Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=83387&nr=14~2F2015~20Sb.&ft=txt
On behalf of the Republic
Constitutional Court decided under ref. Nos. Pl. US 9/14 of 16 December 2014
plenary Court composed of the Chairman Pavel Rychetsky and judges
Louis David, Jaroslav FENYK, John Philip (Judge-Rapporteur), Vlasta
Formánková, Vladimir crust Thomas Lichovník, Jan Musil, Vladimir
Sládečka, Radovan Suchanek, Catherine Šimáčková, Adalbert Šimíček, Milady
Tomková, David Uhlir and Jiri Zemanek on the proposal of the Supreme administrative court
filed under Art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution Czech Republic | || repeal § 158 point. a) Act no. 187/2006 Coll., on Sickness Insurance
with the participation of the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Parliament and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
as parties and governments
Czech Republic as intervener || |
The provisions of § 158 point. a) Act no. 187/2006 Coll., on Sickness Insurance
, abolishing the day this judgment in the Official Gazette.
First The Supreme Administrative Court (hereinafter "petitioner") submitted to the Constitutional Court
resolution dated 17. 4. 2014 ref. No. 4 Ads 116 / 2013-27
proposal to annul § 158 point. a) Act no. 187/2006 Coll., on
Health Insurance (hereinafter the "contested provision").
Second The petitioner filed the proposal after in connection with its activities
decision in the matter file. Ref. 4 Ads 116/2013 in accordance with the provisions of Article
. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter "Constitution")
concluded that the contested provision is in conflict with the constitutional order
The proceedings before the administrative authorities and administrative courts
Third The subject of administrative proceedings was to assess whether the applicant in
initiating administrative proceedings pursuant to § 27 of the Health Insurance Act
paid health insurance after the expiry of the period of support. Under this provision
after the end of the support period under § 26
paid sick leave at the request of the insured for the period specified in the decision
body sickness insurance under a doctor's opinion authority
health insurance that paid sick leave, unless it can be expected that
insured in a short time, but not later than the time
350 calendar days from the expiry of the support period under § 26 shall take
working ability, even with non-existing insured activities;
thus can proceed repeatedly, while in particular the extension of payment
sickness may be the time of this extension is longer than three months.
Sickness can be in the first sentence to pay a total maximum period of 350
calendar days from the expiry of the support period under § 26 of the same Act
Fourth District Social Security Administration (hereinafter the "CSSA") on the request
decided that the payment of sickness after the end of the support period
admitted. The applicant's appeal Czech Social Security Administration
(hereinafter the "CSSA") annulled that decision and remanded the case
body of first instance for reconsideration instructing re-assess the health status of the applicant
right after the expiry of the support period (10 . 8, 2012)
because in its decision stated the wrong date of expiry
. OSSZ subsequently released (on 14. 2. 2013) The new decision, which
applicant was entitled to a payment of sickness after the end of the support
time, and that "if the other conditions stipulated by law for
period from 11th 8, 2012 to 29. 9. 2012 ". 30. 9. Since 2012, when it was restored
job applicant's ability, then his sickness was not granted
Fifth Appealed against this decision applicant appeal that since 2. 1. 2013
again unable to work since failed the entrance
inspection by an occupational physician of his employer. That appeal was rejected CSSA
while you "for the purpose of verifying the accuracy
report on the health status," which was bound body of first instance, sought expert opinion
medical evaluation department of medical assessment services CSSA.
6th Against these (sub 4 and 5 above) decision of the first instance and appellate administrative body
applicant filed a lawsuit in which he claimed that
contested decisions are based on erroneous conclusions
relevant medical documentation, the review took place during the procedure | || before the appellate authority in his absence, was not taken into account his
Borreliosis disease and the fact that the vice suffered nerve. Despite
unsatisfactory health status he had a lack of financial resources
let recognize 1. 1. 2013 práceschopným. About this complaint
proposal, the Regional Court in Prague Resolution dated 20. 11. 2013, ref. No. 43 Ad
21 / 2013-15 so that it refused, referring to this proposal
contested § 158 point. a) the Health Insurance Act.
Under that provision, a decision on the payment of sickness
after the expiry of the support period of judicial review impossible.
7th In the context of the applicant's cassation appeal against that order
county court the Fourth Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court
proposal to annul the provisions of the Health Insurance Act.
8th The petitioner initially pointed to sustained
jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court (eg. The judgment of 23 8, 2012, ref. No. 5 As
17 / 2012-31, according to which "the provisions of § 158 of the Health Insurance Act || | corresponds with the general principle applied in administrative justice, according
that "the courts are called upon to examine separately statements on matters
state of health and ability to work - this principle follows both from
general rules contained in § 70 point. d ) s. r. a. (
operations depending solely on an assessment of the health status of people if themselves
not imply a legal impediment to the exercise of the profession, are excluded from judicial review
), and partly from adjustments to social security provisions that this principle
respect and questions the state of health is the object of attention
courts only when it reviewed the decision of the administrative authority of the batch
claims - even if, it is always a question of training, the
which the court must, in fact, that he could build for sure
call an expert, either under general rules of procedure applicable to proceedings before a court of
, or, in the case of review of a decision on benefits of pension insurance
possible to use the appraisal committee of the Ministry of Labour and social Affairs
"(see the judgment of the Supreme administrative court of 7. 6.
2006 ref. no. 6 Ads 41/2005 -24).".
9th The petitioner states that the contested provisions in the area of sickness insurance
divorced and re-embodies the rule contained in §
70 point. d) of the Act no. 150/2002 Coll., Administrative Procedure Code, under which
are excluded from judicial review decisions, the release
depends solely on an assessment of the state of health of persons or to the technical condition
things when alone themselves do not imply a legal obstacle to the pursuit of the occupation
employment or business or other economic activities.
The response refers to the Constitutional Court decision. Nos. Pl. US 15/12 of 15
first 2013 (N 13/68 SbNU 191; 82/2013 Coll.), In which the provisions of § 70 of the Administrative Procedure
interpreted so that "acts of administrative authority
whose release depends solely on an assessment of the health status of people,
are of judicial review are excluded, unless they themselves meant
legal impediment to the exercise of the profession, job or business,
or other economic activity, or unless it was an
acts affecting the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter fundamental rights and freedoms
". The petitioner concludes that the contested provisions of the Health Insurance
need to cancel due to conflict with
enforceable and binding ruling of the Constitutional Court file. Nos. Pl. US 15/12.
10th The petitioner points out that the contested decision on the payment of sickness
after the end of the support period should be from judicial review
excluded because it affects the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter
Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter") respectively. Art. 36 para. 2
Charter, the right to adequate material security during incapacity to work
under Article. 30 paragraph. 1 of the Charter. The existence of the contested provision
Health Insurance Act compels administrative courts that
action against the decision on the payment of sickness after the end of the support period refused,
although such a conclusion is contrary to the abovementioned judgment of the Constitutional Court
. Maintaining such a possibility, according to the petitioner in the future
could lead to circumvention of the Constitutional Court judgment, because in
special laws could be adopted such legislation, which would
from judicial review decisions exclude lump sum that depends | || solely on an assessment of the health status of people. That would be contrary to Article.
89 para. 2 of the Constitution.
11th The petitioner submits that the contested provisions of the Law on Health Insurance
can not be interpreted in a constitutional manner.
Its wording is very clear and do not admit the possibility of reviewing the type mentioned herein
decision, therefore it can not interpret in accordance with the conclusions
finding of the Constitutional Court. Nos. Pl. US 15/12. The petitioner refers to the fact
resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court dated 31. 5. 2011 ref. No. 6
Ads 109 / 2009-72.
Observations of the parties
12th Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter
"Deputies") in response to the petition dated June 8, 2014, signed by chairman John
Hamáček, he described the procedure for adoption of the draft
Health Insurance Act. This opinion stated that
legislative assembly acted in the belief that the law is in line with
Constitution and our legal order.
13th Czech Senate (the "Senate") in a statement
to the draft dated June 16, 2014, signed by the Chairman Petr Pithart,
also focused on the progress of the approval process of the bill on health insurance
whose It includes the contested provision. This
said that as regards the adjustment procedure in matters of sickness insurance, in the context of
which is defined by the decisions that are excluded from judicial review
, the provisions contained in § 158 of the Health Insurance Act in | || time of its adoption (March 2006), fit adjustment at the time
applied. In the period following the adoption of the Law on Health Insurance
which has been amended 34 times, with only one case
partially interfered with the provisions of § 158. It was an
amendment in the Act no. 470/2011 Coll., amending Act no. 187/2006
Coll., on Sickness insurance, as amended, and certain other laws
, which was the first part contained a fairly large
Act amendment Sickness insurance, under which it was in Article I, para.
138 provides that "in § 158 at the end of the text in subparagraph d) the words
" and repealing the authorization. ". it is therefore a minor change, that
to the contested § 158 point. a) that since the adoption
Act in 2006 unchanged.
14th Senate said that when discussing the draft law on sickness
insurance in the Senate conducted no discussion regarding how adjustments
contained in § 27, concerning the payment of sickness
after the expiry of the support period, as regards the rules contained in § 158, concerning
decisions, which are excluded from judicial review. To the
matter can only mention that it is a modification that in previous years
well accepted in the jurisprudence, and it was started from the fact that
Article. 30 of the Charter, which in paragraph 1 shall also
right to adequate material security during incapacity to work
is situated between the economic, social and cultural rights, and therefore it is necessary
is interpreted in connection with Art. 41 paragraph. 1 of the Charter that
therefore not directly applicable fundamental rights on the basis of constitutional
regulation, ie. the Charter, as is the case. u rights under Title I of the Charter
. This approach was also mentioned in the decision of the Constitutional Court,
regarding a similar proposal [see Constitutional Court resolution file. zn.
II. US 524/06 dated 29. 11. 2006 (in SbNU unpublished, available at
15th The government, which entered the proceedings as an intervener
according to § 69 par. 2 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll., On the Constitutional Court, as amended
amended (hereinafter "the Constitutional Court Act"),
in its statement, approved on 16. 6. 2014 and signed
Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said that the petitioner submitted
argument is not lying, because it is based on the mechanical application
interpretive statement judgment file . Nos. Pl. US 15/12 (see above), but
without simultaneously analyzing the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court regarding
range of constitutional guarantees of the fundamental rights which, however
case (as in the case file. Nos. Pl . US 15/12)
is not primarily the right to judicial protection under Art. 36 para. 2 of the Charter, but
right to adequate material security during incapacity to work
guaranteed by the provisions of Article. 30 paragraph. 1 Charter.
16th Government considers that in the current case is to assess,
Whether a decision on the payment of sickness after the end of the support period is not an act or
, affecting the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter,
fundamental definition of the scope "of the basic law."
Affected by this fundamental right is currently under consideration in the case
right to adequate material security during incapacity to work
guaranteed by the provisions of Article. 30 paragraph. 1 of the Charter. That fundamental right is at the level of sub-constitutional law
implemented, inter alia, the proposal in question
Law on Health Insurance. This refers to some conclusions of the Constitutional Court
concerning the determination of constitutionally consistent level of fulfillment of the right to adequate material security
; eg. in accordance with the Constitutional Court ruling of
24th 4. 2012 sp. Nos. Pl. US 54/10 (N 84/65 SbNU 121; 186/2012 Sb.).
17th According to the government must be entitled to adequate material security in
work incapacity within the meaning of Article. 30 paragraph. 1 of the Charter perceive "only"
as an obligation to provide individuals with social benefits in the amount
sufficient to lead a dignified life, not only for the necessary
time when they are not objectively on health grounds
proven themselves able to secure their own employment. Situations where the
result of social events leads to prolonged or permanent incapacity to work
are then addressed the Act no. 155/1995 Coll., On
pension insurance, as amended. A person may be
possibly ensure minimum social standards from other
(non-insurance), social systems, in particular under Law no. 111/2006
Coll., On assistance in material need, as amended.
Minimum fixed standard (within the meaning of reasonable scope under Article. 30 of the Charter) is
while constitutional, as is apparent from the judgment of the Constitutional Court. Ref.
Pl. US 54/10. The contested provision, respectively. related provisions
Health Insurance Act, according to the government obviously does not interfere
very core of the fundamental right nor an obstacle
its actual implementation, since it does not affect at all.
The contested provision concerns the decision on the payment of sickness after a
support period, as decisions about the (non) payment nenárokového performance
realized addition of the premium system.
18th Based on the assumptions design institute of sickness
after the exhaustion of the support the government has concluded that the extension of payment
sickness after the end of the support period can be seen as a
"extras", given the specific situation of the health status of the insured, who
should soon improve so that the insured regains
ability to work, and is therefore not advisable to apply for long-term benefit of
other social insurance system, ie. a disability pension from the pension insurance
. According to the government it is clear that the contested provisions (
and related provisions of the Health Insurance Act)
pursues entirely legitimate goal, which is, in addition to the above
benefit provided by the insured, as well as an effort to prevent unnecessary stress and | || flooding administrative court litigation whose outcome is de facto not
differ from those of the administration, because their decisions
depends exclusively on the assessment of the health status of the insured.
19th The Government believes that any repeal the contested provision of the Law on Health Insurance
would probably paved the way for a review of all
medical opinions issued under the Health Insurance Act (resp.
Decisions derived from them). A decision on the payment of sickness
after the end of the support period depends on the doctor's opinion authority
health insurance, and this expression is for body
health insurance mandatory, as it has the character of a binding
expert opinion under § 149 paragraph. 1 of Act no. 500/2004 Coll., administrative procedure
20th Concerning a request for payment of sickness after the end of the support period in the first instance decides
OSSZ based on a doctor's opinion
department of medical assessment services OSSZ. If
against the first-instance decision was appealed, which contains objections relating to the assessment
state of health of the appellant, the CSSA is obliged to request from the relevant departments
physician medical advisory services OSSZ statement that there are no reasons given
assessor to change its conclusion and that adheres to its
Initial health assessment of the appellant. If the Social Security Administration within
interlocutory appellant fails to comply fully, transmit administrative file with his opinion
CSSA as an appeal body. CSSA based on the filed appeal
seek re-assessment of the state of health of the appellant, and that
department of medical assessment services relevant department of the CSSA
within the meaning of § 149 paragraph. 4 of the Administrative Code. A decision on the appeal is therefore
state of health of the applicant assessed three times, and that the two sites
medical assessment service. Government considers that the above described procedure
guarantees a sufficient degree of legal protection of the interests of the insured
. Proposes the rejection of the proposal.
21st Ombudsman has not exercised its right to intervene
as an intervener in its statement dated 3. 6. 2014, however, the proposal
Supreme Administrative Court concurred.
22nd CSSA in a written opinion that the Constitutional Court requested
on the basis of § 48 par. 2 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll., On the Constitutional Court, states
that the contested provisions is linked to the provisions of § 145 para. 3 , § 27 and 66
Act no. 187/2006 Coll., on Sickness insurance, as amended by Act no. 470/2011 Coll
. Now from § 27 of the Health Insurance Act
clear that the decision is not granted payment of sickness
after the expiry of the support period, it may be issued only in two cases. Firstly
if the authority competent doctor sickness
comes to the conclusion that the policyholder has acquired working abilities, even with non
insured activity (his temporary incapacity should be
physician completed), and secondly, in the case that even after 350 days of insured
such labor capacity has become since
damage his health has long-term or permanent nature.
Negative decision on the payment of sickness after the end of the support period of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter
affect, either because the applicant eligibility to work
acquired, and hence the reason he fell in the form of sickness benefits
provide material security or in the case of prolonged or persistent
work incapacity caused by illness or injury while meeting
conditions laid down by law, secured disability pension.
23rd Sickness insurance authorities shall proceed in determining entitlement to payment of sickness
after the end of the support period in accordance with legislation in
Sickness Insurance Act and the Administrative Procedure Code, the legal
treatment does to Social Security no possibility for administrative || | discretion. Decision on the payment of sickness benefits after the end of the support period is
depends on the doctor's opinion on the authority of health insurance and the
expression for body health insurance mandatory. Like
Government in its observations, and the CSSA points to the possibility of appeals
remedies against the decision on the application for payment of sickness
after the expiry of the support period. This states that unless the decision on payment of sickness
after the end of the support period is excluded from judicial review
, it can be assumed that the court would in an action against administrative decisions
additional evidence by expert opinion ,
whose aim would be to re-assess the health status of the applicant.
Further notes that nothing prevents the insured from making in the event of a deterioration of his health condition
, because of which he was once again recognized temporarily unable to work
, filed a claim for payment of sickness after the expiration of support
24th The CSSA is of the opinion that the contested provisions of the Law on Health Insurance
suits so. Reasonableness test (see eg. The above mentioned findings
sp. Nos. Pl. US 54/10), it does not impinge on the core rights | || material security during incapacity to work, pursues a legitimate aim, and
to achieve this chosen rational and not arbitrary
25th The Constitutional Court expected a hearing to clarify the matter, which is why
drop it in accordance with § 44 of the first sentence of the Constitutional Court
Text of the contested provision
26th The provisions of § 158 point. a) the Health Insurance Act reads:
From judicial review decisions are ruled by
A) the payment of sickness after the end of the support period (...).
Assessment of the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court for consideration of active standing of the petitioner
27th The Constitutional Court first examined whether the conditions are met
process for consideration of the petition. The petition was filed with standing
Authority (§ 64 par. 3 of the Constitutional Court Act in conjunction with Art. 95 para.
2 of the Constitution), the Constitutional Court is to hear the petition competent [Art. 87
paragraph. 1 point. a) of the Constitution], and it is not inadmissible (§ 66 of the Act
no. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court), as amended by Act no. 48/2002 Coll.).
28th The Constitutional Court could therefore proceed to determine whether the contested
provisions in accordance with the constitutional order, ie. A) whether the contested
legislation adopted and issued within the bounds of constitutionally prescribed jurisdiction,
b) of compliance with the constitutionally prescribed means such acceptance, respectively.
Release, and finally c) whether the contested legal framework in line with the constitutional order
terms of content (§ 68 para. 2 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll., On
Constitutional Court, as amended by Act no. 48/2002 Coll.).
The review procedure for the adoption of a statutory provision under review
29th In assessing whether the contested provision was adopted within
constitutionally provided jurisdiction and in a constitutionally prescribed manner, came
Constitutional Court of the respective stenographic protocols (available on www.psp.cz)
and the statements of both chambers of the Czech Parliament .
30th Draft Law on Health Insurance, including
contested provision, the Government submitted to the Chamber of Deputies of 2. 6. 2005. At the 45th meeting
Deputies, held on 28 and 29. 6. 2005 was
government bill on health insurance, discussed
as Parliamentary print no. 1005 in the first reading to them for consideration the constitutional
Committee and the Committee for social policy and health.
Constitutional committee at its 74th meeting held on 2 11. 2005 agreed that the government
bill will be discussed. The Committee on Social Policy and Health
government discussed the bill at its 41st meeting on 3
11th 2005 adopted amendments to it, but not with the provisions of §
158 of the Health Insurance Act. In the second reading of the bill
at the 51th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies on 8. 12. 2005 was held
general and detailed debate, the contested provision, however, has not been provided
amendment. The third reading took place at the 51th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies on 21
12. 2005, when the bill was approved in a vote no.
1480 (resolution no. 2100); of 87 deputies present voted for the proposal
Act, 69 against and 17th of Deputies passed the bill on
17th 1, 2006 the Senate.
31st The Senate discussed the bill on sickness insurance, as Senate
print no. 242 (5th term). The bill was discussed in
Committee on Health and Social Policy, as the guarantee committee
to the draft law adopted a resolution recommending the Senate
return the draft law with the amendment that did not relate to the contested
provisions (it was a reaction to the Chamber of Deputies deflated
treatment called. capping the maximum amount of insurance
social security and health insurance). Furthermore, the Senate Press no. 242
discussed in the Committee for Economy, Agriculture and Transport, which adopted a resolution
substantively identical to the resolution of the responsible Committee.
The Senate debated the bill in question on 9. 2. 2006 9th meeting and
Resolution no. 356 returned it to the Chamber of Deputies with proposed amendments
recommended to adopt the same two committees, as stated above.
32nd The bill returned by the Senate, Chamber of Deputies voted
on 14. 3. 2006 at the 54th meeting and maintained the original bill
when the 168 deputies present, 104 deputies were for and 17 against
(vote no. 153, order no. 2275). The Act was delivered to the President of the Republic on 17
3. 2006, which has not signed it and returned it to the Chamber of Deputies
back. Deputies overrode a presidential veto on
55th meeting when the vote no. 173 maintained the original bill
(resolution no. 2419, of the 174 deputies present, 103 for, 55 against).
Approved Act was delivered to the Prime Minister for signature on 3 May 2006
was then published in the Collection of Laws in part 64 under No. 187/2006 Coll.
33rd The Constitutional Court notes that the Health Insurance Act, which
part of the contested provision was adopted and issued within the bounds of constitutionally
Provided jurisdiction and in a constitutionally prescribed manner.
34th Likewise, the conditions of Article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution and § 64 para.
3 of the Constitutional Court. In the case of the petitioner is a provision
Act relating to its decision-making activities, and which is to be
directly in resolving the matter; so it is the right concrete
control of the constitutionality of the law, as is clear from the presentation of a factual and legal basis
things (sub 3-11). Thus, the proposal meets the conditions for
proceedings before the Constitutional Court for such a case.
Substantive examination of a proposal
35th According to Art. 36 para. 2 of the Charter "Anyone who claims that his rights were curtailed by a decision
public administrative authority may turn to a court order
examine the legality of that decision, unless the law provides otherwise. Z || | jurisdiction of the court shall not be excluded
review of decisions affecting the fundamental rights and freedoms under the Charter. ". This is so
against the principle of enumeration (till 31. 12. 1991, before the amendment
Civil Procedure Act no. 519/1991 Coll.) General principle
which can be any administrative decisions subject | || review by a court if the legislature does not exercise his
provided space to the exclusion of judicial review (originally this list defined by § 248
civil Procedure and contained in Annex a of civil Procedure
pursuant to paragraph 3 of that provision ).
36th Extension and intension of this area is not the subject of this proceeding,
because the phrase "unless otherwise provided by law" in this case there is no need to interpret
. This would be necessary in a situation, if the question arose whether the legislature
limited even if it does not establish a ban
lockout in matters relating to fundamental rights and freedoms. However, the petitioner
decision to answer such a question requires. Objects in the spirit of Art. 36
paragraph. 2, second sentence of the Charter, that this reservation bill is limited by the inability
exclusion of decisions of public authorities which
relating to fundamental rights listed in the Charter. This provision appears as
special in relation to Art. 4 of the Constitution, which precludes the jurisdiction of the courts of
excluded protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in general, not just within
decisions of public authorities.
37th Likewise, Art. 36 para. 2 of the Charter acts as
special provisions in relation to Art. 36 para. 1 of the Charter. Thus, if the law
determined shutout of judicial review of such an administrative decision
which "relates to" the fundamental rights and freedoms, "according to the Charter," this is the
exclusion is contrary to both bases of constitutional order in the region;
Other words - in the case of the fundamental rights and freedoms of law
"different" can not determine (lockout) because it would violate a reservation
judicial powers in the area of fundamental rights and freedoms in accordance with Article. 4 of the Constitution and | || reserving the right to judicial protection of an independent and impartial court under Article
. 36 para. 1 of the Charter. This, however, on condition that:
A) the fundamental rights and freedoms under the Charter will actually act.
The same will be with regard to Article. 10 of the Constitution apply in relation to international treaties
because it was satisfied that the bill would set
anything other than such an international treaty;
B) will be specific fundamental right or freedom, not just a general concept involving everything
(fundamental rights and freedoms, as such, the democratic order
fundamental rights and freedoms, social rights or political rights as
certain category), because otherwise practically
judicial lockouts come into consideration, because this order and human rights
system within the meaning of Art. 1, paragraph. 1 of the Constitution affects any activity
C) will be the decision of a public authority in administrative proceedings.
In this case, it is not a limitation of judicial protection, but the specification
forms or procedures, which will be provided;
D) fundamental rights and freedoms will actually cover. Sufficient However,
when a decision will involve fundamental rights (eg. Setting
detail duties while preserving the fundamental rights and freedoms);
intervention or even a violation is not required, since it is not a constitutional complaint. To
It should be added that if the phrase "relating to"
meant interference in the fundamental right or even a violation, it would have resulted
obligation of the court to apply to the Constitutional Court only in terms | || constitutional review itself, it applied the law within the meaning of Art. 95
Paragraph. 2 of the Constitution and § 64 par. 3 of the Constitutional Court, but also
terms of its interpretation.
38th Article. 36 para. 2, second sentence of the Charter does not provide for that
'fundamental rights and freedoms "turns, respectively. that falls on
just some of them, whether in terms of some privilege or other qualifications.
From the wording of this provision, as well as the history of its preparation
can conclude that the framers did not intend to discriminate between
different "groups" of fundamental rights of any classification
terms. Administrative decisions which have an impact on some of
rights enshrined in Chapter four of the Charter, as in this case (Art. 30
paragraph. 1 of the Charter) and must be capable of review in administrative
judiciary, as well as administrative decisions concerning the rights enshrined in the minds
second and third Charter, covered by restrictions in the form
Art. 41 paragraph. 1 of the Charter. This interpretative approach to the given
provisions of the Charter, which automatically guarantees the right to judicial review (hence
fair trial) of the decisions of administrative bodies concerning
one (any) of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter is
also evident in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional court [in relation to the decision
incident upon the right to free choice of profession within the meaning of Art. 26
paragraph. 2 Charter see Judgment. Nos. Pl. US 11/2000 dated 12. 7. 2001 (N 113/23
SbNU 105; 322/2001 Coll.) And the related decisions, available on
http://nalus.usoud.cz in relation to the right to the protection of disabled
disabilities in employment relationships within the meaning of Article. 29 paragraph. 2 of the Charter, then
see judgment. Nos. Pl. US 15/12 of 15. 1. 2013 (N 13/68 SbNU 191;
39th Although the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court also appeared resolution,
that direct application of Art. 36 para. 2 of the Charter in relation to the rights
enshrined in Chapter Four of the Charter (economic, social and cultural rights
) with regard to Article. 41 paragraph. 1 of the Charter, secrete [see, eg.
resolution file. Ref. II. US 524/06 dated 29. 11. 2006, cf.
resolution also sp. Ref. III. US 233/01 dated 10. 7. 2001 (U 25/23 SbNU 335)
available on http://nalus.usoud.cz], not with regard to its legal nature and the legal opinion expressed
the constitutional court in the above (sub 38) above
findings affect the outcome of the proceedings, and other reasons.
It is irrelevant to what the fundamental right to an administrative decision
apply (the question of other forms of performing public administration was not necessary in this case
deal), because nothing like Art. 36 para. 2 of the Charter as sedes
materiæ does. Above all, it is then necessary to emphasize that in the present case
§ 158 point. a) the Health Insurance Act is not a separate
question of the right to adequate material security during incapacity to work
, but a guarantee of the right to judicial review, which is conceived on a scale
- touch (or. according to maintain Art. 4, paragraph. 1 of the Charter)
intervene (to enter the protected area within the limits of Art. 4 paragraph. 2
Charter) and breaching (interrupting dictionary Stadion constitution - § 106)
therefore interfere manner which is in conflict with Art. 4 paragraph. 2 of the Charter
respectively. others already concretised the safeguards constitutional. Although it may
Constitutional Court coincide with the conclusions contained in the Government, Czech Republic
and the request for an opinion regarding the CSSA test for rationality
social rights, it could not affect the outcome of the proceedings.
40th The Constitutional Court therefore has no objections to the Government's argument and requested
government authority, this argument is in relation to the substance and meaning
right to adequate material security during incapacity to work
tight, but does not point to the essence of what
petitioner must assess in terms of its mission to protect fundamental rights and freedoms
within the meaning of Article. 36 para. 2 of the Charter. In this case
is not a question of how should a claim within the meaning of Article. 30 paragraph. 1 of the Charter
decide, but in fact, whether a court is competent to decide on the payment of sickness
under the conditions provided by law . In this case
regional court denied this responsibility under the contested provision
and the petitioner as a cassation instance
encounter the same obstacle in terms of the possibility to undergo Regional Court's conclusions
their cognition. Thus, the Act within the meaning of Article. 41 paragraph. 1 of the Charter may provide
details of the right to adequate material security during incapacity to work
under Article. 30 paragraph. 3 of the Charter, and moreover its limits under Art. 41
Paragraph. 1 of the Charter. Therefore, these and only these details and
limits are assessed under Article. 41 paragraph. 1 of the Charter. He can not relate to protected content
Art. 36 para. 2 of the Charter, let alone Art. 4 of the Constitution because
in this case by the Constitutional Court, one of
essential attributes of a democratic legal state.
41st If the payment of sickness benefits (even after the expiry of the support period)
instantiations (detail) Art. 30 paragraph. 1 of the Charter, it has inevitably resulted
conditions specified sub 37 for situations where law
"otherwise "can not determine. In the present case, therefore, is not considered applying
conditions for the specific form of the right to adequate material security in
work incapacity in the Sickness Insurance Act, but is interpreted
Art. 36 para. 2 of the Charter, under which are- If "game"
fundamental rights and freedoms (ie. if they are affected, respectively. needs to be maintained
) may not be the possibility of the legislature "provide otherwise" apply.
You can have objections to the wording of the Constituent Assembly, but it is necessary to apply
interpretation in dubio pro libertate. The task of the Constitutional Court in particular
reviewing the constitutionality of § 158 point. a) of the Act on Sickness Insurance
not interpret the petitioner whether the constitutional certain amount
dose, method of its calculation, application form etc., but whether
consequence of the decision on such a dose has any relation to the fundamental law
which might be affected, without the need to be hit or even
violated. The thing that moves in space safeguards the right to judicial protection under Article
. 4 of the Constitution and Art. 36 para. 1 and 2 of the Charter, not
social rights under Art. 30 of the Charter, respectively. Art. 26 paragraph. 1 of the Charter, as a result
health assessment plaintiff was also
conclusion about what kind of work activity will continue to pursue the case
possibility of an early entry into working ability.
42nd In the case of procedural safeguards to protect fundamental rights, as derived from the Charter
, not the nature of the potential harm to their substantive nature
relevant [and it is not the essence in this matter, see. eg.
finding of the Constitutional Court on regulatory fees in health sp. Nos. Pl. US
1/08 of 20. 5. 2008 (N 91/49 SbNU 273; 251/2008 Coll.) - Paragraph 92].
If the decision public administrative body of fundamental rights
concerns, whether in terms of details, conditions, limits (not necessary
breach or shortening), it can be assumed that the legislature provided for the inability to exercise
these guarantees with respect to the above provisions
constitutional order without further unconstitutional.
Without procedural guarantees of fundamental rights would be, simply put, not individuals
possible protection against this illegal decision of the authorities to provide
43rd Based on these general assumptions, the Constitutional Court
approached the question of whether the decision on the payment of sickness
after the end of the support period, which is at issue in this case concerns
one of the fundamental rights, namely the right here
to adequate material security during incapacity to work in particular Article. 30 paragraph. 1
Charter, respectively. due to the possibility (as defined in § 27 of the Act on Sickness Insurance
) conclusion about the performance other than current employment or occupation
also under Art. 26 of the Charter.
44th As is apparent from the Health Insurance Act, which is among
legislation providing for, among other things. Details of the rights guaranteed in Art. 30 of the Charter
called. Sickness is a kind of sickness benefits provided
insurance, for which payment has entitled to an insured person who has been recognized
temporary work incapacitated or who have been ordered into quarantine by
special regulation if it insists temporary incapacity or ordered quarantine
longer than 14 calendar days (resp. for the period from 1.
January 2012 to 31 December 2013 for more than 21 calendar days), see § 23
Act no. 187/2006 Coll., on Sickness insurance, as amended
regulations. . Other conditions for entitlement to sickness benefits provided by § 24 and 25
Health Insurance Act. Support period, ie. The time during which
has to be paid, ending the day which closes a temporary working
inability or quarantine; period of support, however, takes the longest
380 calendar days from the date of temporary incapacity or quarantine
regulation, unless the law provides otherwise (§ 26 par. 1 of Law no.
187/2006 Coll., On Sickness Insurance, as amended).
45th According to § 27 of the Health Insurance Act applies, then, that after the support period
sickness benefits paid to the policyholder upon request
period specified in the decision by the authority sickness
doctor's opinion on the authority of health insurance, which pays || | sickness, if it can be expected that the insured in the short term, the longest
but at a time of 350 calendar days from the end of the support period, acquires
working ability, even with non-existing insured activities;
Following method can be used repeatedly, while at individual extension
payment of sickness benefits should not be an extension of this period is longer than 3 months
. Sickness can be in the first sentence to pay a total maximum period
350 calendar days from the expiry of the period of support. Affected are so
Article. 30 paragraph. 1 and Art. 26 paragraph. 1 to 3 of the Charter (
payment of benefits and relationship to existing insured activities and future work).
46th From the above it is clear that a decision on the payment of sickness
after the expiry of the support period represents a decision that person (the applicant)
entitlement to unemployment benefits (batch) in a situation where this person
(temporarily) unfit for work. This is so obviously a
decision that the right to adequate material security in
work incapacity concerns. The Constitutional Court has yet agrees with the petitioner
conclusion that the contested provisions of § 158 point. a)
Law on Health Insurance, which enshrines the exclusion of that decision
judicial review, is so clear that it is not possible to interpret
constitutionally; It is therefore necessary in the light of the above safeguards
right to judicial protection in relation to the decisions of public authorities
proceed to the annulment of the provision.
47th In relation to finding sp. Nos. Pl. US 15/12 (see above), on which
petitioner pointed out, and whose conclusions also followed this finding can
noted that the decision on the payment of sickness benefits after the end of the support period
based primarily on the assessment of the person's health condition and not a
decision constituting an obstacle to the profession, occupation or
business or economic activity [cf.. § 70 point. d)
the Administrative Procedure]. At the same time, however, a transaction that affects
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter (Art. 30 par. 1).
Repeal the contested provision confirms the constitutional interpretation of § 70
point. d) of the Administrative Procedure, as the Constitutional Court defined in
that judgment (recital 36 of the Decision Ref. Nos. Pl. US 15/12).
48th To view're saying in a statement the government concluded that the fundamental
right here is not primarily the right to judicial protection under Art. 36 para. 2
Charter, but the right to adequate material security during incapacity to work
pursuant to Art. 30 paragraph. 1 of the Charter, it may be noted that the right guaranteed by Art. 36
paragraph. 2 of the Charter of the procedural law, which binds to another
application of substantive law (is incidental). If this
substantive law of one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter
(here the right to adequate material security during incapacity to work
pursuant to Art. 30 Sec. 1 of the Charter, the question of the possibility of limiting the exercise of certain
professions or activities within the meaning of Art. 26 paragraph. 2 of the Charter)
is the duty of the Constitutional court to ensure that the procedural safeguards that fundamental rights
function. The right of access to court, as well as other procedural
rights under the general term "right to a fair trial,"
is not an end in itself, always it must be viewed in relation to protected
substantive law. Right of access to court, however, also be seen as part
constitutionally consistent level of fulfillment of the right to adequate material
security during incapacity to work.
49th In relation to the concerns expressed by the government to repeal the contested
provisions of the Health Insurance Act would lead to a review of all decisions
derived from medical reports, it is noted that judicial review is
[in accordance with the finding sp. Nos. Pl. US 15/12, respectively.
with regard to the interpretation of § 70 point. d) of the Administrative Procedure]
guaranteed in all decisions of this nature, which in itself mean
legal obstacle to the profession, job or business, or other
economic activity, and / or in respect of acts, which relating to fundamental
Rights. Other decisions of public authorities, based on medical
reports that under those categories can not be subsumed, then under the exclusion of judicial review
fall (unless, of course, a special law
50th In this context, the Constitutional Court considers it necessary to point out
situation in a specific case, that it was not addressed, however, demonstrates
problem about that in this case,. The applicant in the initial proceedings conducted under file
. Ref. 43 Ad 21/2013 before the Regional Court in Prague asserted (closer
sub 6) The facts that are not in the assessment of the opposition government of the Czech Republic and the CSSA
ignored. It is argued that a negative decision on the payment of sickness
after the end of the support period of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter
affect, either because the applicant eligibility to work
acquired, and hence the reason he fell in the form of sickness benefits provide material
security, or, in the case of prolonged or persistent
work incapacity caused by illness or injury while meeting
conditions laid down by law, secured disability pension. Furthermore
by governments CSSA under appeal before re
require a health assessment of the appellant, from the Department of Medical Assessment Service
relevant department of the CSSA under § 149
paragraph. 4 Administrative Code. Until the decision on the appeal is therefore
state of health of the applicant assessed a total of three times, two sites
medical assessment service. The claimant, however, says something else (sub 6) and
without let this claim your check by an independent court and
remains with its claim without legal protection. In other words, if the
special laws contained in contradiction with the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court
spoken in its judgment. Nos. Pl. US 15/12 rule which
judicial review of a flat rate excludes decisions that are solely dependent on
assessment of the health status of individuals, it is not only in conflict with Art. 89 para. 2
Constitution, but also with Article . 36 para. 2 second sentence of the Charter, because the person who
seeks extension of payment of sickness remains without judicial protection
eg. against allegations that she, in fact, no doctor
department of medical assessment services relevant department of the CSSA seen so not only
meanwhile altered health status was assessed as
alleged administrative authorities, but was limited to examining the documentation
made previously in other circumstances.
51st This can further be noted that in the context of judicial review of decisions
public administration body, which is based on professional judgment
health, the courts will approach such an assessment
similarly as other substrates professional character. It should be borne in mind that
regardless of the technical side of things, these documents and their issuance
also show lawlessness (eg. An opinion issued by a doctor who
was not authorized to do, and it constitutes an assessment showing
obvious elements of arbitrariness, the report contains allegations in contradiction to what was exposed
circumstances other than it says), with which it must deal with
. Such lawlessness yet may come to mind for
situation where a public authority, that decision based
professional support (in the form of a binding opinion) issues, has only
minimum of administrative discretion.
52nd The system of legal remedies in administrative proceedings as legal
regulation in relation to these types of decisions is set, it can not overcome the constitutional deficit
as a lack of review of these decisions
independent courts. The actual scope of judicial review of this decision
character is already fully available in the administrative judiciary and the Constitutional Court
define it is not because his cognition is in the management
limited to determining whether there has been interference with the right to
judicial protection against a decision of a public authority in the event that such
decision relates to a particular fundamental right or freedom.
Therefore stresses that this decision opens the way for a judicial review
decisions of administrative bodies, which is inconsistent with the constitutional order
closed, not necessarily to comply with the applicant's action in initiating proceedings before administrative courts
53rd The Constitutional Court concludes that the decision on the payment of sickness
after the expiry of the support period is a decision which concerns the basic rights
Enshrined in Art. 30 Sec. 1 of the Charter, respectively. Article. 26 paragraph. 1 and 3
Charter. Excluding this decision from judicial review is inconsistent
with Art. 36 para. 2 second sentence of the Charter in connection with Art. 4
Constitution, and therefore it is necessary petition to annul § 158 point. a) of the Health Insurance
Chairman of the Constitutional Court
JUDr. own hand
Search Translated Laws of Czech Republic