177/2006.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic of
The Constitutional Court ruled under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 46/10 on 31 December 2004. May 2011 in
plenary in the composition of Stanislav Duchoň, Franz Package, Vlasta Formankova,
Turgut Güttler, Pavel Holländer, Vladimir Crust, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jiří
Mucha, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodým, Pavel Rychetský, Miloslav Výborný,
Elisabeth Wagner and Michael April on the proposal of the Supreme Administrative
the Court for annulment of the provisions of § 104e (b). (b)) Law No 582/1991 Coll., on the
Organization and implementation of social security, as amended
regulations,
as follows:
(A) the provisions of § 104e. (b)) Law No 582/1991 Coll., on the organisation and
the implementation of social security, as subsequently amended,
repealed on the date of publication of this finding in the statute book.
Justification
(I).
The definition of things and a recap of the proposal
The Constitutional Court was on 8. November 2010 served the Supreme
Administrative Court (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") for annulment of the provision of section
104e (b). (b)) Law No 582/1991 Coll., on the Organization and implementation of
social security, as subsequently amended.
The appellant did so according to § 64 para. 3 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the
The Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the law of
The Constitutional Court "), then what in the context of its decision-making
activities in accordance with art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the United States and section 48 para.
1 (b). and) Act No. 150/2002 Coll., the administrative court rules, (hereinafter referred to as
"with the row with.") He came to the conclusion that the provisions of § 104e (b). b) of law No.
582/1991 Coll., on the Organization and implementation of social security, as amended by
amended to be in solving things SP. zn. 4 Ads 6/2010
used, it is in breach of article. paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms
(hereinafter referred to as "the Charter").
In that case, SP. zn. 4 Ads 6/2010 is the Supreme Administrative Court
decided on the appeal complaint against resolutions of the municipal court in Prague
of 14 July 1999. September 2009 No. 12 Cad 5/2009-1 to reject the action against
the decision of the social security administration District Prague-West of 19 May.
February 2009 No. 42010/220 9015 26.1.2009-1437/9/OM/3 on failure
requests for remission of penalty payments imposed pursuant to Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on the
social security and a contribution to State policy
employment, as subsequently amended.
At the outset, the appellant points to the basic argument of the odmítacího resolution
Municipal Court in Prague, which was a voucher to the provisions of § 104e (b). (b))
Law No. 582/1991 Coll., on the Organization and implementation of social
security, as amended, the exclusive judicial review in
cases of remission of penalty for non-payment of social
Security. In the next article for the assessment of the relevant
the provisions of podústavního rights, section 104ch of Act No. 582/1991 Coll., on
as amended, Decree No. 157/1998 Coll., on the remission of penalty
social security, as amended by Decree No 329/2007 Coll., section
70 (a). f) with a row with. and § 104e (b). (b)) Law No 582/1991 Coll., as amended by
amended. The Rapporteur draws attention to the development of the case-law
The Constitutional Court, when in the case law adopted before the effective date of the order
the administrative [resolution SP. zn. I. ÚS 287/2000 of 27 November. 9.2000 (35/19
SbNU 311)] took up the Constitutional Court reserved its opinion on the Court
review of administrative discretion in the cases of remission of penalty for non-payment
social security contributions. From the perspective of the Constitution then
He argues the current case-law of the Constitutional Court [find SP. zn. III. THE TC
2556/07 of 22 March. 7.2009 (N 164/54 SbNU 93), resolution SP. zn. III. THE TC
103/06 of 23 December 2003. 1.2007 (in the collection of the findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court
not published; available at http://nalus.usoud.cz), resolution SP. zn. IV.
TC 2323/07 of 13 March 2002. 11.2007 (11/47 SbNU 1047), resolution SP. zn.
IV. TC 1136/08 dated March 17. 4.2009 and resolution SP. zn. I. ÚS 398/09 from
17 May. 6.2009 (in the collection of the findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court
nepublikována; both available at http://nalus.usoud.cz)], in which it repeatedly
He expressed the need for a judicial review of the decision on the remission of tax under section
55A of Act No. 337/1992 Coll., on administration of taxes and fees, as amended by
amended, (hereinafter referred to as "tax code"). The Supreme Administrative Court
considers that the procedure of the administrative authority in the remission of penalties under the
Act No. 582/1991 Coll., as amended, and pursuant to section 1 (1).
1 of Decree No 161/1998 Coll., on penalties cancellation of social
security, as amended by Decree No 329/2007 Coll., is no different from the procedure
administrative authority in the remission of taxes due to the removal of accessories
hardness. In both cases, constitutes the obligation to pay
Accessories, respectively. tax penalty hit to the realm of property of the participant,
until its ownership rights pursuant to art. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter, and at the same time
and interference with the right to peaceful use of property within the meaning of article 87(1). 1 Additional
Protocol to the Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and
remission of the penalty, as is the remission of the tax means accessories
reverse this action. Compliance with the request for remission of tax (its
accessories), as well as the penalties for non-payment of social
security, according to the administrative discretion of the petitioner's administrative
the authority, which in both cases is the subject of the management the assessment of other
the facts (the hardness of the Act), that led to the assessment of the accessories
tax or social security contributions to the State
employment policy.
Of all the reasons proposed thus landed the Supreme Administrative Court
(a) the provisions of § 104e. (b)) Law No 582/1991 Coll., on the organisation and
the implementation of social security, as amended, for
conflict with the article. paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter to cancel.
II.
Recap the essential parts of the representation of a party to the proceedings
According to § 42 para. 4 and section 69 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, in
as amended, posted by the Constitutional Court of the present proposal
The Chamber of Deputies. In its statement, delivered to the Constitutional Court of the day
December 22, 2010, President of the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament
Republic Miroslava Němcová States that the provisions of § 104e was to act
No 582/1991 Coll. incorporated by Act No. 586/1992 Coll., amending and
supplementing Act of the Czech National Council No. 582/1991 Coll., on the organisation and
the implementation of social security, and some other laws, with
the current wording of the provision was inserted into the law No.
582/1991 Coll., the Act No. 151/2002 Coll., amending certain laws in the
connection with the adoption of the administrative judicial procedure. Act No. 151/2002 Coll.
the Chamber of Deputies was presented to the Government on 1 May 2004. October 2001 as
Assembly print # 1081. In the explanatory memorandum, the Government expressed the belief,
that the proposed adjustment is in line with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and
international treaties by which the Czech Republic is bound. To the contested
the provisions of the Government in the explanatory memorandum that remission of penalty payment is
measures, which may, pursuant to section 104ch of Act No. 582/1991 Coll.
to make the Ministry of labour and Social Affairs due to the removal of
the hardness of the Act, and for the same reason it can waive the penalty whether or not United
the social security administration or the district administration
security to the extent and under the conditions laid down by Decree No 161/1998
Coll., is dated on the basis of the mandate contained in the abovementioned legal
provisions. The exclusion of judicial review of the legality of this decision on the
remission of penalties the Government has proposed, therefore, that this is a procedure which has
its material essence of an extraordinary character, since its content is
implementation of the authorization of the administrative authority to exceed the framework set out in General
substantive editing and its decision to get rid of someone buying performance
to him, the law of obligations. On the conception of the exclusion of judicial review
led Government just an anomaly of this type of control.
President of the Chamber of Deputies stated further that the first reading of the House
printing took place 25.1081 October 2001, constitutionally the legal Committee then print
discuss on my 97. meeting on 18 July 2005. January 2002, and recommended
The Chamber of deputies that the Bill adopted in the wording of its comprehensive
the amendment, which took over the diction of the provisions of § 104e, as amended by
submitted to the Government. In the second reading, which took place from June 30. January
and 8. February 2002, was not subject to the provisions made no
amendment. The Chamber of Deputies adopted the Bill in the third
reading on 15 December. February 2002 the ratio of 159 149 votes to present
members of Parliament. Representation contains information about the course and
the legislative procedure, according to which the Senate approved the Bill on 21 February 2006.
in March 2002, the President signed it 26. March 2002, and the Prime Minister of the day 2.
April 2002; in the collection of laws, the law was published on 17. April 2002 under the
number 151/2002 Coll.
Finally, the statement notes that Act No. 151/2002 Coll. was adopted
After the completion of the legislative process, duly signed by the competent
constitutional officials, and declared in the collection of laws, as well as expresses
is of the opinion that the legislature acted in the belief that the adopted law
It is in accordance with the Constitution and the legal order of the Czech Republic, the
The Constitutional Court, in accordance with the examination of the proposal of the Supreme Administrative
the Court considered the constitutionality of the provisions of § 104e (b). b) of Act No. 582/1991
Coll. on the Organization and implementation of social security, as amended by
amended, and issued the decision.
According to § 42 para. 4 and section 69 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., as amended
the rules, posted by the Constitutional Court of the present proposal and the Senate of the Czech
of the Republic. At the outset of his observations, delivered by the Constitutional Court on 15 December.
December 2010, its President Milan Štěch recapitulates the legislative
development of the provisions of § 104e Act No. 582/1991 Coll., on the organisation and
the implementation of social security. States that the provisions in question was
the first place to Act No. 582/1991 Coll. on his first amendment made
Act No. 586/1992 Coll., even at the time before the establishment of the Senate.
Law was in part six, regulating the control, a new
Chapter four (Section 104a to 104 h) relating to proceedings in matters relating to insurance
on social security and a contribution to the State employment policy. In
the provisions of § 104e, it was established that the decisions in matters of
insurance, which was released in appeal proceedings may give rise
to the courts (with reference to § 244 et seq. of the code of civil
zakotvovaly an exemption order, according to which the courts nepřezkoumávaly decisions
on applications for performance, for which it is not entitled, or requests for deletion
the hardness of the Act). In the next period-already following the establishment of the Senate-was
the provisions of § 104e of law changed in connection with the adoption of the
Act No. 150/2002 Coll., the administrative rules of court in which the answer
the fact that the Constitutional Court finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 15/99 of 27 July. 6.2001 (N
96/22 SbNU 329; 276/2001 Coll.) set aside the part of the fifth code of civil
of the order. In the administrative judicial procedure was newly redesigned judicial
review of decisions of administrative authorities, including, according to which of the
judicial review of the acts of the administrative authority are excluded, the
review excludes the special law. That in a Court of law
the Administration reflected in substantive legal related
editing, and this within the framework of Act No. 151/2002 Coll., amending certain
laws in connection with the adoption of the administrative judicial procedure. Was in it
also included amendments to the law on the Organization and implementation of social
Security (part fifteen), which docked the situation when a particular
the decision of judicial review are excluded, one of these
cases (article. (XV) section 8) was the anchoring of the new wording of the provisions of § 104e
(a). (b)), which are excluded from judicial review decision
for remission of penalty (section 104ch). The Government referred to the concept of exclusion
judicial review citing "trouble-free traffic of this type of proceedings".
President of the Chamber in its statement also notes that the draft law in question
It was after the approval in the Chamber of Deputies sent to the Senate on 25 April. February
2002. In the Senate was then as Senate document No No 224 discussed in Committee
the legal and Constitutional Committee for territorial development, public administration and the
environment, both of which have recommended the Senate proposal of this so-called. the accompanying
the law, approved as amended by the Chamber of Deputies transferred. The Senate
Subsequently, a draft law discussed at their 15. meeting (3rd term)
on 21 February 2006. March 2002. Representative Bill promoters,
which the Minister for Justice, and the rapporteur for the Committee on legal and constitutional,
made by the joint report of the two committees already mentioned, neither
in one of these performances was not explicitly mentioned the issue of
related to the provisions of § 104e (b). (b)) of the Act. On the proposal to
The Senate has shown the will of the draft law is to dwell (on the grounds that after
approval of the draft of the Act on administrative judicial procedure it is necessary to approve and
the design of the so-called. the accompanying Act), the Senate decided to immediately vote
No. 95, in which the present 43 senátorek and senators in the 22 for quorum
the draft voted in favor, 38 against 1 to consideration of the Bill in the Senate
has ended.
In the comments, it is noted that when discussing the proposal of the
the Act nor in the Senate or in the previous stage of the legislative process
was the view that the wording of the provisions of § 104e could or should be
considered rozpornou with constitutional principles, because this may
interference with the fundamental rights and freedoms, against which there is no protection
by the power of the Court. In this connection, it refers also to
the case-law of the Constitutional Court of the year 2000, according to which it is constitutionally
accepted the exclusion of judicial review of decisions of administrative authorities
on the applications of the transactions to which it is not entitled, or the removal of hardness
the law.
In conclusion, the President of the Chamber notes that the Constitutional Court is to
the constitutionality of the proposal of the contested provisions of § 104e (b). b) of law No.
582/1991 Coll., on the Organization and implementation of social security, as amended by
amended, to examine and to decide. Moreover, in the
the observations noted that, if the design of the Supreme Administrative Court
should be granted, then it would be useful to take an unambiguous opinion to
other instances where certain decisions in the relevant laws
administrative bodies excluded from the administrative review (e.g. in adaptation
contained in the fifteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, Act
amending certain laws in connection with the adoption of the code of civil procedure
administrative), with cases of decisions in matters relating to
hardness removal or filling, which is not a legal right.
III.
The abandonment of an oral hearing
According to the provisions of § 44 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., the Constitutional Court may be
the consent of the participants of the oral proceedings, to refrain from it cannot be
expect further clarification of the matter. Due to the fact that, as the applicant in the
its proposal of 4 October 2005. November 2010, as well as parties to the proceedings in the note, the
President of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, delivered
The Constitutional Court on 20 April. May 2011, and President of the Senate of the Czech
the Constitutional Court of the Republic, registered as received on 18 July 2005. May 2011, expressed
its approval of the abandonment of the oral proceedings, whereas, Furthermore, that
The Constitutional Court considers that, since the meeting cannot be expected to further clarification
things were things from it in the abandoned.
IV.
The conditions of the locus standi of the applicant
The proposal to repeal the provisions of § 104e (b). (b)) Law No 582/1991 Coll., on the
Organization and implementation of social security, as amended
legislation was submitted to the Supreme Administrative Court according to the provisions of § 64 para.
3 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., as amended.
As was already mentioned in naraci, SP. zn. 4 Ads 6/2010 is
Supreme Administrative Court decided the appeal complaint against
the resolution of the municipal court in Prague from 14 June. September 2009 No. 12 Cad
5/2009-1 to reject the action against the decision of the District Administration of social
Prague-West security of 19 December. February 11, 2009 # (j).
42010/220 -9015-26.1.2009-1437/9/OM/3 on non-compliance of an application for relief
periodic penalty payments imposed pursuant to Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on social
Security and contribution to the State employment policy, as amended by
amended.
The Supreme Administrative Court after its decision in the context of the
activities in accordance with art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the United States came to the
the conclusion that the provisions of § 104e (b). (b)) Law No 582/1991 Coll., on the
Organization and implementation of social security, as amended
regulations to be in solving things SP. zn. 4 Ads 6/2010 used
contrary to the article. paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter, the tribal proceedings according to § 48 para. 1
(a). and) with row s. by order of 21 March 1997. September 2010 No. 4 Ads 6/2010-36
interrupted and the Constitutional Court submitted the present proposal on control standards.
The purpose of the specific control standards pursuant to art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the United
the Republic's judicial control of the constitutionality of the Act, or of its individual
provisions to be applied when the court hearing and the
a decision in a particular case. It is also delimited by the space
the General Court of the procedure under article 5(2). 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic,
which is limited only and exclusively in the case of the relevant material and
procedural law. A procedural condition for the locus standi of the General Court
According to § 64 para. 3 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by
amended, is therefore such position of the Act. his
the individual provision whose annulment is sought, subject
equity management, which establishes for the adjudication of the matter by the General
the Court decision the reasons why.
As is apparent from the description of the proceedings before the General Court, can be on the side of the
the claimant stated fulfillment of its locus standi for
proceedings for review of the standards.
In the.
Petit design and wording of the contested legislation
According to the remedies the Supreme Administrative Court the proposal seeks to Constitutional Court
finding "the provisions of § 104e (b). (b)) Law No 582/1991 Coll., on the
Organization and implementation of social security, as amended
regulations ".
According to the provisions of § 104e (b). (b)) Law No 582/1991 Coll., on the organisation and
the implementation of social security, as amended from
of judicial review are excluded "remission of the penalty decision (§
104ch) ".
Vi.
Constitutional competence and conformity of the legislative process
The Constitutional Court in accordance with the provisions of § 68 para. 2 of the Act on the constitutional
the Court in proceedings for review of the standards required to assess whether the contested
the law, its individual provisions. other legislation or its
individual provisions have been adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution of the United
the Republic established competence and constitutionally prescribed way.
Of Council publications and těsnopiseckých reports, as well as the representation of the
President of the Chamber of Deputies and the President of the Senate of the Czech
States, it was found that the Chamber of Deputies approved the proposal
of the Act, i.e. Act No. 151/2002 Coll., amending certain
laws in connection with the adoption of the code of civil procedure of the administrative, at 3. read on
its 46. meeting on 15 December. February 2002 vote no. 596 resolution No. 2106,
When the present 159 MPs and MEPs voted in favor for its adoption
149 MPs and MEPs. On 21 February 2006. in March 2002, a draft law discussed
at their 15. the meeting of the third term of the plenary Chamber and by resolution No.
327 the Senate has shown the will of Bill does not deal with. The resolution of the
the vote was taken at no. 95, in which 43 of the senátorek and
the Senators when the quorum for proposal 22 voted in favor, 38 against 1.
The law was signed by the respective constitutional officials, and was under the
No 151/2002 Coll., duly declared the amount of 61 laws, which was
circulated on 17. April 2002, and according to the article. XXVII took effect on January 1.
January 1, 2003.
On the basis of the above, the Constitutional Court notes that law No.
151/2002 Coll., amending certain laws in connection with the adoption of the
Code of civil procedure of the administrative, was adopted in accordance with the constitutional kautelami
concerning competency and the legislative process.
VII.
The content of the contested legal provisions compliance with the constitutional order
The legal Institute of remission of penalty for non-payment of social
Security was to Act No. 582/1991 Coll., on the Organization and implementation of
social security, as subsequently amended, embodied its
the amendment made by Act No. 241/1994 Coll., which amends and supplements the
the Czech National Council Act No. 589/1992 Coll., on social
Security and contribution to the State employment policy, as amended by
amended, Act No. 100/1988 Coll. on social security, in
as amended, Act No. 54/1956 Coll., on sickness
insurance, as subsequently amended, Act No. 88/1968
Coll., on the extension of maternity leave, on maternity and on
allowances for children from sickness insurance, as amended
law, the law of the Czech National Council No. 582/1991 Coll., on the organisation and
the implementation of social security, as amended, the law
The Czech National Council No. 550/1991 Coll., on the universal health insurance,
in the wording of later regulations, and act of the Czech National Council No. 592/1992
Coll., on premiums for general health insurance, as amended
regulations. Explanatory memorandum the governmental draft amendment to the law on the
Organization and implementation of social security in favour of the introduction of
the legal Institute of the remission of penalty for non-payment of premiums
social security, argued as follows: "Introduces an option because of the
the removal of the hardness of the individual payers finance charge premiums remitted on
social security. This is based on a similar Institute of
(remission of tax, accessories), which by the rules of the administration of taxes and
fees. The principles governing this Institute in the field of taxation will take
even in the area of social security. ".
The Constitutional Court in the resolutions SP. zn. IV. the TC 226/09 of 23 December 2003. 10.2009,
IV. TC 2323/07 of 13 March 2002. 11.2007 (11/47 SbNU 1047), III. TC 102/06
of 23 December 2003. 1.2007, IV. CS 1136/08 dated March 17. 4.2009, i. ÚS 398/09 from
17 May. 6.2009, III. TC 963/09 of 14 July 2004. 7.2009 (resolution are
available at http://nalus.usoud.cz) came to the conclusion, according to which,
admitted to the Supreme Administrative Court, whose ruling is decisive
contribution to the unification of the decision-making practice of administrative justice,
in cases based on the administrative discretion of the possibility of judicial review,
to which end the Constitutional Court does not have the konstitucionalistických aspects of
the reason for the oppose, should be regarded as a procedural means of protecting
rights, even those that establishes the rules of the Board. In other words,
in cases based on the administrative discretion is to be regarded as a procedural
means to protect rights under the provisions of section 75 para. 1 of the law on the constitutional
the Court, which establishes the rules of the Board.
Case-law in question resulted in the finding of SP. zn. III. TC 2556/07 (see
above), in which the Constitutional Court to the provision of section 55a of Act No. 337/1992 Coll.
(valid until 31 December 2006. 12.2010) found that the tax code provides for the possibility
brought against decisions of the tax administration of the proper remedies (part
Fourth, paragraph 48 et seq.). and the so-called. "extraordinary remedies" (part five,
section 54 et seq.), which ranked the law and tax exemption pursuant to section 55a
This Act, while not decisive, it is not a typical tax exemption
an extraordinary remedy. In this proceeding the Ministry may tax
fully or partially waived on grounds of irregularities arising from the
the application of the tax laws, or for reasons of removal accessories
hardness. The subject of the present proceedings is therefore the assessment of the facts of other,
that led to a tax assessment, and you cannot say that it
repeatedly has been assessed the accuracy of the tax assessment, and that it was
Open the path to repeated the same facts, judicial review
as have been or may be investigated to the application against the decision on the assessment of the
the tax. At the same time then set out certain new conditions under which can be
with the request. This is not about the benefits of the determining authority,
that would be on his unlimited discretion of anything. The provision of section 55a
therefore modifies the tax exemption or its accessories, and the combination of
indeterminate legal concept and administrative discretion; a vague legal concept,
here represented by the "reasons for the discrepancies resulting from the application of
tax laws "and" reason for deletion "hardness cannot be substantively
sufficiently precise and its application depends on the assessment in each
case by case basis. The legislature created the space by the public administration,
in order to evaluate whether a particular situation is a vague legal concept of
podřaditelná or not, and with the existence of certain facts
It is not clearly linked to the only possible legal consequences; It is then just the
the discretion of the administrative authority-in the limits-such a result
determine whether the application of the tax debtor, namely to meet and the tax or its
Accessories waived. Compliance with these limits-just the administrative discretion
or their misuse in administrative justice-however, reviewable according to the
the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court as follows explicitly from
the provisions of § 78 para. 1 with row s.; It is the participant's permissions here
proceedings request that the administrative authority's decision was issued in a proper
management of the established norms of substantive as well as procedural ("tax") rights and with
the exclusion of any arbitrariness. The right to due process is, therefore, the
public procedural law a subjective, which could be affected, respectively.
violated, and whose protection can be invoked in court, although there
subjective right to obtain relief under consideration is not.
The Constitutional Court referred to the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court,
especially on the legal opinion of the Court in sentencing the Supreme Administrative
judgment No. 6 and 69/2000-55, according to which the decision depending on the
diskreci of the administrative body (a decision on the remission of tax under section
55A of the tax code) is reviewable as to compliance with the prescribed
the progress and compliance with the limits of administrative discretion.
The opposite interpretation of the tax code and the judicial code administrative would then according
The Constitutional Court has established the State of restriction (exclusion) of law to the Court of
protection within the meaning of article 87(1). paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter.
The Constitutional Court notes that the legal conclusions from the
case-law and the current fully hit legislation, contained in section
259 and 260 of the Act No. 280/2009 Coll., the tax code.
The base for the assessment of the case is the question of whether the said legal
opinion turns out by the judicial review of a decision on the remission of
penalties for non-payment of social security contributions.
Since neither the tax code or the administrative court rules do not contain an explicit
specific adaptation of the exclusion of judicial review of a decision of the tax
remission of tax or its accessories according to section 55a of the tax code, the legal
the conclusion of the Constitutional Court in favour of such a review, as outlined in the
the case-law (in particular in finding SP. zn. III. TC 2556/07) resulted in
the interpretation of the relevant provisions of constitutionally conformable to the tax code and
Code of civil procedure of the administrative-law was therefore
adopted in proceedings for review of the standards, but in the constitutional
the complaints.
In comparison the tax decision on institutes of remission of tax or
its accessories, and the decisions of the organs of social security
remission of penalties for non-payment of social security contributions
The Constitutional Court, the legislature's opinion about their přisvědčuje the analogue
the nature of the. This analogous nature is given by two characters: the first is
the similarity of the penalties for non-payment of taxes and penalties for non-payment of premiums
social security-in both cases is the defining character of both
part of the more general category of institutes (genus proximum)-both of these
institutes constitute a legal effect of non-payment, payment of public
nature, payment of which is provided for by law and whose purpose (in different
extent) is to provide public benefits (goods) the public authorities.
The second character is comparable to the similar purpose of remission of penalties in both
cases, which is a removal of hardness in individual cases and for
specific circumstances which are not generally predictable in its entirety
the law and the assessment is subject to administrative discretion.
If the legal Institute of the remission of penalty for non-payment of premiums
social security-unlike the situation of the Law Institute
remission of tax and its accessories-in the case of the provisions of § 104e
(a). (b)) Law No 582/1991 Coll., on the Organization and implementation of social
security, as amended by later regulations, given the explicit statutory
an obstacle to judicial review, as implied by analogy-unlike
the procedure contained in the award SP. zn. III. TC 2556/07-can not only lead
to interpret the relevant constitutionally Conformal simple law, but
necessarily leads to the derogatory conclusion as a result of violation of the provisions of § 104e (b).
(b)) Law No 582/1991 Coll., as amended, with art. paragraph 36.
2 of the Charter.
The Constitutional Court in this regard, stresses that the subject
judicial review of the decision on the remission of penalty for non-payment
social security is not considering the matter; It is the only
compliance with the limits of administrative discretion, it is the protection of due process, and
exclusion of arbitrariness in decision-making, or the guarantee of the right to due process, and
When the material in these cases the subjective right to obtain
relief under consideration (remission of penalty) is not given.
To request the party to declare an unequivocal opinion even to
another exclusion decisions of administrative authorities in matters of
on the removal of hardness or transactions is not legal
the claim of an administrative review, the Constitutional Court notes that the assessment of the
the constitutional conformity of any such legal provisions necessarily requires a specific
review of the application of the legal conditions read the conclusions of the
resulting from the relevant case-law of the Constitutional Court, in particular from the
finding SP. zn. III. TC 2556/07.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
