86/2005 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court decided on 19. January 2005 in plenary in the composition of JUDr.
Stanislav Balík, JUDr. Francis Skinner, JUDr. Turgut Güttler, JUDr.
Pavel Holländer, JUDr. Ivana Janů, JUDr. Dagmar Lastovecká, JUDr. Jiří
Mucha, JUDr. Jan Musil, JUDr. Jiří Nykodým, JUDr. Pavel Rychetský,
JUDr. Miloslav Výborný, JUDr. Elisabeth Wagner and JUDr. Michael
On the proposal of the applicant SNK April Association of independent cancellation
the provisions of § 20 para. 4.5 and 6 and in paragraph 7, the words "on the mandate
or Senator shall be 900 000 CZK per year, "or around the provisions of § 20
Act No. 424/1991 Coll. on Association in political parties and in
political movements, as amended, filed with
constitutional complaints against another public authority intervention-paper
The Ministry of Finance No. 143/133437/2002 of 9.12.2002
as follows:
1. the application for annulment of the provision of section 20 (2). 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 11 of law No.
424/1991 Coll. on Association in political parties and in political
movements, as amended, is dismissed.
2. the proposal to repeal the provisions of § 20 para. 4 and the provisions of § 20 para. 6
Act No. 424/1991 Coll. on Association in political parties and in
political movements, as amended, is rejected.
Justification
(I).
Constitutional complaint the applicant with reference to the alleged infringement of article 81(1). 22
The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms ("the Charter") and article. 5 of the Constitution
The Czech Republic (hereinafter "the Constitution") claims that the Constitutional Court has issued a
the finding, which would prohibit the Treasury Department continue violations
his right to the payment of the permanent contribution pursuant to section 20 of Act No. 424/1991
Coll. on Association in political parties and political movements, in
as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "Act No. 424/1991 Coll.) of
200 000 CZK for every 0.1% of the votes obtained in the elections to the
The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
In his constitutional complaint, the appellant stated that as a political
the movement won in the elections to the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament
States in June 2002, a total of 2.78% of the valid votes. The date of 20.11.2002
Therefore, it submitted an application to the Treasury Department for the payment of the permanent post
within the meaning of Act No. 424/1991 Coll., which, however, no non-j.
143/133437/2002 of 9.12.2002 refused stating that it was not
met the legal requirement for the payment of a permanent contribution to the activities referred to in
section 20 (2). 4 and 6 of that law, namely that political movement Association
the independent has not gained in the elections to the Chamber of deputies at least 3%
votes. In the opinion of the claimant's refusal to pay this standing
post represents the so-called. another public authority intervention, which was
violated his fundamental rights cited; on the question of their active
evidence for lodging a constitutional complaint and general conditions to its
administration of reputedly bequeathed to analogue situation solved constitutional
Court No. 244/1999 Coll. (SP. zn. PL. ÚS 30/98, a collection of findings and resolutions
The Constitutional Court, volume 16, finding no. 137).
The rapporteur believes that the boundaries for the payment of a permanent post in the
the amount of 3% of the votes obtained in the elections to the Chamber of Deputies is
discriminate against smaller political parties (to be further cited
the term "political party" shall mean (i) political movement, if from
the context requires otherwise), though at the same time stated that they do not assess whether
the amount of this contribution is appropriate. However, it is considered a constitutionally
Maverick, in particular, the fact that the permanent allowance is paid only
the parties, which are relatively successfully participated in a political contest for
seats in the Chamber of Deputies, but not already paid to parties that are
successfully participating in the elections, Senatorial, provincial or municipal. The alleged
inequality in the conditions of political competition, the appellant attempted to demonstrate
by comparing the election results and political parties of the Union
freedom-Democratic Union. In this way, among others. He stated that in the elections to the
The Chamber of Deputies received the US-DEU, in coalition with the KDU-CSL 14.41% of the votes and
9 seats, in elections to the Senate, however, has won only the mandate of the US-DEU,
While the appellant two mandates; in the municipal elections, won the US-DEU
617 mandates in all assemblies, while the appellant 3 131
mandates. Compared with these results apparently cannot be accepted, that the US-DEU
gets the constant contribution of $10 million per year, whereas the appellant
nothing. The total government contribution in 2003 for the appellant alleged 6
300 EUR and US-DEU 42 million, which is in his opinion in gross
disproportionate to the election results. The appellant does not conceal that payment of the
the standing of the contribution in the amount of 200 000 Eur for each 0.1% of the vote significantly
has improved its financial situation (since the amount of 5.6 million per year for
obtained 2.78% of the votes are close to the national post's 6.3
million, which the claimant gets for 2 seats for Senator and 18
mandates of the members of the regional councils), the main motive of the request is
However, they said efforts to change in the existing legislation, the financing of political
the parties, which in its view of taxpayers ' money
too many parliamentary parties and disproportionately little or nothing
other (neparlamentním) parties and movements.
For these reasons, the appellant contacted-in accordance with section 74 of the Act No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as
"the law on the Constitutional Court")-his constitutional complaint for annulment
some of the provisions of Act No. 424/1991 Coll., specifically, the provisions of § 20
paragraph. 4, 5 and 6 and in paragraph 7, the words "on the mandate of the Deputy or
the Senator makes a year 900 000 CZK and the ". Alternatively, then suggested that the Constitutional
the Court annulled the provisions of section 20 of the Act; He stated that
the wording follows the broad remedies "wants to create a Constitutional Court
space to consider set aside either individual provisions of section 20 or
the full adjustment of the funding of political parties "and" believes that the Constitutional Court
carefully chosen and the effectiveness of their derogačního the decision, in particular because
several parties and movements of the unrepresented in the House of Commons is said to be
financially dependent on Government contributions for the mandates of the members of the
the regional councils.
The appellant, in its extensive design sees the unconstitutionality of the statutory modifications
financing of political parties, in particular with the following, in
which divided up their specific objections:
1. contributions to the mandate of the Deputy or Senator (née of 900 000 €)
are said to be unjustifiably high; for an unreasonably high and the border
to be eligible for "for the votes in the elections to the Chamber of Deputies
pursuant to section 85 of the Act No. 247/1995 Coll., on elections to the Parliament of the Czech
Republic, and amending and supplementing certain other acts, as amended by
amended, (in such cases referred in its arguments
the findings of the Constitutional Court No 243/1999 SB., no. 64/2001 Coll. and no 98/2001
SB.).
2. Also the boundaries of 3% for entitlement to the payment of the permanent post
under section 20 (2). 4 (a). 6 of Act No. 424/1991 Coll. is according to the
plaintiff unjustifiably high and is considered unconstitutional and his
deriving only from the outcome of the election to the Chamber of Deputies; Legislative
power to both parliamentary chambers. In this regard, said the hypothetical
for example, when the party, in the elections to the Chamber of Deputies
received 2.9% of the votes, but was occupied by the entire Senate and received the biggest
the number of seats in the assemblies of regions and municipalities, would be no entitlement to
the post did not. A number of political parties then obtains from the State at all
no support and it is not just about parties with negligible
meaning, but also about the long term, even if the parties concerned in the national
election unsuccessfully, or the party that sees its role only on
municipal or regional level, where they have considerable achievements (such as
examples are listed in the proposal. Party for the open society,
Vote for the city, Democratic Party, Movement of independent regional a
the harmonious development of villages and cities, etc.). These parties shall stipulate that the State even
Neither the costs they cause their own requirements, such as
drawing up the annual financial report and the statutory audit of the financial statements.
The appellant concluded that the solution of the issue in the light of the very
reduction of the threshold for entitlement to the payment of the permanent post, but in the
"create a completely different structure" that would ensure a reasonable
contribution to the activities of all parties, regardless of whether they participate
political competition at the level of parliamentary, provincial or municipal.
3. In the opinion of the plaintiff is unconstitutional is also making a contribution
the mandate of the regional councillor for a gain of at least one of the mandate
a Deputy or Senator. The party that gets the number of mandates in the
assemblies of regions, but has no deputy or Senator, and on the
contribution to the mandate of the regional councillor is not entitled (Note:
Although the Ministry of finance said, in fact, these contributions to the parties,
that any Deputy or Senator are not paid).
4. the appellant finally protesting against the fact that the State shall pay the
contributions for votes obtained only when the elections to the Chamber of Deputies
(100 CZK for voice), and newly also in elections to the European Parliament.
However, no contributions will not be paid for the votes obtained in the elections to the
The Senate, in elections to the regional councils and the elections to the
Councils of municipalities. This is again significantly advantaged by the successful party
elections to the Chamber of Deputies, while the new party or parties
confined to the regional policy are at a disadvantage.
The claimant further stated that the distribution of government posts between
political parties does not match the support that these parties are in
of the company; State contributions to the political parties represented in the
The Chamber of Deputies said in 2003, exceeding 95%, whereas the contribution of the
for the other parties only 4.6%. Parties not represented in the Chamber of Deputies
the House must therefore raise money virtually exclusively from private
resources, "and that in a situation where just parliamentary parties ... have caused,
that sponsorship of political parties that it is in advanced democratic
States considered ... socially beneficial activity ..., in the
The Czech Republic, a hallmark of "questionable activity. The total amount of public
the contributions of the applicant appear as unwarranted and greatly exceeding the
the cost of participation of the parties in the electoral competition and the need to finance their
the basic activities; the appellant is no reason for this to even the
the most successful political party should receive each year on its activities
over 100 million CZK. The whole legal arrangements for financing of political parties
According to the claimant is directed to a complete financial security
the parliamentary political parties from the State budget and to block
or at least significantly restrict access to State contributions for
non-parliamentary political parties.
In addition, the proposal is considered unconstitutional also the wording of the section 20 (2). 8
Act No. 424/1991 Coll., according to which belongs the mandate after allowance
the whole electoral period only the side on which the list was
Member of Parliament, Senator or member of the Shire elected. The intention of the
the legislature was based on the petitioner's legitimate effort to prevent-
with a Deputy, Senator, or a member of the City Council, which in
during the electoral period, will go to other parties, pacing and entitled to
the State's contribution; However, it was informed that a change of party
jurisdiction may occur not only individually, but also collectively, merging
party. Legislation affecting those political parties or movements,
that have decided to make the integration step, therefore, limits the freedom of competition
political forces.
The applicant concluded its extensive line of argument his own particular
the design, how it should be governed by a funding of political parties and
movement has to be in accordance with art. 5 of the Constitution and article. 22 of the Charter. It would
It works best with a system in which the contribution for votes obtained in the
elections to the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate, the European Parliament,
the regional councils and the Councils of the municipalities were given the parties
seriously involved in electoral competition, i.e.. get more than a certain minimum
the percentage of votes (e.g. for the Chamber of Deputies suggested 0.5 up to 1%
the votes for the Senate 4-6% of the votes in that constituency); minimum
the contribution would be disbursed for parties that a sufficiently wide
participation in the electoral contest (regardless of the outcome) have demonstrated their
meaning as an organized political force and extended the contribution of those
Parties in elections to all authorities in at least
some regions adequately. The overall scope of State contributions
political parties should not exceed 100 to 150 million CZK
each year, because the amount of around $20 million, must, in the opinion
the plaintiff would the largest political party for the cover
all normal activities.
II.
By resolution of the Senate and the Constitutional Court of 5.5.2003 SP. zn. I. TC 59/03
the proceedings on constitutional complaints pursuant to section 78 of the Act on the Constitutional Court
broken and the application for annulment of the above paragraphs, the provisions of § 20
Act No. 424/1991 Coll., respectively. the whole of this provision was referred to the
the plenum of the Constitutional Court for a decision under art. 87 para. 1 (b). and) of the Constitution
Of the Czech Republic.
III.
The constitutional court proceedings in accordance with the provisions of section
69 of the law on the Constitutional Court to the parties-the Chamber of Deputies and
Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
In the Chamber of Deputies, signed by its Chairman PhDr.
Lubomír Zaorálkem, is to the point of requesting cancellation of the design section 20 (2). 4
up to 6 of Act No. 424/1991 Coll. stated that restrictions on political parties in the
participation in elections, in the access to the media, in freedom
the speech, in the law on the collection and the like would certainly be contrary to the
article. 22 of the Charter. However, no such restrictions in the diction of paragraphs 4 to 6
of the Act are not included. To the next point of the proposal to the requesting
cancellation in section 20 (2). 7 part of the sentence concerning the amount of the contribution to the mandate of the
(900 USD) The Chamber of Deputies said it was entirely within the competence of
the legislature by law determine the amount thereof. Before the amendment of law No.
424/1991 Coll., made by Act No. 170/2001 Coll., the amount of the contribution
1 000 000 CZK; the legislature responded by lowering the constitutional
the Court published under no. 98/2001 Coll. has been already established in 1991
the amount of this contribution to the 500 EUR, with an interval of 12 years is not current
the amount of contribution of anything that would violate the constitutional criteria for free
competition of political parties and what would be generally considered as
unreasonable. Meeting a proposal to repeal the entire alternative
the provisions of § 20 of the law according to the Chamber of deputies would have been
political parties built basically on the same level with civil
associations established under the Act on Association of citizens. State
participation in the funding of political parties, however, in the law of the European
democratic States. Any cancellation of the provision
would the need for immediate amendments to the law; It can be said to have a hard time
Imagine "was not taken into account the accurate and fair again
criterion of dividing political parties on those, what real relevance to the political
What is happening in the State thanks to the voter base, and the ones that
do not represent practically anyone, and are therefore in elections, often
repeatedly, the unsuccessful ". In the opinion of the Chamber of deputies are the basic
the rules of free competition of political forces, in practice, in real terms is secured,
While the rule of law does the emergence of new political subjects
and their penetration into the Parliament, which only depends on the ability of these
groups to reach the required number of voters. This ability or vice versa
the inability of the Government contribution, if any, can never replace. Edit
the method of financing of political parties is then in the legal order required
Therefore, in order to prevent the existence of such entities, which would be without
real influence on political life in the Czech Republic focused primarily
to obtain State contributions. The Chamber of Deputies has concluded that the whole
a proposal from the Association of independent political movement is said to be built on the
simplified proposition-that with the article. 22 of the Charter basically has nothing to do-
that without the existence of financial security for all parties and movements from the
the State cannot talk about their free and free competition.
Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in its statement, signed by its
Chairman doc. JUDr. Petr Pithart, in particular stated that for the
the procedure for the application for revocation of section 20 of Act No. 424/1991 Coll. was
the most important of the negotiations on the draft law No. 170/2001 Coll., on the State
the bond program to pay the obligations arising from the contract between the
the Government of the United States, the Government of the Slovak Republic and the Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany about their mutual billing contact in the
transferable roubles and the settlement of mutual obligations and accounts receivable,
incurred by the balance in transferable rubles in favor of the Federal
Republic of Germany, on the amendment of Act No. 406/2000 Coll., on the State
the bond program for the partial reimbursement of damage to agricultural entities
affected by the drought in 2000, and on the amendment of Act No. 424/1991 Coll. on
Association in political parties and political movements as amended by
amended; design of mj. include new legal solution of the State
contribution to the activities of political parties and movements in response to a finding
The Constitutional Court published under no. 98/2001 Coll., in which the Constitutional Court
set aside the part of the provisions of § 20 para. 4 and 7 of Act No. 424/1991 Coll. After
the approval of the Chamber of Deputies the draft of this law referred to
The Senate. Already during the negotiations for the Bill in Committee, it was stated,
that this amendment to Act No. 424/1991 Coll. is inorganically in a given case
attached to the matter concerning the State of the bond program, where
a delay in its approval could have a detrimental economic and
the political impact. The Constitutional Law Committee of the Senate recommended return
the draft Bill to the Chamber of Deputies with the amendment that limited the
the validity of the proposed amendment only for the period up to the end of 2001. The intention was to
create sufficient time to ensure that Parliament can in
meantime, with the knowledge of the conclusions contained in the report of the Constitutional Court
to prepare an amendment to the funding arrangements for political parties that would have given
the thing dealt with comprehensively, including the contribution to electoral costs provided for in §
85 of the Act on elections to the Parliament of the Czech Republic. Another of the committees,
to whom was referred the Bill-Committee on economy, agriculture
and transport-in contrast, the Senate recommended, however, the proposal does not deal, in particular,
taking into account the severity and urgency of the existence of legal time
editing a State bond program. The Senate finally expressed the will of the
draft law does not deal with. Representation Of The Senate Of The Czech
the Republic is closed by stating that it leaves the decision on the
the constitutionality of the contested statutory provisions at the discretion of the Constitutional Court.
In the opinion of the Ministry of the Interior, that the Constitutional Court's stuff
It also requested, it is briefly mentioned that the law on equal terms
free competition of political parties within the meaning of article 87(1). 5 of the Constitution and article. 22 of the Charter of
in no way does not violate; about the success of the political subjects make decisions primarily
the voices of the voters, and not State financial contributions. The Ministry of
předeslalo that the complainant's reservations affect the circuit rules
that was reflected in the law on the basis of the proposal of members, as the
the original wording of the provision envisaged only with the State
gross margin for the election results.
IV.
The Constitutional Court is always first and foremost examines whether all are true
the procedural prerequisites to a proposal to repeal of the law
or its individual provisions deal with the merits. In the present case is
Obviously, from the application that the applicant seeks, in essence revision
the whole of the current system of financing political parties not only to
Parliamentary, but also at the regional or municipal level, and that I can't think of
only the comprehensive provisions of section 20 of Act No. 424/1991 Coll., but that in
grounds for the proposal (not in his remedies) protesting against editing
contribution to defray election expenses pursuant to Act No. 247/1995 Coll., on
as amended. The same finding applies to the contents of the
an extensive recitation of the applicant at the oral proceedings (who was the Constitutional
the Court also presented in the form of written). From the contested paper of the Ministry of
Finance of 9.12.2002 No. 143/133437/2002, however, suggests that this
the Ministry denied to pay to the applicant a permanent post with reference
the provisions of § 20 para. 4, 6, of Act No. 424/1991 Coll., which binds the entitlement to
a permanent contribution to those parties in the elections to the Chamber of Deputies
received 3% of the vote. The other challenged provisions, i.e.. section 20 (2). 1 to 3,
5, 7 to 11, was not in any proceedings that preceded the administration of
a constitutional complaint, directly invoked, so respect to them are not met
the conditions under which you can bring-along with a constitutional complaint-a proposal for the
repeal of the law (section 74 of the Act on the Constitutional Court). Therefore, the Constitutional Court
but in this part of the proposal rejected as a proposal made by person
obviously unjustified [§ 43 para. 1 (b) (c)) of the Act on the Constitutional Court],
which also applies to the alternative proposal to cancel all the provisions of § 20
the impugned law.
In the.
The Constitutional Court in accordance with § 68 para. 2 of the Act on the Constitutional Court
dealt with the question of whether the unconstitutionality of the provisions of the Act, which is
raised, was accepted and published within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and
constitutionally prescribed way.
As regards Act No. 424/1991 Coll. (in the original version), the Constitutional Court
find out whether it has been adopted and published within the limits of the Constitution laid down
competency and constitutionally prescribed way, due to legislation,
issued before the Act came into effect, the Constitution of the United States, this
Court to review only their content comply with contemporary
the constitutional order, but not the constitutionality of the procedure of their creation and
compliance with regulatory powers (cf. e.g. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 9/99,
A collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, volume 16, finding no 135, page.
14; promulgated under no. 292/1999 Coll.). In the present case, therefore, the Constitutional Court
centered on the amendment of Act No. 424/1991 Coll., concerning the contested
the provisions of § 20.
It was the law No. 116/1994 Coll., amending and supplementing Act No.
424/1991 Coll. on Association in political parties and in political
movements, as amended, Act No. 99/1963 Coll., the civil
the rules of court, as amended, supplementing Act No. 166/1993
Coll. on the Supreme Audit Office, as amended by law no 331/1993 Coll., and
Act No. 328/1991 Coll., on bankruptcy and settlement, as amended by Act No.
122/1993 Coll., and amending Act No. 563/1991 Coll., on accounting, which was
introduced a 3% threshold for entitlement to a permanent post in elections to
The Chamber of Deputies. In this respect, the relevant Council prints,
těsnopiseckých reports and data on the progress of the vote, the Constitutional Court found
the Chamber of Deputies approved the draft of this law at its meeting
June 29.4.1994. After the signature of the President of the Republic and the President of the
the Government, the law was duly promulgated in the collection of laws under no. 37 in the amount
117/1994 Coll., the law in question was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution
set out competences and constitutionally prescribed way.
Vi.
The Constitutional Court in its present case-law fundamentally expressed
the constitutional kautelám of the democratic formation of Parliament. To be relevant in the
rozhodovaném the context should be considered as find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 25/96
(Collection of the findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, Volume 7, finding no. 37;
promulgated under no. 88/1997 Coll.), which was considered the constitutionality of the so-called.
clause for elections to the Chamber of Deputies. In it, the Court defined the
the basic framework for the application of the elements of the mainstream political order
The Chamber of deputies in a proportional electoral system: "in terms of
the principle of representative democracy, it is permissible to incorporate into the electoral
the mechanism of the very specific integration incentives where there are
compelling reasons, in particular, provided that an unlimited
proportional system fragmentation occurs between a large number of votes
political parties, to the bezbřehému, an overgrowth of ' political parties and thus to
the threat to the functionality and responsiveness, as well as the continuity of the parliamentary
the system. ". In the assessment of the limits of the concept of integration incentives
The Constitutional Court has consistently relied on the principle of proportionality:
"Raising the border restriction clause must not, however, compromise the Democratic
substance of the election. It is always also measured whether this restriction
equality of suffrage is the minimum measures necessary to ensure that the
in the House, could form the majority necessary for the adoption of the decision
and for the formation of the Government. Even for the restriction clause applies the principle of
minimizing State intervention in relation to its intended target. "
The said legal opinion was then confirmed by other decisions, in particular the
finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 42/2000 (a compilation of findings and resolutions of the constitutional
Court, volume 21, finding no 16; promulgated under no. 64/2001 Coll.).
The hallmark of a democratic pluralist political system is not
only a plurality of itself, but also the openness of the system, i.e. option
the entry of new actors on the political scene, the possibility of setting up
political parties and political movements, i.e.. free and voluntary formation of
and free competition of political parties (article 5 of the Constitution, article 20 of the Charter, the law
No. 424/1991 Coll.). Reality, IE. not only the fiktivnost, openness
a multiparty political system is, inter alia, associated with
by creating an adequate system for the funding of political parties and movements.
For the formation of such a system stems from the constitutional order number technique.
The Constitutional Court pronounced in many of its decisions.
In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 26/94 (collection of findings and resolutions of the constitutional
Court, volume 4, finding no. 62; promulgated under no. 303/1995 Sb.) defined in the
this context, the General principles. However, according to him, in the constitutional
Okay not included support for the principled refusal of financial support
political parties by the State, "this does not mean that the financing
political parties and political movements by the State does not have a border ... the financial
support for political parties and movements may not exceed the level of respect
generelní border article. 20 (2). 4 of the Charter, according to which political
party and political movement separate from the State. "
These boundaries then interpreted from the perspective of two principles: the principle of integration and
the principle of representativity [which was formulated in the award SP. zn. PL.
TC 3/96 (a collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, volume 5, finding no.
39; promulgated under no. 164/1996 Coll.): "the principle of representativeness contains
especially odvozenost composition of a representative from the political
the structure of civil public. However, the requirement of a minimum contains
the representativeness of the operators (political parties and movements), the participating
on the political competition. "]. In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 30/98, the Constitutional Court
set aside a condition for the achievement of at least 3% of the total number of valid votes
obtained in the elections to the Chamber of Deputies for the purposes of contribution to the
reimbursement of election expenses, and the issues of financing of political
the parties State in conflict-the principle of integration and the principle of pluralism
democratic society (article 5 of the Constitution and article 22 of the Charter) admitted
prefer the other one. The criterion for limiting the contribution
election expenses then formulated consideration "the seriousness of the efforts of rival
party ", or" the seriousness of the electoral intentions of the parties, which expressed a degree of
their representativeness. As follows, expressed as legal opinion was then
confirmed in the award SP. zn. PL. ÚS 42/2000.
In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 53/2000 (a compilation of findings and resolutions of the constitutional
Court, volume 21, finding no. 36; promulgated under no. 98/2001 Coll.) then
judged by the Constitutional Court directly the constitutionality of parts of the actual wording of § 20
paragraph. 4 of the law on political parties, and that the application for annulment
provisions, according to which a party that has already acquired entitlement to a permanent
post, but does not exceed the shut-off clause for the entrance to the Chamber of Deputies
the Chamber of deputies established the electoral law, the post in elections
does not receive. The Court therefore considered inconsistent with the constitutional order
making the provision permanent contribution to a political party (the movement)
the achievement of the clause in the following election. In other words,
the openness of the political system permanently lower limit teamed up with for
the provision of a post than the statutory and already mentioned
Constitutional Court as constitutionally Conformal confirmed the border
closing clause. Since the boundaries of 3% in the case in question was not challenged, in
under her court rationis decidendi, questioned but her
amount and the balance, if any, in obiter dictum.
The contradiction of the provisions of § 20 para. 4 and 6 of Act No. 424/1991 Coll. with the constitutional
order in the matter of the determination of the boundaries of 3% in the elections to the Chamber of Deputies
the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to cast valid votes for
entitlement to payment of a standing contribution to the activities of political parties
in the opinion of the plaintiff is given her an unjustified amount, as well as
unjustified inferring standing benefit only from the outcome of the election
in the Chamber of Deputies, since the legislative power is represented by the
Parliament, composed of two chambers-the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.
The basic criterion the constitutional conformity determination above a minimum threshold
for the payment of a permanent contribution to the activities of a political party lies in the
ensure the openness of the political system-this limit must therefore be
significantly lower than the set clause of the proportional
the system.
Financing of political parties by the State includes only the portion of the revenue
political parties (article 17, paragraph 4 of Act No. 424/1991 Coll.). This part is
represented by both gross margin election expenses (§ 85
Act No. 247/1995 Coll., as amended, section 65 of the Act No.
62/2003 Coll., on elections to the European Parliament and amending certain
laws) and contribution to the activities of political parties, which then
includes a permanent contribution and the contribution to the mandate of the (section 20 of Act No. 424/1991
SB.). In the parliamentary political parties then there is their indirect
the financing, in the form of the payment of compensation, aid, instead,
the parliamentary clubs pages, free of charge, of the physical
resources for party political groups, etc.
The purpose of the State funding of political parties is to promote equality of
opportunities to participate in a multi-party democratic political
the system. The different forms of this funding while they pursue different
purposes, i.e. support the different activities of the parties. The aim of the payment of the electoral
the cost is to allow political parties meeting the condition "the seriousness of the
the effort of the warring parties ", or" the seriousness of the electoral intentions of the parties "
participation in the electoral contest. If the Constitutional Court saw in finding SP. zn.
PL. ÚS 30/98 border of this "seriousness" in profit "1%" of the total
the number of valid votes, the legislature has established in the applicable legislation of the
the border of the level of 1.5%. Contribution to the mandate reflects the tasks of political
Parties that are related to their activities in the field of legislation.
A condition of his being elected in the elections to the Chamber of Deputies
or to the Senate (article 20, paragraph 5, of Act No. 424/1991 Coll.), IE. turns out
only the parliamentary political parties.
Permanent contribution is in the form of financing of political parties, parliamentary and
neparlamentních. For this reason, it is a condition of the constitutional
conformance to ensure the openness of a pluralist political system,
the boundaries for its supply must therefore be substantially lower than the
the level clause of the proportional electoral system.
At such significantly lower bound can be considered even the 3% threshold in the elections
valid votes obtained, i.e. the border about 40% lower than the amount of the
closing clause. If it satisfies the statutory standing contribution to the constitutional
the requirement guaranteeing the openness of the political system, then due to the
different function of the standing contribution to the activity and the payment of election expenses
political parties is not given a reason for the equivalence of their amount.
That finding does not alter the general opinion of the Constitutional Court to
the question of the constitutionality of the entire system of political funding,
stated in the award SP. zn. PL. ÚS 53/2000. The Court held:
"If it is not respected the free competition of political parties for a balanced
conditions and, if the attempt to create different policies for parties large or
larger and shape directly or indirectly to political parties with better or
a worse position, and therefore the citizens with different conditions of their
movement in the political system, such steps cannot be described as constitutional.
Cannot forget that a democratic society is characterized by the
just the free competition of political parties, whose action in the management of
Public Affairs is derived from the free choice made by the voters. " Maxed out
the equality of the status of political parties, ensure their free and fair
the competition, as well as the openness of the political system, the Constitutional Court was
the value of the seriousness of the intentions of the parties, the election "measured" their minimum
representativity (SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/96, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 42/2000),
(I) the purpose of the various forms of State funding of parties (SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
53/2000).
In its decisions the Constitutional Court indicated aspect of measurement of market share
State funding of political parties and other forms of share their
funding from the State neodvislých (SP. zn. PL. ÚS 26/94). In derogačním
finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 53/2000 has delivered a critical attitude to the existing level of
State financial support to political parties and drew attention to the threat
the constitutional principle of the separation of the party from the State (article 20, paragraph 4, of the Charter).
According to the steady opinion of the Constitutional Court is the Court in its
decision making scope application is bound, and in its decision of its
borders (ultra petitum) cannot move (see e.g. the judgment in the case
SP. zn. PL. ÚS 16/94, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 8/95, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/01, SP. zn.
PL. ÚS 7/03-a collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, volume 2, usn.
# 14; Volume 4, finding no 83, declared under no. 29/1996 Coll.; Volume 24,
find no 149, promulgated under no 410/2001 Coll.; comes out in volume 34,
announced he was under no 512/2004 Sb.). For this reason, in the races
the case is not entitled to deal with the ústavností of the whole system of the State
financing of political parties, and therefore he has to appeal to the
a democratic lawmaker in the direction of acceptance a legal opinion
contained in those findings, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 26/94 and SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
53/2000.
Reduction of the threshold for the granting of a permanent contribution to the activity of
political parties below the threshold of 3% of the votes obtained in the elections, however,
not only does not solve the problem mentioned, but on the contrary widens the circle of addressees
This post, and, in effect, means a further increase of the State
share in the funding of political parties, namely, a shift in that direction, with whom
the Constitutional Court in a previous case-law, agreed. In addition to the increase in the
requirements for the State budget would shift said the principle of
the embeddedness of political parties in civil society, the principle that
located expression mainly in the voluntary support of political parties from the
by citizens, based on their discretion and according to the program
close to the party.
If the applicant argues unjustified inferring the Standing
the benefit only from the outcome of the election to the Chamber of Deputies, it would be possible to
evaluate the edit as constitutionally rozpornou only in case its
arbitrariness, IE. the absence of a rational link between the legislation and the reference
the purpose of.
The constitutional order of the Czech Republic and its legal order does not contain
an explicit legal definition of political parties (political movement).
Constitutional nature, the nature of legal personality, the meaning and purpose of political
the parties must therefore draw from its overall constitutional and legal
editing.
Political parties are the key body of a democratic pluralist
the political system, performs the function of the representative to the pluralistic,
differentiated interests. Their goal is to achieve those interests means
a democratic constitutional system, IE. representation in representative
wards, especially in Parliament, as well as assemblies of municipalities and
regions (article 5 of the Constitution, article 20, paragraph 2, and article 22 of the Charter, Act No. 247/1995
Coll., as subsequently amended, Act No. 491/2001 Coll. on elections to the
Councils of municipalities and amending certain laws, as amended
legislation, law No. 130/2000 Coll., on elections to the regional councils and the
amendments to certain laws, as amended). Out of the said
It follows that the Czech Constitutional and legal system of special category
regional political parties, their links with the coalescing operation
all authorities.
According to the constitutional system of the Czech Republic do not have both houses of Parliament
the same powers and the same rates at neparticipují
the process, therefore have a symmetrical position. Exclusively by the Chamber of Deputies
kreuje Government and pronounced her disbelief, in the scope of legislative powers
as a rule, has the ultimate decision makers. The Senate has in relation
to the Chamber of Deputies the position control brake, the counterweight. Derives a
legislation granting permanent contribution to the activity of the election results to the
The Chamber of Deputies, mirrors the real position of the political parties in the
the constitutional system of the State, in particular the degree of its participation, respectively.
potential participation in neparlamentních party to the Act,
as well as on the formation of the high authority of the Executive Government. If, contrary
on this edit, from the results of the elections to the municipal or regional
Councils, mirrors the conceptual characteristics of the political parties then
(a) nationally, and not only regionally relevant
political body.
For the Constitutional Court did not find legal 3% threshold in
elections to the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom obtained
valid votes while granting standing contribution to the activities of the political
Parties, contained in the provisions of § 20 para. 4 and 6 of Act No. 424/1991 Coll.,
for standing in breach of article. 5 of the Constitution and article. 20 (2). 2 and article. 22 of the Charter,
Therefore the proposal to repeal the legal provisions referred to dismiss.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
Different opinions under section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,
as amended by later regulations, the decision of the plenum have been judges.
Francis Skinner, JUDr. Turgut Güttler and JUDr. Elisabeth Wagner.
