ref. III. ÚS 464/06
- the electronic version, see http: // nalus.usoud.cz in the ECR
According to § 44 par. 2 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll., As amended
regulations, the Constitutional Court with the consent of the parties from the hearing
waived if no expect him to clarify the matter .
Due to the fact that both the petitioner in a submission dated 22 January 2008 and the participants in the proceedings
memorandum Chairman of Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
dated January 8, 2008 and the Chairman of the Senate of the Czech
Republic dated January 7, 2008 consented to waive a hearing
and also due to the fact that the Constitutional court has held that since
negotiations can not be expected to clarify the matter, a hearing in || | matter was waived.
Petit proposal and the wording of the contested legislation
Constitutional Court when deciding the extent of the petition and
bound in its decision on its borders (ultra petitum) [see, eg
. decision in the case file. Nos. Pl. US 16/94 (Collection of Decisions
Volume 2, USN. No. 14), Pl. US 8/95 (Collection of Decisions, Volume 4, finding
no. 83, published as no. 29/1996 Coll.), Pl. US 5/01 (Collection of Decisions
volume 24, judgment no. 149, promulgated under no. 410/2001 Coll.), Pl.
US 7/03 (Collection of Decisions, volume 34, judgment no. 113, promulgated under no. 512/2004 Coll
.), Pl. US 10/03 (Collection of Decisions, volume 36, judgment no. 9
promulgated under no. 86/2005 Coll.)]. When proposing the Prague Municipal Court to cancel
provisions of item 14a point 2. a) Annex to the Act no. 549/1991 Coll. ,
On court fees, as amended, expressed in the words:
"For a complaint or other application instituting proceedings in matters of administrative justice and
) against an administrative decision CZK 2000, -" although | || his entire contents of the proposal is directed towards the point a) of section 2 item 14a
scale of charges, the Constitutional court considers the definition of an obvious statement of claim
mistake if, in its deliberations it swerved, not a procedure
ultra petita but to remove the apparent contradiction between the content and the quotation
legislation, indicating that the petition (see, in Judgment.
Nos. Pl. ÚS 38/06, published as no. 84/2007 Coll.). Otherwise
because if the petitioner indicated repeal statutory provisions
remainder of item 14a point 2. Schedule of Fees lost
Provisions of subparagraph a) item 14a point 2. Schedule of Fees, which
annexed to the Act no. 549/1991 Coll., On Court Fees, as amended
later statutes, reads: "a) against the decision of the administrative body CZK 2,000,
Terms of locus standi of the petitioner
The proposal to repeal the provisions of subparagraph a) of paragraph 2 of item 14a
Tariff of fees annexed to the Act no. 549/1991 Coll., On Court
Charges, as amended laws was passed by the Municipal Court in Prague
according to § 64 par. 3 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll., As amended
As mentioned in the narration, in those cases sp. Ref. 9 Ca
52-56 / 2006 the Municipal Court in Prague decided on the five actions
trading company FAD, Inc., based Wenceslas Square. 1/846, Prague 1
against the Financial Directorate for Prague, which seeks cancellation of 162
defendant's decision rejecting the appeal
against payment assessments on real estate transfer tax, issued by the Financial
Office for Prague 5th that these decisions were not the applicant in tax
management recognized the right to exemption from property transfer according to §
20 paragraph. 7 point. a) point. b) Act no. 357/1992 Coll., on Inheritance Tax,
gift and estate transfer tax, which it applied to the transfer
residential and commercial units in precisely designated property.
Prague Municipal Court did so under § 64 par. 3 of Law no. 182/1993
Coll., As amended, and once in connection with its decision
activities in accordance with Article . 95 para. 2 of the Constitution and § 48 para. 1
point. a) s. r. s. concluded that the provisions of subparagraph a) point 2.
item 14a of the Schedule of Fees annexed to the Act no. 549/1991
Coll., on Court Fees, as amended laws which shall be
solving things sp. Ref. 9 Ca 52-56 / 2006 used is contrary to Art. 36
paragraph. 1 of the Charter and Art. 1 of the Constitution.
Procedural requirement of locus standi of the court pursuant to § 64 par. 3
Act no. 182/1993 Coll. On the Constitutional Court, as amended
legislation is that the statute, if necessary. its individual provisions
which is now being proposed, subject to tribal control, which establishes
for consideration of the matter by the decision of the court grounds.
Because the payment of court fees is a condition of the case (§ 9
the Court Fees Act), can the petitioner has
meets the conditions of standing in proceedings to review a norm.
Constitutionality of Jurisdiction and the Legislative Process
Constitutional Court in accordance with § 68 para. 2 of Act no. 182/1993
Coll., As amended, in norm control proceedings
required to assess whether the contested statute, its individual provisions , eventually.
another legal regulation or its individual provisions, was passed and issued
bounds of constitutionally provided competence and in a constitutionally prescribed manner.
From the parliamentary publications and stenographic reports and statements
party to the proceedings, it was found that the Chamber of Deputies approved the draft
of the Act, ie. Act no. 151/2002 Coll., In the third reading at its 46 .
meeting on February 15, 2002 Resolution no. 2106, from the present 159
deputies to favor of its adoption
149 MPs and MPs and none against.
On March 21, 2002 discussed the bill at its 15th meeting
third term of the full Senate and Resolution no. 327 has expressed its intention not to
pursue. In voting no. 95 was 38 out of 43 senators present for
proposal, one was against the proposal.
The Act was signed by the appropriate constitutional authorities and was
no. 151/2002 Coll. duly promulgated in Volume 61 Collection of Laws, which were
distributed on April 17, 2002, and pursuant to Art. XXVII for decisions of the Constitutional Court
relevant provisions of Article. X Note 18. effect on 1 January 2003
Consistency of the contested statutory provision with the constitutional order
The most common expression of the purpose and meaning of court charges
is contained in the explanatory memorandum to the government draft law on court fees (print
476), adopted by the Czech National Council on 5 December 1991 and promulgated under No.
. 549/1991 Coll. "The task of legislation
charging and collection of court fees is also appropriate fee rate
secure the payment of part of the costs incurred by the state judiciary
performance while reducing administration neutvářených some proposals to initiate legal proceedings
. their task is to simultaneously act on that
obliged to voluntarily fulfill their obligations towards other people and other entities
From a comparative viewpoint emphasizes the first of those purposes court fee
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (BVerfGE 50, 217 ). According to him,
"Public financial performance fee, which is to a fee
debtor on grounds of public performance against individuals unilaterally imposed
(public norm or similar sovereign act) and
intended to follow up on this performance his expenses wholly or partly covered
Meaning and purpose of the provisions of subparagraph a) of paragraph 2 of item 14a
Tariff of fees annexed to the Act no. 549/1991 Coll., On Court Fees
, as amended by Act no. 151/2002 Coll.
is a reflection of the adoption of the administrative Procedure and their adaptation court fees.
The objection of unconstitutionality of the mentioned statutory provision
petitioner is the existence of several interpretive
alternatives and ambiguity and uncertainty aspects of their choosing.
Moreover, the petitioner does not accept the arguments contained in Constitutional Court
sp. . I. ÚS 664/03, according to which the court determining the amount of the fee according
letter a) point 2. Item 14a tariff charges by charging
proposal in relation to each contested administrative decisions were
disproportionate amount of the fee relation to the amount of tax assessed and states
examples in which such a disproportion there.
Issue of constitutional interpretation of the provisions of subparagraph a) point 2.
Item 14a tariff charges dealt with comprehensively in the Constitutional Court judgment file
. . I. ÚS 664/03 (see above). At the outset it followed up on its previous case law to
fee obligations (sp. Ref. IV. ÚS 162/99,
ECR, volume 15, judgment no. 104), in which it stressed that
" modification of the fee duty or exemption from it, by Act no.
549/1991 Coll., on court fees, as amended,
represents one of the key moments conditional right to judicial
protection under Art. 36 para. 1 of the Charter. " Of this thesis concluded then
in the judgment file. . I. ÚS 664/03 conclusion, according to which "excess general
court when deciding the amount of the fee under Act no. 549/1991 Coll.
may reach such an extent that it reaches even the fundamental right under Article.
36 paragraph. 1 or paragraph. 2 of the Charter. " Interpretive alternative allowing
accumulation court fee when applying letter a) point 2. Item 14a
Schedule of Fees therefore constitutionally contradictory ruled: "Interpretation
Act no. 549/1991 Coll., According to which party is required
pay a court fee for each administrative decisions that are factually and legally
completely identical, concern the same parties and are published
same day, the same administrative authority, is not only disproportionate but also
unconstitutional. Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms provides in Article. 36 para. 2
principle that, who claims that his rights have been shortened
decision of the public authority may turn to a court to review the legality
such determination. in light of this article
Charter should approach the city court the nature of significant restrictions
complainant access to the courts. "
That opinion was confirmed by the Constitutional Court in its subsequent judgments. In
finding sp. Ref. II. US 745/06 (not yet published in the electronic version
see http://nalus.usoud.cz) stated that "
result of a constitutional interpretation of the Act no. 549/1991 Coll., May not be such interpretations | || according to which party is obliged to pay a court fee for each
administrative decisions regarding the decisions that are factually and legally completely identical
concerning the same parties and are published the same day in the same
administrative authority . "In another finding, regarding the issue
sp. . I. ÚS 43/07 (not yet published in the electronic version
see http://nalus.usoud.cz) then stated the following: "If
contested order Magistrates Court on the basis of interpretation of the relevant provisions
Act no. 549/1991 Coll. meted out to the complainant the court fee
2 000, - CZK for each individual, administrative action
contested administrative decision, although all these decisions concerned a single
case (appeal against the tax assessment on penalties)
address the same legal issue concerned only the complainant was released on the same day
one and the same administrative authority and contained identical
legal arguments, had such a procedure in the Constitutional court of substantial character
limitations in complainant's access to the court, resp., in the light of Article.
36 para. 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms restricted the applicant's right to
judicial review of administrative decisions. "If the argument
Petitioner Resolution sp. Ref. III. US 464/06 (see above), but not
stated that in accordance with § 23 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll.
this decision was not capable of causing change in the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court on the issue
Question the interpretation of the provisions of subparagraph a) of paragraph 2 of item 14a of Tariff
fees in its case dealt with by the Supreme Administrative Court.
The nature of the action as the layout of the act whereby the applicant appeals to the court
requests for judicial protection and defines it
subject of judicial proceedings concluded in the judgment ref. No. 1 Afs 127 / 2005-105 duty
respect the court that the plaintiff action challenged the decision of one or several
decision, unless a procedural hearing, the applicant was
contrary to procedural rules. In other words, if the objective
accumulation admissible, the court is not entitled to act to thwart the effects of dispositional
by expelling matter for independent (contrary to the terms
according to § 39 par. 2 s. R. sec.), and thus violates the principle in (on which it is built
administrative justice), public subjective right of the individual to
respecting the autonomy of his will, as well as the principle of procedural economy. For the reasons stated
thus inadmissible court procedure, the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment
ref. No. 2 As 53 / 2004-76 concluded, among other things
following, for the matter under consideration relevant result: "This
where it is not justified burdens - party litigation (such
unjustified multiplication of court fees). "
The procedure for review under the provisions of subparagraph a) point 2. Item 14a
Schedule of Fees with the constitutional order, the Constitutional Court found no reason to
from its previous case law on the matter depart.
Merely to amend it adds the following:
The basic argumentative methods of procedure of the Constitutional Court in proceedings to review norms
priorities include the principle of constitutional interpretation over derogation
whereby a situation where certain provisions
legal regulation permits two different interpretations, with one in accordance with
constitutional order and the other is inconsistent with it, there is no reason
repeal this provision. During application of the legislation and then
task of all state authorities to interpret it in a constitutional manner.
This method is based on the principle of separation of powers and the related principle
restraint, ie. The principle according to which, if it can be to ensure constitutionality
achieved by alternative means, the Constitutional Court decides that the legislative power
the smallest extent.
Constitutional Court to this principle espoused in many of its decisions.
It first did so in its judgment. Nos. Pl. US 48/95 (Collection of Decisions
Volume 5, judgment no. 21, promulgated as no. 121/1996 Coll.). The principle of priority
constitutional interpretation before canceling then used in many other
decision in proceedings to review norms [eg. sp. Nos. Pl. US 5/96 (Collection
decision, Volume 6, judgment no. 98, promulgated as no. 286/1996 Coll.), Pl.
US 19/98 (Collection of Decisions, volume 13, judgment no. 19, promulgated under no.
38/1999 Coll.), Pl. US 15/98 (Collection of Decisions, volume 13, judgment no. 48
promulgated under no. 83/1999 Coll.), Pl. US 4/99 (Collection of Decisions, Vol
14, judgment no. 93, promulgated as no. 192/1999 Coll.), Pl. US 10/99 (Collection
decision, volume 16, judgment no. 150, promulgated under no. 290/1999 Coll.), Pl.
US 41/02 (Collection of Decisions, volume 32, judgment no. 10, promulgated under no.
98/2004 Coll.), Pl. US 92/06 (resolution in the ECR
unpublished, in electronic form, see http://nalus.usoud.cz)].
Supreme Administrative Court, in accordance with tradition, doctrine and the constitutional principle of protection
freedom in those judgments stressed the importance
layout principles in administrative court proceedings in the context of authorization
plaintiff define the subject of the proceedings, ie. I
form of accumulation of the contested administrative decisions. In addition to the torque protection of freedom and autonomy of will
pointed out in this connection on the rationality of such a procedure, to
principle of procedural economy. With this understanding of both the landed
principles, ie. The principles of layout and principles of procedural economy, the Constitutional Court fully agrees
Admissibility objective accumulation in the judgment in the petition also meets the purpose
legal institutes connections, respectively. the exclusion of the case (§ 39 s. r. s.).
Thus, if on the one hand protect the autonomy of the will of the petitioner
reflected in the application of the principle of disposition, on the other hand, it is also
Protected homogeneity court proceedings, according to the Institute of exclusion things
§ 39 paragraph. 2. R. A., Under which heading If one complaint against more
decision, the presiding judge may by order any such decision
ruled out for separate consideration, unless joint management
possible or appropriate. Joint management while it is possible and appropriate, in the case of things
legally and factually either identical or similar, and if they relate to these things
the same parties. Arguments of the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment no.
J. 1 Afs 24 / 2005-70, in this context does not point to the unacceptability
procedure under § 39 par. 2 s. R. S., But safeguards against failure, which enshrines the provision
Apply if the applicant against the judgment file. . I. ÚS 664/03 as an objection
example where the cumulative calculation of court fees does not
a disproportionate amount, the Constitutional Court in this regard only
notes that that judgment merely pointed out the eventual | || negative consequences interpretation of the provisions of subparagraph a) of Section 2
item 14a of the Schedule of fees, the approach by the Municipal court in Prague.
Interpretation of the provisions of subparagraph a) of paragraph 2 of item 14a of the Schedule of Fees,
annexed to the Act no. 549/1991 Coll., On Court Fees,
amended by Act no. 151/2002 Coll., Contained in
cited case law of the Constitutional court and the Supreme administrative court, the Constitutional court therefore considered
constitutional, ie. how sympathetic with Art. 36 of the Charter and Art. 1
Constitution. This fact constitutes justification to apply the principle of priority
constitutional interpretation over derogation in the matter under consideration.
For the present the draft of the Municipal Court in Prague to repeal provisions
letter a), point 2, item 14a of the Schedule of Fees annexed to the
Act no. 549/1991 Coll., On Court Fees, as amended by Act No. .
151/2002 Coll., rejected [§ 70 para. 2 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll.].
Chairman of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. own hand
Search Translated Laws of Czech Republic