22/2014 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic of
The Constitutional Court ruled under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 22/13 on 12 June 2006. November 2013
plenary in the composition of Stanislav Package, Louis David, Norman F, Jan
Filip, Vlasta Formankova, Ivana Janů, Vladimir Crust, Jan Musil, Jiří
Nykodým, Pavel Rychetský, Vladimir Sladecek, Catherine Simackova, Milada
T and Michael April (Judge-Rapporteur) on the proposal of the District Court
in Liberec on the repeal of part six article (efficiency). (VI) Law No 494/2012
Coll., amending Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended by
amended, law No 40/2009 Coll., the criminal code, as amended by
Act No. 306/2009 Coll., and some other laws,
as follows:
Part six of Act No. 494/2012 Coll., amending Act No. 200/1990
Coll. on offences, as amended, law No. 40/2009 Coll.,
the criminal code, as amended by Act No. 306/2009 Coll., and some other
laws shall be cancelled on the date of publication of this finding in the statute book.
Justification
(I).
The definition of things and a recap of the proposal
1. The District Court in Liberec he made at the Constitutional Court for annulment
the sixth section (effectiveness) article. (VI) Law No 494/2009 Coll., amending
Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended,
Act No. 40/2009 Coll., the criminal code, as amended by Act No. 306/2009 Coll.,
and some other laws. He stated that at the District Court in Liberec was under
SP. zn. 4 T 251/2012 proposal for punishment m. k. for misdemeanor obstruction
the performance of an official decision and recognition under section 337 paragraph. 1 (b). (e))
Act No. 40/2009 Coll., the criminal code, as amended,
(hereinafter referred to as "tr."), which should allow this, although
the judgment of the District Court in Liberec No. 1 T 197/2009-128 dated June 28.
3.2012, which came into force on 17. 7.2012, in conjunction with the resolution
The regional court in Ústí nad Labem-branch in Liberec No. 55 's
323/2012-140 of 17 December 1999. 7.2012 convicted for the offense of negligence
mandatory nutrition under section 213 paragraph. 1 of the criminal law, jail
the imprisonment of a duration of 8 months with the inclusion of into
Security and delivery 10. 10.2012 personally took over the call to embark upon a sentence with
Thus, to do so within 10 days of receipt, to the challenge of
did not respond until 27. 11.2012, which was delivered to the prison.
2. the legal qualification in the proposal for punishment under section 337 paragraph. (l) (a).
e) tr of. based on the wording of the criminal code prior to its amendment
made by law no 494/2012 Coll., Act No. 494/2012 Coll. was article
In the amended Criminal Code in article 337 paragraph. (l) so that "for the
subparagraph (c)) the following point (d)), that is: d) it violates the prohibition of stay
stored under another law, '. Subparagraph (d)) to (i))
referred to as the letters e) to (j)). " In the sixth (efficiency) article. (VI) law
No 494/2012 Coll. stated that "this Act shall take effect on 1 January 2000.
July 2012. "; in the collection of laws, however, this law was promulgated in the
the amount of the 186 under the number 494/2012 Coll., which was circulated on 31 December 2004.
December 2012.
3. in the case under consideration would act for which it was submitted,
the punishment was to be assessed under section 337 paragraph. (l) (a). (f)) of the criminal
code, as amended by law no 494/2012 Coll., because the deed was to be
committed in the period from 21. 10.2012 to 27. 11.2012, i.e. after the declared
the effectiveness of Act No. 494/2012 Coll. of 1. July 2012, although this
the law was published on 31 December 2004. 12.2012. According to the text of the criminal
the amendment to the code made by law no 494/2012 Coll. by deed should be
assessed under section 337 paragraph. (l) (a). e) tr of. The District Court did not
entitled to disregard the provisions of the effectiveness of Act No. 494/2012
Coll. and could not therefore proceed as if this provision of the
the effectiveness of the law no 494/2012 Coll. does not contain, and apply the criminal
the code in the previous version. Thus, the District Court in Liberec couldn't without
next apply the criminal code, in the version prior to the amendment made by
Act No. 494/2012 Coll., if the amendment contains an express provision on the
its efficiency, the date of the deed. At the same time, however, the fact
that law no 494/2012 Coll. has been declared until after the deed, which is
the subject of a criminal prosecution, preventing the application of provisions of the criminal
code, as amended by law no 494/Sb.
4. The District Court in Liberec so found that in a criminal case cannot be
deciding on guilt and punishment, apply the provisions of the criminal
code, since it prevents the said provisions on the effectiveness of law No.
494/2012 Coll., which stipulates the effectiveness of day 1. July 2012, which, however,
preceding the publication of the law in the statute book on 31 December 2004. 12.2012.
The appellant, therefore, with regard to the conflict of the provisions on the effectiveness
Act No. 494/2012 Coll. with the article. 2 (2). 4 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as
"The Constitution"), art. 52 para. (l) of the Constitution and article. 2 (2). 3 of the Charter of fundamental
rights and freedoms ("the Charter") proposing its repeal.
II.
Recap the essential parts of the representation of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament
The Czech Republic, the Czech Senate and the public defender
the rights of the
5. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, taking into account the relevant
the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court (judgment in SP. zn. 4 Ans 5/2007)
He gave up his right to enter into the control.
6. the President of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in its
the observations she described the course of the legislative process and stated that the
the law was approved by the required majority of members of the Chamber of Deputies. After
his rejection by the Senate Chamber of Deputies a bill again
discussed and approved the voices of 105 members. After the return of the draft law
the President voted for the Bill 101 members of Parliament. Passed legislation
was delivered to the signature of Prime Minister 21. 12.2012 and published in the collection of
the amount of the 186 laws under the number 494/2012 Coll. law in question was
declared the (effective) on 31 December 2004. December 2012 and so could not take
efficiency already at 1. July 2012. President of the Chamber of Deputies
the identified for undoubtedly very undesirable that is
necessary to prevent such a State. It is therefore up to the Constitutional Court, in
the proposal of the District Court in Liberec has assessed the constitutionality of
the contested provisions and issued the relevant decision.
7. The President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in its observations
examine the progress of the legislative process. States that the Senate has discussed
the present proposal of the law within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence of constitutional
manner and the Bill rejected on 25 April. April 2012
the Senate hearing was to act mainly to the detriment of the proposal on the
saving the ban stay in misdemeanor proceedings. The Senate hearing
of the draft law not editing efficiency Act and the Senate
It advocates the retroactive effects of the right of each non-acceptability of the legal
editing. In conclusion, their representation of the President of the Chamber leaving assessment
the constitutionality of the filing of the contested provisions entirely at the discretion of the constitutional
the Court.
8. The Ombudsman, who joined in the proceedings as a side
a participant in his observations of the appellant's opinion with respect
the alleged unconstitutionality of the abolition of the present provisions. Recalls
the opinion of the Supreme Administrative Court (judgment in SP. zn. 4 Ans 5/2007),
If the právotvorce entry into force of the legislation on the date of
preceding its publication, such a provision is absolutely
not applicable, and so should be treated with such legislation,
as the provisions on the acquisition of its efficacy absentovalo. From the selected
the findings of the Constitutional Court, the Ombudsman recalls that between
the basic principles of the rule of law include the principle of foreseeability of the law,
his clarity and control of its internal policy. Legal
the State is the immanent principle of predictability in the law and the prohibition of the performance of
arbitrariness by the public authorities. Understanding the predictability of law as
an important attribute of the rule of law substantially connected with the principle of
legal certainty and is a prerequisite for General citizens ' confidence in the
the right. The provisions of § 3 para. 1 and 2 of Act No. 309/1999 Coll., on the collection of
laws and the collection of international treaties (hereinafter referred to as the "law about the collection
laws ") practically precludes legal form adopted legislation
He served the intended effect before it was announced. If, therefore, the law
It operates retroactively, according to circumstances, talk about illegality, or
unconstitutionality, in particular in relation to the principle of legal certainty (article.
2 (2). 4 of the Constitution and article. 2 (2). 3 of the Charter). Even more strongly this
the fact is just on this particular case, when the amendment to the
criminal law. With reference to the case-law of the Constitutional Court
the Ombudsman stresses the inadmissibility-retroactivity of law
standards. In the case of non-compliance of the provisions of the law cannot be
Regulation with the constitutional order to address choice constitutionally Conformal
interpretation of multiple possible interpretations, and it is necessary to proceed to the
the cancellation. In that case, it is irrelevant whether the determination of the
the retroactivity of the law occur, e.g. mistakes in the legislative
the process (of the legislature when the vote result or his lack
knowledge of Materia). In the legislative process the request into the foreground
constancy, conviction and necessity of legal acts on which the legal
State, and in correlation also lives in it, rests. Such acts, and
also reaching the required authority legislatures, however, cannot rearm
otherwise than respect for the rules-principles of legislative activity [find
SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/02 of 2 July. 10.2002 (N 117/28 SbNU 25; 476/2002
SB.)]. It is entirely the responsibility of the Parliament (as a whole) and it
set rules to ensure the adoption of suitable quality
legislation, both substantive and after page
legislatively-technical. Based on the above, the Ombudsman
summarizes the Parliament (as a "sovereign" of the legislature) adopted the legal
Regulation retroactively, and this fact cannot be
bridge the constitutionally Conformal interpretation. Therefore, it bears the sole responsibility of the
for the adoption of the protiústavního law (or part thereof), and
including the subsequent negative consequences. At the same time in the general public
the Ombudsman notes that, in cases where the cancellation of the legal
Regulation of the Constitutional Court, nothing the legislature adopt
"new" legislation, reflecting the opinion referred to in likewise.
On the contrary, it is the Parliament that should not give up on your
the obligation to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms and remain idle if
the law or its individual provisions repealed Constitutional Court
[find SP. zn. I. ÚS 1696/09 of 8 May. 2.2011 (N 13/60 SbNU 127)]. Above the
beyond the above, connects the Ombudsman short representation to
the legislative process of the law, including his opinion on the factual
the page.
III.
The abandonment of an oral hearing
9. in particular, the Constitutional Court has considered that there is no need in the case held oral
the negotiations, as it would have brought more or better and clearer clarification
things than how it met from the written acts of the parties to the proceedings. With
regard to the provisions of § 44 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, (with
Recalling in this connection-as amended by the amendment made to the Act
No 404/2012 Coll., effective since 1. 1.2013) is therefore no longer the Constitutional Court
He didn't have to poll the participants, whether they agree with the abandonment of the oral
the hearing, and in a case decided without holding oral proceedings.
IV.
Review of prerequisites
10. formally correct the petition was filed by the District Court in Liberec according
article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution and § 64 para. 3 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the constitutional
the Court, in the wording of later regulations. To discuss the draft is Constitutional
the Court with jurisdiction, and this is the proposal acceptable.
11. The Constitutional Court was forced to first consider whether it is in the present
the matter shall be entitled to review (and, where appropriate, cancel) the actual amendments to the law
or part thereof. According to settled case-law of the Constitutional Court is not fundamentally
possible proposal against novelizujícímu law, as
such legislation does not have a separate legal existence in General; here
gets up as part of the amended legislation; The constitutional
the Court should therefore be referred to the assessment of the revised legal
prescription [cf. e.g. resolutions SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/2000 of 15 March 2000. 8.2000
(27/19 SbNU 271), also available at http://nalus.usoud.cz].
12. that does not mean that the proposal against the amendment of the law or
part of it (as is the case in the present case) would not be Constitutional
subject to review by the Court of meritornímu at all. The exception allowing such
a review of the constitutionality of the procedure of adoption of authentication is novelizujícího
law [cf. e.g. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06 of 15 July. 2.
2007 (N 30/44 SbNU 349; 37/2007 Coll.)], it is a situation in which they are
attacked by the transitional provisions of the legislation [cf. novelizujícího.
for example. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 6/13 of 2 July. 4.2013 (112/Sb.)
also available at http://nalus.usoud.cz]. Such an exception then undoubtedly
also presents a situation which has occurred in the present case, in which the
challenged by the provisions on the effectiveness of the amendment, since the
the provisions on the effectiveness of the novelizujícího legislation, arbitrary
There is a right and just as part of it and part of the legislation
the revised doesn't happen. In this condition, and taking into account the
the fact that the application of the provisions on the effectiveness of the amendment can be hit
to constitutionally guaranteed rights, the Constitutional Court found that brought on the derogatory
design of projednatelným. Based on these reasons could have landed the constitutional
Court to proceed to a review of the contested provisions.
In the.
The conditions of the locus standi of the applicant
13. The proposal to repeal the provisions on the effectiveness of Act No. 494/2012 Sb.
the District Court handed in Liberec according to art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution and § 64 para. 3
Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended,
and in connection with criminal proceedings held under SP. zn. 4 T 251/2012
in the above case. This is given by (i) locus standi of the petitioner.
Vi.
Constitutional competence and conformity of the legislative process
14. The Constitutional Court, in accordance with the provisions of § 68 para. 2 of law No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48/2002 Coll., is in
proceedings for review of the standards required to assess whether the contested provisions
(or law of which it is a part of this provision) taken within the limits of the
The Constitution laid down the competence and constitutionally prescribed way.
15. From the Council prints and těsnopiseckých messages, 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 Bill
No 494/2012 Coll. in vote no. 103 (resolution No. 1090) in the third reading
at its 36. meeting on 21 February 2006. March 2012; of the 179 members of Parliament
voted for the Bill and against 94 77 deputies. The Chamber of Deputies
Advanced day 2. April 2012, the Bill of the Senate, that the draft law on the
its 21. meeting on 25 April. April 2012 discussed and resolution No. 582
has denied. On the Bill returned by the Senate voted in the Chamber
the Chamber of Deputies on 40. meeting of 5 November. June 2012, their vote remained on
your Bill; of the 192 members voted for the proposal
Law 105, against 63 (vote no. 13). President of the Republic law
not signed and returned it back to the Chamber of Deputies, that the law returned by the
the President on 19 December. December 2012 on 49. a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies
discussed, remained on their bill (resolution No. 1438) and of the
183 members present voted for the Bill and against 78 101
MEPs (vote no. 280). The approved law was delivered to the signature
Prime Minister 21. December 2012, who signed it. The law was promulgated in the
the amount of the collection of laws under no 186.494/2012 Coll. on 31 December 2004. 12.2012.
16. The Constitutional Court notes that law no 494/2012 Coll., which is
the contested provision was adopted and issued within the limits of a constitutionally
set out competences and constitutionally prescribed way.
VII.
Substantive examination of the contested provisions
17. The basic question in the case of the provision of assessment is
the effectiveness of Act No. 494/2012 Coll. with regard to its souladnosti with the Constitution,
and whether the provisions in question by determining the effectiveness of day 1. July 2012
as a result, (not) is that the provisions of law no 494/2012 Sb.
It operates retroactively, which is particularly serious in the case of amendments to the
the substantive provisions of the criminal code and the provincial offences Act.
18. the Constitutional Court, in assessing the matter fully respects the principle of the Division of
power embodied in the article. 2 (2). 1 of the Constitution and constitutional rule, according to which the
State power can be exercised only in cases, within the limits and ways that
determined by law (article 2, paragraph 3, of the Constitution). The said constitutional rule
the lawful exercise of State authority should be all the more applicable to the legality
the legislative process, including the legislative and technical requirements.
19. According to the article. 52 para. l of the Constitution is to the validity of the law needs to be
declared. In accordance with paragraph 2 of this article of the Constitution the way the publication of the law
and international treaty law. This Act within the meaning of article 87(1). 52
paragraph. 2 of the Constitution, Act No. 309/1999 Coll., on the collection of laws and the collection of
international treaties, as amended. According to § 3 (2). l
the law on the statute book legislation come into force on the date of their
publication in the statute book. According to § 3 (2). 2 of this Act, the date of
the announcement of the date of dispatch of the relevant legislation the amount of Collections
laws, referred to in its title bar, and in accordance with paragraph 3, if it is not
established the effectiveness of later legislation effective
the 15th day following that of its publication (General
vacatio legis
). If required press the general interest, can be exceptionally provide for
earlier, however, the first effective on the date of publication. Referred to
provisions of the Constitution and the law on the collection of laws preclude legal
the legislative procedure adopted by the law he intended effects
before it was announced.
20. Act No. 494/2012 Coll. has been published in the amount of 186 of the laws,
that was circulated on 31 December 2004. December 2012. Therefore, if under the sixth
(Efficiency) article. (VI) States that this Act shall take effect on 1 January 2000.
July 2012, then it is obvious that the effectiveness of the Act is set out in
contrary to the article. 52 para. (l) of the Constitution and article 3, paragraph 3. 3 the law on the statute book.
Therefore, if the law no 494/2012 Coll. established by the acquisition of its effectiveness on the day
preceding its publication, i.e. acts intended effects before
He was named, works with retroactive effect. The effectiveness of this legal
Regulation is preceded by his force and legislation sets out binding
rules of conduct retroactively to the time when the Act has not been published and the addressees of the
the legal standards or haven't had the opportunity to meet with such a rule.
Not so populated with the obligation of the State to ensure every possibility to get acquainted
the text of the legal standards (formal publication). Become familiar with the location
law excludes the possibility of application of the principle
ignorantia legis non excusat
Therefore, the principle of ignorance of the law is no excuse, since this legal principle is
built just on the assumption of a formal publication. This is related to
the principle of creating rights
Pro futuro
Thus, the new law acts in the future, modifies the behavior of the
the addressees of the law in the future. Retroactive retroactive provisions, respectively.
Therefore, the legislation actually requires recipient obligations,
to them at any given time have not yet been saved at all, and with their lack of compliance with
It combines the adverse legal consequences. Determination of the effectiveness of Act No.
494/2012 Coll. in the sixth day of the 1. July 2012 at the publication of this
the law on the statute book on 31 December 2004. December 2012 so causes
the law operates retroactively, therefore, represents a condition called
as a genuine prescription; where a legal act by the time of his
expired.
21. the Czech Republic is under art. 1 (1). 1 the Constitution of the sovereign, unified
and the democratic rule of law based on respect for the rights and freedoms of man
and the citizen. In a democratic legal State, which is seen as
the material law, cannot accept the use of the statutory provisions
in a manner which is contrary to some of the fundamental constitutional principles of the
[cf. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 19/98 of 3 May 1998. 2.1999 (N 19/13 SbNU 131;
38/1999 Coll.)]. To the rule of law are the characteristics of the material
in particular, the principle of legal certainty, which subsumuje mainly
effective protection of the rights of all legal entities and predictability
the procedure of the State and its organs of legal persons, in particular as regards
the application of sanctions in the event that a legal entity has violated the law.
Any legislation must reflect respect for the General principles of the legal
as confidence in the law, legal certainty and predictability of the legal acts,
that structure the democratic State of law, respectively.
deducible from it [see e.g. the findings of the Constitutional Court, SP. zn. I. ÚS
287/04 of 22 December 2004. 11.2004 (N 172/35 SbNU 331), SP. zn. I. ÚS 433/04 of
on 22 November. 2.2005 (N 31/36 SbNU 347), SP. zn. I. ÚS 420/09 dated March 3. 6.
2009 (N 131/53 SbNU 647)]. The value of the principle of legal certainty
the protection of the citizens ' confidence in the law, therefore, trust that the right will be to fulfil the functions
for which it was created [cf. the finding of the Constitutional Court, SP. zn. II. THE TC
296/01 of 26 March. 11.2002 (N 144/28 SbNU 287)]. Part of the principle of
legal certainty is also the predictability of the procedure of the legislature in creating
the law and the prohibition on retroactive laws, or their retroaktivního
the interpretation of the [cf. find SP. zn. IV. TC 215/94 of 8 February 2005. 6.1995 (N 30/3
SbNU 227)]. The importance of the non-retroactivity of laws, stressed in its
the case law of the Constitutional Court of the CSFR already in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/92
10.12. 1992 (finding no. 15 collections of resolutions and of the findings of the Constitutional Court
Czechoslovakia, Prague: Prague, Linde., 2011, p. 92), in which he emphasized that
the principles of the rule of law, legal certainty, which can be drawn from the
the requirement of a democratic disposition, require each constitutionally possible
the principle of the retroactive anchor
expressis as
in the Constitution, or in the Act in order to exclude the possibility of retroactive
interpretation of the law.
22. Questions dealt with by the Constitutional Court is retroactive in its findings.
Perhaps the most extensively addressed in this issue of finding SP. zn. PL.
TC 21/96 of 4 March. 2. the 1997 (N 13/7 SbNU 87; 63/1997 Coll.), which in addition to
definition of retroactive and bonito stressed that it is necessary to
to distinguish cases in which the provisions of law compliance can be
with the constitutional order to secure his constitutionally Conformal interpretation, and
When you cannot do so, and it is necessary to proceed to its cancellation. The Court of first
It is not absolutely bound by the wording of the statutory provisions, but rather from the
It can and must depart when required for important reasons
the purpose of the Act, the history of its creation, systematic link or any
of the principles which are its basis in law as a constitutionally Conformal
významovém a whole. In a criminal case under consideration now, when an explicit
determination of the effectiveness in law no 494/2012 Coll. before its validity
precludes this legislation at all he intended effects, however,
the possibility of acceding to the interpretation, which would be constitutionally souladný, is out of the
account.
23. The prohibition of the retroactivity of criminal law is recognized in all
modern legislation and is considered a pivotal principle
criminal law. Means that the Act is punishable only if the offence of
by law before it was committed (section 1 of the Criminal Code).
This ban in the Czech legal order is his reflection in particular.
the time covered by the Penal Code, provided for in article 4(1). 40 para. 6 of the Charter and
in turn, section 2 of the criminal code. According to these provisions, the criminalization of
the crime and the penalty assessed under the Act imposes an effective at the time when the Act was
committed (principle of legality of criminal law-
nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege
). For more area of law, the provisions of law no 494/Sb.
also from time to time, it is necessary to ban retroactive inferred from article. 1 of the Constitution
and the principle of legal certainty [find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 31/94 of 24 March 2006. 5.
1995 (N 25/3 175 SbNU; 164/1995 Sb.)]. Backward (time) the effectiveness of the law
is not excluded by the legal norms, which do not constitute intervention in the legal
certainty and this is the law
in favor
of the persons concerned, as is the case with the article. 40 para. 6 the second sentence of the Charter
or § 2 (2). 1 sentence with a semicolon in the criminal code, according to which
a later law apply if it is more favourable to the offender. It
but it is not the case, that could be extended to now under consideration
the proposal, when in law no 494/2012 Coll. established the effectiveness of the preceding
the validity of this law and its provisions is retroactively applied from the
law, and not from a mere comparison of the two gradually
the following legislation. Law no 494/2012 Coll. lays down the legal
the consequences for such factual conditions for which there is still
before the date of validity of those provisions. The Constitutional Court is aware that the
General courts already deal with a situation where the legislature has provided for the acquisition of
the effectiveness of the law on the day preceding its publication. General
the courts in these situations, act as if the provisions on the acquisition of
efficiency in the text of the relevant legislation (cf. absentovalo.
for example. the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, SP. zn. 4 Ans 5/2007 of the European
28.11. 2008). This procedure, the Constitutional Court that its decision does not intend to
revise or reject. In the case under consideration, however, is a special
the situation, as described by the error of the legislature interfered in the area of criminal law, in
a special constitutional principle contained in the above-cited article. 40
paragraph. 6 of the Charter. In the present case, therefore, the Constitutional Court stepped up to the
annulment of the contested provisions, since, with reference to the specific assessment
that the crime was not possible in this matter of constitutional interpretation.
24. in assessing the constitutional souladnosti the method of determination of the effectiveness
Act No. 494/2012 Sb. The Constitutional Court shall be deemed as irrelevant reasons,
that led to this misconduct within the legislative process in
Parliament of the Czech Republic and for which a statement none of the Chambers
Parliament have. It is entirely the responsibility of the Parliament and the
set rules to ensure the adoption of suitable quality
legislation, both substantive and after page
legislatively-technical. As noted in the report, the Constitutional Court SP. zn.
PL. ÚS 23/04 of 14 July 2004. 7.2005 (N 137/38 SbNU 9; 331/2005 Coll.), the task of
The Constitutional Court is not to interpret the results of the vote and the rules
legislative techniques, its task is the interpretation of the constitutional text in relation
to the law, as proclaimed in the statute book. The signature of the President of the
the Chamber of Deputies as a signature of the public service act is therefore not only the notification,
but also the identification and verification function. Its mission is to use the
other bodies of the Chamber of Deputies (rapporteurs, verifiers) and office machinery
the Chamber of deputies to ensure that the ultimate expression of the will of the House has been formulated in
accordance with the requirements of the law in terms of the Democratic
rule of law (certainty, clarity, clarity, clarity,
clarity, consistency, linguistic and stylistic for the soundness and
the respect of the non-retroactivity).
VIII.
The conclusion of the
25. Consequently, the contested provisions of part six article (efficiency).
(VI) Law No 494/2009 Coll., laying down the effectiveness of the Act on the day that
about half a year day is preceded by the publication of this law, is inconsistent not only with the
the provisions of § 3 para. 3 the law on the statute book and article. 52 para. 2 of the Constitution,
that the law on the statute book of the adjustment method of proclaiming the Act delegates the
and international treaties, but it is inconsistent with the constitutionally protected principles
legal certainty and non-retroactivity (article 1, paragraph 1, of the Constitution). The determination of the
the effectiveness of the law on the day preceding its publication
causes the retroactive provisions of law no 494/2012 and
the provisions of this law shall be absolutely neaplikovatelná. Of these
reasons, the Constitutional Court upheld the proposal and the provisions of the sixth (efficiency)
Act No. 494/2012 Coll. has abolished under the provisions of section 70 para. 1 of law No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48/2002 Coll.,
on the date of publication of the finding in the journal of laws. The abolition of the provision
on the effectiveness of the provisions of § 3 paragraph 1 shall apply. 3 the first sentence of the law on
The collection of laws, according to which, if it is not enacted later,
legislation effect on the fifteenth day following its publication.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
