279/2001 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court ruled on 6. June 2001 in plenary about the design of j. b.
repeal of section 6 of Act No. 119/1990 Coll., on the judicial rehabilitation,
as follows:
The proposal is rejected.
Justification
The proposal to repeal section 6 of Act No. 119/1990 Coll., on the judicial rehabilitation,
He handed the appellant pursuant to section 74 of law No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,
together with the constitutional complaint, the Constitutional Court received on 9 April. 5.2000,
that was directed against the resolutions of the regional court in Pilsen from day 4. 4.
2000, SP. zn. 7 this 145/2000 and the resolution of the District Court in
Vary from 8 March. 2.2000, SP. zn. RT 2/99.
The claimant stated that in the proposal was found in 1957 as a person
compulsory military service in the Czechoslovak people's army. According to the
mobilization order should start military service on 30 November. 10. in 1957.
He has done so, as in her performance would obstruct religious beliefs
(the Rapporteur reports to the Jehovah's Witnesses). The Judgment Of The Military
the perimeter of the Court in Karlovy vary from 13 June 2005. 12.1957 SP. zn. 2 T
211/57 the applicant was sentenced for the crime of his/her failure to service in
defence under section 265 para. 1 of the criminal law No. 86/1950.
imprisonment in duration of 16 months. On the basis of Amnesty
President of the Republic was the appellant released from prison, and in
custody spent about six weeks.
27 June 2002. 12.1957 petitioner under the new mobilization order
resume military service. Military service and did not play again
the judgment of the military court in Karlovy vary from 15 October. 1.
1958, SP. zn. 2 T 225/57 was convicted offence no-show policy
services in the defence under section 265 para. 1 of the criminal law No. 86/1950
Coll. to imprisonment in duration of twenty two months unconditionally.
After release from prison he was rapporteur for the permanent denial of military
services for the third time, condemned by the judgment of the military court in
Košice (the date of issue and the case number indicated) to the penalty of the deprivation of
freedom in the duration of four years.
The appellant in the proposal further stated that in the early 1990s. years he has not submitted a proposal to
review pursuant to Act No. 119/1990 Coll., as amended,
because both did not have the confidence of the Czechoslovak courts and did not even have
the necessary information. Only after the Constitutional Court issued a major findings
on the issue of criminal penalties for refusing military service, he began
the complainant to seek the cancellation of the original judgments. He turned in the
relation to the Minister of Justice of the Czech Republic with an incentive to
complaint for violation of the law, but because of their right to file a complaint
He refused to use it. Therefore, the appellant turned to the District Court Of
Vary with the proposal on the review of the second conviction according to law No. 119/1990
Coll., as amended. The District Court in Karlovy Vary
in its resolution of 8 June 1993. 2.2000, SP. zn. RT 2/99 proposal rejected as out of time
brought on. The plaintiff filed a complaint against it, which the regional court
Pilsen by order of 4. 4.2000, SP. zn. 7 this 145/2000.
The applicant considers that that meets all the conditions for rehabilitation, how
are specified in § 1 of the law No. 119/1990 Coll., as amended
regulations, and that it should therefore be exempted from punishment and guilt. The review procedure
However, hinting at a barrier to the limits set out in section 6 of Act No. 119/1990 Coll.
According to which the proceedings may be submitted no later than two years
from the effective date of this Act. According to this view, navrhovatelova
the time limit in the present case, contrary to the law on the equality of the subjects before
law referred to in article 14(2). 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (hereinafter referred to as
"The Charter"), contrary to the proper consideration of the case according to the article. 36
paragraph. 1 of the Charter and in violation of the right to a fair trial under article. 6
Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention").
General courts then also breached the app's rights enshrined in the article. 40
paragraph. 5 of the Charter and article. 4 (4). 1 of Protocol No 7 to the Convention, as
did not try to deal with the violation of the principle of "ne bis in idem". The claimant has
for that, it has been violated his right to religious freedom, as
guaranteed in article. 18 and article. 29 para. 2 of the Universal Declaration of human rights
and in the article. 9. 1 and 2 of the Convention, as well as in the article. 15 paragraph 1. 1 and 3, of the Charter.
The applicant justifies referring to § 30 para. 2 and section 33
paragraph. 2 Act No. 119/1990 Coll., as amended, and
referring to paragraph 6 of Act No. 198/1993 Coll., on the illegality of the Communist
regime and on resistance against it, that no time limit for the submission of the proposal
they do not contain. The appellant also drew on the findings of the Constitutional Court No.
151/1999 Coll. on the recent practice of justice relating to the
similar cases.
II. the Senate's Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that the alleged interference with the
navrhovatelových fundamental rights took place under the direct application of § 6 of the law No.
119/1990 Coll., by order of 3 October 2000. 10.2000, SP. zn. II. TC 281/2000
proceedings on constitutional complaints submitted and the application for annulment
the contested provisions of the Act on judicial rehabilitation ceded plenary
The decision of the Constitutional Court according to article. 87 para. 1 (b). and the Constitution of the United)
of the Republic.
The resolution of the Constitutional Court of 19 May. 10.2000, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 26/2000
was a barrier to matter commenced in the District Court rejected
Litoměřice to repeal section 6 of Act No. 119/1990 Coll. on the case in the f. led
This Court under SP. zn. 5 Ntr 2/99.
The resolution of the Constitutional Court of 15 July. 11.2000, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 49/2000
was a barrier to matter brought by the District Court rejected in Czech
On the abolition of section 6 of Act No. 119/1990 Coll. on the case led by j. p.
under SP. zn. 1 Nt 1629/99.
The resolution of the Constitutional Court of 28 June. 11.2000, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 47/2000
was a barrier to matter commenced in the District Court rejected
Litoměřice to repeal section 6 and 33 of Act No. 119/1990 Coll., as amended by
amended, in case F. F. guided by that Court under SP. zn. 5
NTR 1/99.
The resolution of the Constitutional Court of 15 July. 3.2001, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 8/01 was
for obstacle pendens rejected the District Court in Olomouc
repeal of section 6 of Act No. 119/1990 Coll. L. S. guided by this Court
under SP. zn. NT 227/2000.
The resolution of the Constitutional Court of 20 October. 2.2001, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 56/2000 was
for obstacle pendens rejected the District Court in Olomouc
repeal of § 6 and § 33 para. 1 and 2 of Act No. 119/1990 Coll., as amended by
amended, in case P. S.-led by that Court under SP. zn. NT
213/2000.
In all the above cases, the plaintiffs permission according to §
35 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll. of the right to participate in the negotiations on the previously
submitted the proposal in case SP. zn. PL. ÚS 46/2000 as interveners.
The Constitutional Court turned to the participants in the proceedings, the Chamber of Deputies
The Czech Parliament and the Senate of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and on
minor parties-District Court in Litoměřice, District Court
České Budějovice and Olomouc-District Court with a request for written
observations on the draft, when the party to the proceedings is also the one who by law or
Another decree, whose annulment is sought, and the secondary
a participant in a legitimate claimant, whose proposal was rejected as
inadmissible, since the Constitutional Court in the same case already.
The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in its observations
stated that law No. 119/1990 Coll. was approved by the required majority
members of the Federal Assembly on 23 June. April 1990, he was signed by the
respective constitutional officials, and has been duly declared. The rapporteur
considers that, pursuant to Act No. 198/1993 Coll. no time limit for the submission of the proposal
not fixed, while the rehabilitation period in § 6 of the law States. From this
concludes that the citizen applying for a review under the rehabilitation law is
a disadvantage compared to the citizen requesting review pursuant to Act No. 198/1993
Coll. in the opinion of the Chamber of Deputies, this claim is not substantiated and
I can't believe that there has been a violation of article 6(1). 1 of the Charter. You cannot also
agree with navrhovatelovým's claim that section 6 of Act No. 119/1990 Coll. is
contrary to the article. paragraph 36. 1 of the Charter because the Rehabilitation Act in the
an effort to eliminate the injustices that were citizens in the field of criminal
Justice caused by unlawful conviction, and provide the moral
compensation and adequate material compensation for the harm suffered has established
the ability to claim their rights to all those who comply with the law
the conditions laid down, which is fully in line with the article at the same time. paragraph 36. 4
Of the Charter. We cannot agree to the alleged violation of the right to a fair
the process under article. 6 (1). 1 of the Convention. The fact that the applicant did not avail
options for filing an application pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act with the argument that
He had no confidence in the courts and did not have the necessary information, it cannot be
be considered as a sufficient reason to allow the contested provision
cancelled. It was only on the free will of the applicant, that makes use of the
the options, which our legal system of approval of Rehabilitation Act
He (i.e., had the right to his matter was fair and in
a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by
by law), and it was also up to him to get the necessary information,
the same conditions as all other citizens affected by this law
touching.
The Senate of the Parliament of the United Kingdom stated in its observations that the contested
the provision was adopted by the Federal Assembly of the Czech and Slovak
Federal Republic of 23 December 2003. April 1990 with effect from 1 January. July
1990, even before the establishment of the Senate. For this reason, the Senate
cannot express in the things that came out of the hearing
the provisions concerned, provide.
The District Court in Litoměřice in its statement said it has considered that the
citizens are actually in terms of the application of the time limits referred to in law No.
119/1990 Coll. and in Act No. 198/1993 Coll., where there is no
the period within the factual inequalities, these laws are napravovány
the same or similar errors, mistakes and injustices. According to the District Court in
Litoměřice, having regard to the change in view of the onset and the performance of the military
services for 1998 in terms of its refusal of the religious
belief, it seems appropriate to take a feedback for this period and issue
the finding, which could lead to the removal of obstacles delayed
submission of the proposal.
The District Court in České Budějovice on the draft within the deadline
would not comment.
The District Court in Olomouc in its observations suggested that the proposal was
granted.
The Constitutional Court was delivered to the navrhovatelovo statement
submitted by expressing an opinion of the participants, and incidental
Parties to the proceedings. The rapporteur highlights the inequality in the position
the appellants, who serves a proposal under section 4 of Act No. 119/1990 Coll., on
, as amended, against the appellants, who serves a proposal
According to § 33 para. 2 the same Act, and the fifteen examples of faulty
rehabilitation of the decision, which has been repealed, concludes that its
distrust of the Czechoslovak courts was justified.
After examining the proposal to repeal section 6 of Act No. 119/1990 Coll., as well as
opinions on this proposal has reached the Constitutional Court, despite all objections to
former adaptation to the conclusion that the application for annulment of the contested provisions
It is not reasonable.
The contested provisions of section 6 of Act No. 119/1990 Coll.:
§ 6
(1) an application may be filed within two years from the effective date of this
the law. If a initiated the review proceeding only on the proposal of the Prosecutor and the
He took it back, the convicted person to submit an application no later than one
year from the date when he was informed of the withdrawal of the proposal.
(2) if the beneficiary Misses important reasons, time limit for submission of the proposal
at the opening of the procedure, it may request the return of the period of one month from
removal of the obstacles, but not later than within three years from the effective date of this
the law. Where the proceedings have not yet filed, it should be with
applications connect.
(3) the time limit for the return of the Court to which it is for the review to take place
control.
As follows from § 1 (1). 1 of the law No. 119/1990 Coll., as amended
regulations, the purpose of the Bill is to abolish the convicting judgment for acts,
that conflict with the principles of a democratic society that respects
the citizens ' political rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and expressed in
international instruments and international legal standards of law
as penalty, allow a rapid review of the cases of persons as follows
unlawfully convicted as a result of violations of legality in the field
criminal procedure, delete the hardship in the use of repression,
secure the wrongly convicted persons to the social rehabilitation and
adequate material compensation and to allow the illegality of the identified
draw the consequences against parties that applicable laws knowingly or grossly
infringed.
The Constitutional Court therefore proceeded on the basis of the need to respect the will of the legislature,
When it comes to the fulfillment of the meaning and purpose of Act No. 119/1990 Coll., as amended by
amended, which is to alleviate the injustices perpetrated in the period
oppression.
It is a matter of a sovereign State's decision whether to accede to the rehabilitacím, and
If Yes, to what extent will be odčiněny of injustice. The Czechoslovak State,
After November 1989 decided to atone for property and other injustices, to
in the previous period as a result of non-democratic practices
the previous regime, he decided to come out of the principle of at least a partial
mitigate arising from wrongs, aware of the fact that a complete rehabilitation
or full compensation to those who were harmed in the past, it is not
possible. Each of the rehabilitation law has introduced a procedure
claims, including a different determination of the time-limits for exercising them.
Law No. 119/1990 Coll. of laws was the first rehabilitation, whose
the purpose, as is apparent from the above quoted section 1 (1). 1, was to allow
a quick review of the cases of persons wrongfully convicted. Tend to
the rehabilitation regulation to accelerate the path to mitigation of the consequences of injustices
on the other hand, corresponds to the apparent tendency to define, for the application of the
rehabilitation claims a certain time frame.
In its proposal, the applicant pleads infringement of articles below
Of the Charter, the Convention and the Universal Declaration of human rights.
The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms
Article. 1: people are free and equal in dignity and in rights. Basic
rights and freedoms are inalienable, not subject to alienation, nepromlčitelné and
non-cancelable.
Article. 15 paragraph 1. 1: freedom of thought, conscience and religion is
guaranteed. Everyone has the right to change his religion or faith or to be without
religion.
Article. 15 paragraph 1. 3: no one can be forced to perform military service,
If it is contrary to his conscience or religious faith.
Details provided by law.
Article. paragraph 36. 1: each can claim their rights for the prescribed procedure
an independent and impartial court and in the cases provided for in other
authority.
Article. 40 para. 5: no one shall be prosecuted for an offence for which he has already
has been finally convicted or acquitted. This policy does not preclude the
the application of extraordinary legal remedies in accordance with the law.
Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
Article. 6 (1). 1: everyone has the right to his matter was
fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and
impartial tribunal established by law, which shall decide on its civil
rights and obligations or of any criminal
the allegations against him. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and
the public may be excluded, either for all or part of the process in
the interests of morals, public order or national security in a
a democratic society, or when the interests of the minor so require, or
protection of the private life of the parties or, to the extent considered Court
for the absolutely necessary if, owing to special circumstances,
public control might be detrimental to the interests of Justice.
Article. 9. 1: everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; This right includes the freedom to change their religious
religion or belief, as well as the freedom to manifest religious
religion or belief, alone or jointly with others, whether publicly or
privately, in worship, teaching, performing religious acts and
observance.
Article. 9. 2: freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may
be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety,
the protection of public order, health or morals or the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others.
Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
Article. 4 (4). 1: no one shall be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings
under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been
finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and Penal
procedure of that State.
The Universal Declaration of human rights
Article. 18: everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; This
the right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, as well as
and freedom to manifest his religion or belief, alone or jointly with
in other, either publicly or in worship and observance.
Article. 29 para. 2: in the exercise of his rights and freedoms subject to only
to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of
securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the
the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a
of a democratic society.
The Constitutional Court does not consider the contested provision for surpassing how
constitutionally guaranteed right of access of the individual to the Court zakotvenému
in the article. paragraph 36. 1 of the Charter, as well as the right to a fair trial under article. 6
paragraph. 1 of the Convention. Determination of the time limit for the application of the design cannot
be contrary to the principle of the equality of citizens criticised enshrined in
article. 1 of the Charter because this discriminates in any social group at the expense of
other or does not discriminate against any social group, but so it gives
just need to pass to the right was exercised within the prescribed period.
Also navrhovatelovy argument on the violation of other rights referred to
the Constitutional Court shall not be considered to be well founded. As is clear from the meaning of the above
the cited provisions, the time limit for the application of the law are not
rights not affected.
The Constitutional Court notes that its task is to control the constitutionality.
In this context, this Court may only interfere with the unconstitutional provisions, or
their part, but it is not his job to reparovat consequences arising
the fact that the appellant has failed to assert his right within a specified period. Interference
time limits violates the principle of the rule of law, as it significantly interferes with the
the principle of legal guarantees, which is one of the basic requirements
the current democratic legal systems. The time limit cannot of itself
be unconstitutional. However, you may appear as follows with regard to the specific
the circumstances. The allegation that the appellant did not have the confidence of the Czechoslovak
the courts and did not even have the necessary information, it does not relieve the obligation to control
with applicable legal standards. Navrhovatelovo behavior is a subjective
element, on the basis of which the contested provisions cannot be attributed to
unconstitutionality.
From the perspective of the legislative and technical need to finally mention that
compliance with the proposal would mean, no positive edits, lack of
any time limit for the application of rehabilitation design.
As regards the plea of breach of the navrhovatelovu ne bis in
idem, i.e.. the principle that no one may be prosecuted for an offence for which he has already been
finally convicted or acquitted, close that, in
relation to the application for annulment of paragraph 6 of Act No. 119/1990 Coll. cannot be
accept the objection. In its proposal, the complainant basically mixes up right
faulty judgments of 1957 and 1958 with broken rights challenged
decisions.
All these considerations and facts have led the Constitutional Court again therefore to
the conclusion that the existence of the right, which is associated with the deadline does not mean that
the law was limited institutional way.
From the analysis of the case shows that the petitioner the right to claim their rights in the
independent and impartial courts was guaranteed, the claimant, however, this
law misses. The law on judicial rehabilitation provided in § 6 of the period within which
It was possible to submit a proposal, and the possibility of relief may regulate such
the time limits. This fundamental fact, namely that he could be himself in the matter of active and
achieve the annulment of the decision in the review, the complainant leaves
completely to the side.
In the light of the above, the Constitutional Court did not find after
completion of the proceedings, the contested provisions in conflict with the constitutional order
The United States, the grounds for revocation of section 6 of Act No. 119/1990 Coll. are not
made, and therefore rejected the proposal (article 70, paragraph 2, of Act No. 182/1993 Coll.).
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
