299/2004 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court ruled on 9 April. March in plenary on the proposal for a group of MPs
The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic for annulment of the part of the
the provisions of § 11 (1) 3 of Act No. 129/2000 Coll., on regions (the regional
establishment), as amended by Act No. 273/2001 Coll., Act No. 320/2001 Coll.
Act No. 452/2001 Coll. and Act No. 231/2002 Coll., expressed by the words "as well as the
and the adequacy of the amount of the fine because of the wealth of the person who
the infringement committed by ",
as follows:
The proposal is rejected.
Justification
(I).
A group of 41 members of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
(hereinafter the "group members" or "the plaintiffs") filed a Constitutional Court
application for annulment of part of the provisions of § 11 (1) 3 of Act No. 129/2000 Coll.
of the regions (regional establishment), as amended by Act No. 273/2001 Coll., Act No.
320/2001 Coll., Act No. 450/2001 Coll. and Act No. 231/2002 Coll. (hereinafter referred to as
"the law of the lands" or "County"), expressed in the words "as well as to
the adequacy of the amount of the fine because of the wealth of the person who is
infringement committed "to its conflict with the provisions of article 8(1). 1,
article. 3 (2). 1, art. 7 (2). 1 and article. 10, paragraph 1. 2 and 3 of the Charter of fundamental
rights and freedoms ("the Charter"). A group of Deputies believes that
the adoption of the cited provisions of the Act on regions significantly
interference with constitutionally guaranteed equality in the rights (article 1 of the Charter), the prohibition of
discrimination (article 3, paragraph 1, of the Charter), the right to privacy (article 7 (1)
Of the Charter) and the right to privacy (article 10, paragraph 2 and 3 of the Charter).
A group of Deputies claim that "aspect of the proportionality of the amount of the fine
wealth of the person who committed the offence,
It is not expressed or other standards of the legal system of the Czech Republic,
governing administrative offences ". You cannot, therefore, be considered as admissible,
in this way, to be based in the legal order of the inequality of persons
guilty of infringements in various areas of public administration.
From the explanatory memorandum is not the obvious intention of the legislature (respectively.
promoters of the legislation). A group of Deputies believes that
even if this intention should be to strengthen the effectiveness of the imposed sanctions or
effort-using the legal representation of the relevant aspects-prevent
the excesses of the free or discretionary power on the part of the considerations of the administrative authority,
You cannot do so in a way that is unconstitutional.
Members of the Group also points to the lack of clarity of the concept itself
"matrimonial property", the examination of the public authority considers
unacceptable mainly because it is an unacceptable interference in the
private sector people. "The Circumstances of the offender" are said to be relevant only for
assessment of punishment in criminal law (see section 31, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code), and
are consistently interpreted as personal and family circumstances,
not as ratios of the estate. In the opinion of a group of MPs examining
In addition, the matrimonial property regime are not related to the subject of proceedings in which it is
penalties for the infringement is saved, so it is an unconstitutional
the collection of data about a person who committed such acts.
A group of Deputies believes that a sufficient defense against any
tvrdostem of the Act, which has challenged the legislation apparently face it,
represents a review of a decision imposing a penalty by way of corrective
resources (or after 1 January 2003 the Court decision in full;p řezkumem
In contrast, the jurisdiction of) the law saved the examination "means-tested"
the region forms the basis for impermissible and unconstitutional the unequal treatment of
with the persons committing the same infringement. In the light of
that may be a legal person and the natural person, it would be
interpretation and application of the term "matrimonial property" necessarily different;(cf.
and on the other hand find pl. TC 47/95) this is the case for example. in cases of
making decisions "about the circumstances of an applicant for an exemption from the court fee
According to the provisions of § 138 CCP ".
Members of the Group points out that, according to article. 1 and article. 3 (2). 1
Of the Charter of the fundamental rights and freedoms guarantees everyone, without distinction, so
even the law in determining the amount of the fine for the same unlawful
the negotiations at a disadvantage or privilegovat group of people. Such a procedure would
It was contra constitutionem, respectively, in contravention of the provisions of the cited
Of the Charter. A group of Deputies reiterates that the examination of the property
circumstances by an administrative authority in connection with saving the penalties provided for in article 6(2). 7
paragraph. 1 and article. 10, paragraph 1. 2 and 3, of the Charter would be unconstitutional interference in the
Privacy and unauthorized data collection about her.
II.
The Constitutional Court has asked for comments on the application for annulment of the contested
the provisions of the parties to the proceedings, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament
The CZECH REPUBLIC, as the authorities that issued the contested decision (paragraph 69 of the Act
No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court). Furthermore, he asked for representation under section 48
paragraph. 2 in conjunction with § 49 paragraph 1. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court, the Ministry of
the Interior of the CZECH REPUBLIC.
The Chamber of deputies in particular stated that the legal opinion of the appellants,
seems like a very instrumental, superficial and not take into consideration the requirement for efficient
and economic performance of State Administration (in the application of sanctions), which must
be guided by the desire to ensure the enforceability of the fine imposed. In
following the argument of the appellants for breach of a constitutionally
guaranteed equality in the rights referred to the finding of the Constitutional Court of the
on April 2, 1996, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 47/95, which States that you cannot reply
inequality, where the law provides for all subjects, that can be
under the personal scope of the legislation, to the same conditions. The fact that
the legislature in the law to include a provision to eliminate the
hardness in individual cases, cannot in itself be regarded as a
advantage or disadvantage particular groups of people. As regards identification
the matrimonial property regime, the Chamber of Deputies on the constitutional
Court SP. zn. I. ÚS 13/98, according to which (with respect to the
the diversity of forms of legal entities) hard to find common criteria for
assessment of their financial circumstances. "Despite the fact the things
region, to determine the criteria, which will be in the assessment of property
ratios of legal persons be taken into account when establishing the amount of the fine. " Claim
the appellants, that aspect of the proportionality of the amount of the fine to the wealth
the person who committed the offence, is not expressed in the
other standards contained in the legal system, the Chamber of Deputies shall be deemed
having regard to the continuous development of the rule of law (at the introduction of new, not yet
unused institutes) for misleading.
The Chamber of Deputies for completeness, pointed out that according to the recommendations
Committee for public administration, regional development and environment
discussing the amendment to the Act on regions approved a change to the provisions of § 11
paragraph. 1 the Government's draft law so that the word "Save" has been replaced by
the words "may save", so the County next to the discretion on the amount of the fine
According to the article. 11 (1) 3 not to ability got a fine at all. Act No.
231/2002 Coll., which was included in the Act on regions contested
the provisions of paragraph 11. 3, was approved on 16. in May 2002, was signed by the
respective constitutional officials, and has been duly declared.
In the opinion of the Chamber of Deputies is therefore not part of challenged the provisions of §
11 (1) 3 of the Act on regions in conflict with the Charter. The Chamber of Deputies
said that it had acted in the belief that the law is adopted in accordance with the
The Constitution, the constitutional order and laws of the United States.
The Senate in its observations first of all pointed out that when discussing the
the amendment concerned a Constitutional Committee and the Committee for territorial development,
public administration and the environment agree to recommend to the Senate that
amendment to the Act on regions came back with amendments, among which
He was also a proposal for the deletion of the part of the provisions of § 11 (1) 3 of the law on
regions in identical wording, which proposes a group of Deputies. Authorities Of The Senate
When making decisions, mainly from the fact that the examination of the
the adequacy of the amount of the fine because of the delinquent is commensurately
the legal principle, which can be fully applied in cases where the law
enables the authority to vote ukládajícímu penalty (while maintaining legal
the rules) from various kinds of sanctions. Such is the case in criminal law, when
the provisions of § 54 of the criminal code in relation to the storage of monetary
the penalty of the obligation to take into account the wealth of the offender and
at the same time ordering a fine save when he was apparently
impregnable ", it is possible to save that other kind of punishment" and in
the case of non-payment of a financial penalty to be imposed instead
an alternative sentence. In the opinion of the Senate, in the case of the administrative
punishing legal status distinct, as at present, in addition to the legal
editing violations, there is no general legislation which would establish
the relevant substantive and procedural rules of unifying the existing
the process to review the case of other offences. Individual rules
administrative offences laid down in special laws are inconsistent and in
the vast majority of cases, allow you to save only for the infringement
the only kind of sanctions-fine. This is so even in the case of the administrative offense
under section 11 of the Act on regions. In this situation, would the strict application of the
the principle that fines should be taken into account when saving property
circumstances of delinquent, in many cases, mean that the sex offender, to
which is a fine hard to enforceable, would not be possible penalty for
Save the infringement of the severity of the committed
the negotiations, possibly in the case of clear would not sanction the impregnable
apply at all. The reason for this is said to be the absence of alternative options to save
the penalty. As a result, the mandatory application of that principle could lead to
the unequal status of the persons before the law, as under similar illegal
the negotiations, some persons have been penalised and others-with regard to the
the current status of their matrimonial property regime-would have been deprived of or sanctions
disproportionately penalised infringement committed by. In addition to the
It was also perceived argument suggesting that, with regard to the
the absence of a general administrative punishment law do not have territorial authorities
authorities sufficient resources to each individual
the case of legally relevant manner property offenders
detect. In particular, for these reasons, it was proposed to the quoted part of the
the provisions of § 11 (1) 3 of the Act on regions.
Amendment to the Act on regions as the notice was included in the Senate's 17.
the meeting of the third term in the Senate on 10. May 2002. After the General
the debate was the proposal approved, as from the present 64 Senators for the
the draft voted against the proposal of 28 and 24 Senators. This was followed by
detailed debate, in which, inter alia, filed and amendment
committees of the Senate on the deletion of the part of the provisions of § 11 (1) 3 of the law on
regions. Subsequently, he was in a vote on individual amendments
the amendment approved by the Senate, as from the present 64
Senators voted for 55 and nobody was against. This was followed by a vote on the
the draft amendment to the Act on the back regions of the Chamber of Deputies with
adopted amendments. However, this proposal was not accepted, because of the
65 senators present for the vote 20 and against were 4 Senators. In
accordance with the rules of procedure of the Chamber by the negotiations on the draft amendment to the law on
lands end, and in the absence of a resolution of the Senate proposal was
amendment to the Act on regions adopted under art. 46 para. 3 of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC to the expiration of
thirty days after the referral of the Senate.
The Senate, therefore, stated that it is up to the Constitutional Court to the constitutionality of the
under the provisions of § 11 (1) 3 of the Act on regions considered.
The Ministry of Interior of the CZECH REPUBLIC (hereinafter referred to as "the Ministry") in its observations
pointed out that the concept of "matrimonial property" is explained in the commentary
to section 54 of the Criminal Code (ASPI). States that this term is
It occurs quite often in the legal order, and that-in addition to section 83 of the Act on
The Constitutional Court--especially in Act No. 140/1961 Coll., the criminal code, in the
as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the "criminal code"). Pursuant to § 54 para.
1 of the criminal code, the Court shall take into account in the area of financial penalty to the
the personal wealth of the offender and in fact podstatách
the offences set out in § 129 or in section 256c of the criminal code.
This term is also found in Act No. 141/1961 Coll., on criminal
judicial proceedings (code of criminal procedure), as amended by later regulations (hereinafter referred to as
"criminal procedure code"), specifically in section 73a of the paragraph. 2 (a). and in paragraph 91), para. 1 and in
§ 309 para. 1, the provisions of section 450 of the Act No. 40/1964 Coll., the civil
code, as amended by later regulations (hereinafter referred to as "the o.z."), and finally in the
article. 13 Convention on international access to justice (communication of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs No 58/2001 Coll.). The Ministry therefore concludes that
If the fact that the courts according to law shall take into account in the area of
a financial penalty to the personal wealth of the offender, and has not been
found to be unconstitutional, then it should not be considered as unconstitutional or
If the County pursuant to the provisions of § 11 (1) 3 of the Act on regions in the
determination of the amount of the fine which may be imposed for-breach of the obligation
laid down by a law the County up to $200,000 to a legal person
and a natural person who is an entrepreneur-takes into account as well as to the reasonableness of the amount of the
the fine due to the wealth of the person who is offending
acts committed. The Ministry also pointed out that the law
by establishing criteria for the amount of the fine in the provisions of § 11 (1) 3 of the law on
regions (one of them express the words "as well as to the adequacy of the
the amount of the fine because of the wealth of the person who is offending
having ") gives a guarantee that these criteria are mandatory when
the imposition of fines to all without distinction and when using them, therefore, it was not a
the unequal treatment of persons who have committed the same infringement
the negotiations.
Finally, the Ministry added that in the preparation of the new wording of section 11 (1) 3
the Government's draft law, it takes into consideration the views of the Constitutional Court
raised in connection with various cases, especially with
the views contained in the Constitutional Court announced under no. 405/2002
SB.; was to exclude such action to the property of the perpetrator of the offence, in the
as a result of which would be "destroyed" property base for its further
business activities, and eliminate the serious impacts not only on the person
delinquent, but also to other members of his household. In this way, you can
refer to the resolution of the plenum of the Constitutional Court under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 47/95.
The intention was therefore to avoid the imposition of fines occurred in liquidation
the amount, which would, in principle, the toughest case of the
matrimonial property regimes. This would at the same time could lead to a violation of article 6(1). 26 paragraph 2.
1 of the Charter, as well as to the violation of the right to own property under art. 11 (1)
1 of the Charter and article. 1 of the additional protocol to the Convention on the protection of human
rights and fundamental freedoms, according to which States may adopt laws,
as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.
It was also the intention to prevent the infringement of article 81(1). 1 of the Charter, since the imposition of a fine
in the liquidation amount would cause major inequality operators in the field of
social (cf. find Constitutional Court promulgated under no. 169/1995 Coll., or
the resolution of the plenum of the Constitutional Court under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/02).
III.
Custom analysis of things
The plaintiffs are the examination of the proposal to seek the annulment of part of the provisions of § 11
paragraph. 3 of the Act on regions as expressed by the words "as well as to the reasonableness of the amount of the
the fine due to the wealth of the person who is offending
having ".
1. The Constitutional Court from the report on 47. a meeting of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament
The CZECH REPUBLIC found that of 26 May. in March 2002, the draft law no 231/2002 Coll.
amending and supplementing the law on regions (hereinafter the ' draft law No.
231/2002 Coll. "), approved by the required majority of members (for voted 94
members of Parliament, against 65 members). Of the 17 reports. the meeting of the third term of Office
the period of the Senate, the Constitutional Court found that the 10 June. may
2002 was the amendment of the Senate committees on the deletion of part of the provisions
§ 11 (1) 3 of the Act on regions as expressed by the words "as well as to the adequacy of the
the amount of the fine because of the wealth of the person who is offending
having "the necessary majority of Senators approved (for votes
55 senators, against no one). Proposal on return of draft law no 231/2002
Coll., as amended by the House of representatives adopted amendments, however,
has not been received (from the present 65, 20 Senators for, 4 against the senators).
According to the rules of procedure of the Senate to adopt a resolution of the Senate, acting on a proposal
Act No. 231/2002 Coll. and in accordance with the provisions of article 8(1). 46 para.
3 (a). 1 of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC was the draft law no 231/2002 Coll., the expiry of the
thirty days (in which the Senate did not express) accepted. The Bill was then
No 231/2002 Coll., signed the constitutional factors and properly declared in the collection
laws in the amount of 87 which was sent out on 16. May 2002.
2. a factual page, specifically, the appellants argue (as is evident from the
the content of the draft), and that the legislation in that part of the provisions of section
11 (1) 3 of the Act on regions is in the legal order established the inequality of persons,
that engage in the infringement in various areas of public
the Administration, on the one hand (even if by strengthening the effectiveness of the sanctions imposed by the
or defense against the excesses of the free thoughts of an administrative authority) so that
cannot be held unconstitutional. Therefore, they consider that the contested
part of that provision is not in line with the constitutional order of the CZECH REPUBLIC, as
its acceptance by the violation of constitutionally guaranteed equality in the rights
(article 1 of the Charter), the prohibition of discrimination (article 3, paragraph 1, of the Charter), the right to
Privacy (article 7, paragraph 1, of the Charter and the right to privacy (article 10
paragraph. 2 and 3 of the Charter).
A. the Constitutional Court dealt with primarily by whether it is part of the provisions of § 11
paragraph. 3 of the Act on regions as expressed by the words "as well as to the reasonableness of the amount of the
the fine due to the wealth of the person who is offending
acts committed "in breach of article. 1 and article. 3 (2). 1 of the Charter, to which the
the plaintiffs allege.
and Of the related provisions of §) 11 (1) 1 of the Act on regions suggests that
the County may impose a fine up to 200 000 Eur, if the legal person
individual entrepreneur or a breach of an obligation (in the separate
the scope of or in the field by the County), which is
laid down in the specific regulation (Decree, regulation) of the region.
The text, which is a group of members of Parliament sought to cancel (i.e..
the words "as well as to the adequacy of the amount of the fine because of the wealth
the person who committed the infringement "), is part of section 11 (1)
3 of the Act on regions, which reads as follows: "in determining the amount of the fine
referred to in paragraph 1 shall take into account, in particular, to the region of the nature, severity, time
the duration and consequences of the offence, as well as to the reasonableness of the amount of the
the fine due to the wealth of the person who is offending
acts committed. " This provision builds on the above provisions
§ 11 (1) 1 of the Act, which reads: "the County may impose a fine of up to
to the amount of 200 000,-a legal person and a natural person who is
an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the "person"), the Commission infringed the obligation
law of the region ". That provision is not challenged.
(b)) according to art. 1 of the Charter, people are free and equal in dignity and in the
rights. The fundamental rights and freedoms are inalienable, not subject to alienation,
nepromlčitelné and non-cancelable. According to the article. 3 (2). 1 of the Charter of fundamental
rights and freedoms, guarantees to all without distinction of sex, race, color,
skin, language, faith and religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, membership of a national or
ethnic minority, property, birth or other status.
Of the application for revocation of that text is evident, that the appellants, inter
others point to the incompatibility of the application point of view to matrimonial property regimes
for the assessment of the adequacy of the determination of the amount of the fine with the guarantee of the basic
rights and freedoms in accordance with the provisions of article cited. 1 and article. 3 (2). 1
Of the Charter.
It can be said, that the equality within the meaning of article 87(1). 1 of the Charter is not settled
the case-law of the Constitutional Court understood abstractly, but in relation to the
the dignity and the rights of man, without privileges, and without discrimination
(e.g. property). The Association has already pointed out, the Constitutional Court
Czechoslovakia, which stated that "the equality of citizens before the law was not perceived as a
an abstract category, but has always been attributed to specific legal standard,
conceived in the ratio between the different actors, etc. . Equality
the relative, as they have in mind all the modern Constitution requires only
Elimination of unjustified differences. Special standards can for certain
specific criteria equality of scopes that the General
the principle does not, because the applications are not established the principle of equality
so the precise limits to avoid any any discretion of those who
apply "(see find TC CSFR pl. TC 22/92 In: collection of resolutions and findings.
The Constitutional Court of the CSFR No. 1, year 1992, finding no 11, pp. 37-38).
The Constitutional Court concludes that the provision of section 11 (1) 3 of the Act on regions
used the word "especially" expresses the demonstrative nature of the criteria to
which the region takes into account when establishing the amount of the fine (must watch). Verbal
the turnover of the "securities" should be interpreted in conjunction with the words
"in particular" and "as well as", so the law does not exclude the possibility to consider
other conditions of the person than the outlawed its equity ratios. The constitutional
the Court notes that the legislature adopted diction presents from
grammatical point of view rather than the best solution, but can be in
accordance with the principle of minimizing interference into the legal order of the Constitutional Court
bridge the constitutionally-Conformal interpretation of naříkané standards. The fact that the
the legislature in demonstrativním enumeration of criteria, which must be in the region of the
the imposition of fines take into account objective criteria, ranked next to (nature,
the severity, duration and consequences of the infringement) only one
the subjective nature of the criterion (delinquent assets) cannot be understood
as the ban on non-region, in order to be properly taken into
account of other circumstances of the person than the outlawed its equity ratios.
The examination of the matrimonial property regime is in the Czech legal order (by analogy,
as in the legal systems of other advanced countries), moreover, enshrined in
number of connections (not only as a criterion for the adequacy of the sanctions to be imposed on)
and according to the beliefs of the Constitutional Court is unable to and interpret the ab initio
as unconstitutional because it introduces inequality in dignity and rights.
If the plaintiffs claim that by introducing criteria of matrimonial property regimes in the
deciding on the amount of the penalty occurs to possible discrimination based on property,
i.e.. a breach of the principle of equality, it is necessary to reject this claim.
The Constitutional Court consistently judikuje that does not understand equality as an absolute,
but as a relative (and incidental in relation to other fundamental
rights and freedoms). With the concept of relative equality closely related concept
the proportionality of the interference with the fundamental rights. From the nature of the fine, as
proprietary sanctions necessarily implies that it has to be individualised and
proportionate, and must reflect the matrimonial property regime, the punished. The same
the amount of the fine imposed majetnému will appear to be ridiculous and ineffective,
While in the case of recourse may be a poor drakonicky and
ruinously. There is therefore no breach of the principle of relative equality, when two
persons in different situations will be fined at different levels, even if
the only difference in their situation should be just different property
ratios. From the substantive point of view (purpose of the law) can even be concluded
that the criterion of examination for the matrimonial property regime delinquent when considering the amount of
the fine imposed is necessary and complementary-but not because
heavy fines would be unenforceable (as claimed by the Chamber of Deputies),
but due to the risk of "winding-up" effect of unreasonably high fines.
Fine as a penalty must be differentiated, so that effective
as a punishment and as a deterrence (individual and general prevention).
The Constitutional Court has already said some time ago that the "egalitarian universalism would
necessarily evoked a deeply dysfunctional social effects "(cf. find SP. zn.
PL CS 4/95-In: Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic: a collection of findings and resolutions
-Volume 3. Release 1. Prague c. h. Beck, 1995, p. 215). The issue of
the adequacy of the assets of sanctions in relation to personal circumstances
of persons with the Constitutional Court dealt with in detail in its finding
SP. zn. Pl. TC 3/02, to which it points, and considers it necessary to
emphasize that even in this finding, noted that "the penalty may be
compatible with the article. 11 of the Charter and article. 1 of the additional protocol if the
allows-at least to some extent-to take into account the material situation
delinquent "(cf. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/02-In: Constitutional Court of the Czech
States: a collection of findings and resolutions-sv. 27, c. h. Beck, 2002, p. 187).
B. the Constitutional Court emphasises that part of the provisions of § 11 (1) 3 of the law on
regions in the words "as well as to the adequacy of the amount of the fine because of the
wealth of the person who committed the infringement "
does not constitute an unconstitutional interference with the principle of equality in rights.
The appellants are wrong when they claim that "aspect of the proportionality of the amount of the fine
wealth of the person who committed the offence,
It is not expressed or other standards of the legal system of the Czech Republic,
governing administrative offences ". Examination of the circumstances of a person with
can be within the legal system to meet more frequently, for example. the provisions of § 83 para. 1
the law on the Constitutional Court ("if justified by personal and financial circumstances
the complainant, in particular, does not have sufficient resources to pay the costs
associated with the representation of ... the judge rapporteur shall, on application
the complainant submitted before the first hearing, that the cost of its
representation fully or partly to pay State. "), the provisions of § 31 para. 1
the Criminal Code ("when determining the type of punishment and its acreage into account
the Court ... to remedial options and circumstances of the offender. "), in § 54 para. 1
the Criminal Code ("in the area of financial penalty, the Court shall take into account the
personal and property circumstances of the offender. "), in section 73a of the paragraph. 2 of the criminal
procedure ("acceptance of bail is permissible, while taking into account
to the person and the wealth of the accused or the guy who for him the composition
financial guarantees it offers ... "), the provision of section 91 paragraph 2. 1 code of criminal procedure
("Before the first interrogation of the accused should be to identify, inquire
with him on his family, property and Ministry opportunities and previous
punishments ... "), at § 309 para. 1 of the criminal procedure code (approval of the settlement and
stopping criminal prosecution in addition to meeting the conditions laid down therein
can also be given "to the person of the accused and his personal and property
conditions "), the provisions of section 450 of the civil code (allowing for
reduction of damages taking into account, inter alia, "to; personal and property
conditions of a natural person ", which caused the damage" to the conditions of the natural person
that has been damaged "), in the provisions relating to maintenance, in the Act
the family-the provisions of § 85 para. 2 ("according to their abilities, possibilities and
the matrimonial property regime "), § 89 (" abilities, possibilities and property
"), section 92 (" abilities, possibilities and means-tested "). In the area of
the imposition of fines for administrative offences can be used in this context to point out for example.
the law No. 15/1998 Coll., on the Securities and Exchange Commission (section 10, paragraph 4-"when
deciding on the choice of corrective measures or penalties under this Act
the Commission shall ... be based on reasonableness when imposing fines
due to the wealth of the person. ").
It is obvious that without the examination of personal, property and other ratios
the person to whom the relevant proceedings, in legislation, in many cases,
You cannot bypass. The examination of the law "relationships" entrepreneurial natural
person or legal entity as such, therefore, is not based on the belief
The Constitutional Court-by editing the unconstitutional and does not introduce inequality in
dignity and in their rights, as the appellants submit. The Constitutional Court in the
this context, points out that knowledge of the circumstances of the person concerned
(delinquent) it is necessary to assume even in the case of judicial review
the county authority's decisions imposing a fine-that is, in the opinion
a group of MPs adequate protection-because if the judicial review
to protect against the possible impact of the tvrdostem Act (unlimited jurisdiction
then in particular), nor the Court without information about the circumstances of the people,
which was fine.
The Constitutional Court also does not hold the view that the law imposed on the examination of the
matrimonial property regimes, legal entities and natural persons, which is
an entrepreneur (§ 11 (1) of the Act on regions) to create "the basis for the
impermissible and unconstitutional the unequal treatment of persons with
committed identical infringements ". A group of Deputies as a reason
lists the different interpretation and application necessarily of the term "matrimonial property",
and it is in this regard that can act as a person in a legal,
and the physical person. In this context, the Constitutional Court considered
crucial that, in Mr. things in the case of legal entities and physical
a person who is an entrepreneur (cf. section 11, paragraph 3, of the Act on regions)
This is a similar bodies, since, in terms of their status, in
the criterion to consider their business activities and the financial situation of the
resulting and related. The matrimonial property regime should therefore be
interpret as well and there is no reason to distinguish between those bodies.
Arguments of a group of MPs the opinion of the Constitutional Court (a contrario)
referred to under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 47/95 in fine (In: Constitutional Court of the Czech
States: a collection of findings and resolutions-volume 5. Release 1. Prague, C. H.
Beck 1997, p. 213) it is therefore considered that the status-when saving
fines to legal persons and natural persons in relation to the
such persons could not lead to a different interpretation of the concept of "securities
ratios "-does not arise.
C. the Constitutional Court therefore concluded that the examination of the property
the ratios of the region was the authority unconstitutional encroachment on the privacy of physical
a person who is an entrepreneur, and unauthorized data collection about her
and that would be a violation of article existed. 7. para. 1 and article. 10, paragraph 1. 2 and
paragraph. 3 of the Charter, members of the group even closer does not specify.
So it naturally is not even for legal persons. In this context, can be
to refer to the Act No. 101/2000 Coll. on the protection of personal data and on amendments
certain laws, as amended by later regulations (hereinafter referred to as ' law No.
101/2000 Sb. "), which in paragraph 4 (b). and talk about the concept of ') personal
the indication ' (essentially to determine the identity of the data subject) and
under subparagraph (b)) talk about sensitive data which specifically
calculates, with property data between them. Under the provisions of
§ 5 para. 2 of the Act (i.e., the Manager and the authorities of the region-see section 3
paragraph. 1 of the law) can handle. § 1 and § 4 (b). (e)) of the personal
information with the consent of the data subject. Without this consent, you may
handle the § 5 para. 2 (a)) of the Act, if the processing
established by a special law or necessary for the performance of obligations
established by a special law (příkladmo to some law refers).
The Constitutional Court considers that such a special law is the Act on regions
(in the contested section), and that the activity of the region (the amount of the zvažujícího
fines and due to the circumstances of delinquent) is a processing of personal data
within the meaning of the cited provisions of the law No. 101/2000 Coll., a similar opinion on the
circuit cases in which consent of the data subject pursuant to § 5 para. 2 of the Act
No. 101/2000 Coll. must not, can be inferred from the literature (cf.
Mates, p.: protection of personal data. Charles University in Prague. Karolinum 2002, page.
48).
As for the cited law No. 101/2000 Coll., but you can argue-and
it in the first place-i concentrate. Indeed, the Act defines in ust. §
1 (subject to adjustments) its personal scope so that it relates to the
the protection of personal data of individuals. Therefore, it does not protect legal persons.
As regards natural persons, who are entrepreneurs-and which are
subject to the provisions. section 11 of the Act on regions whose part is attacked-can be
to conclude, as well as in terms of their status, in
the distinguishing criterion to consider their business activity. Data on the
This activity (as in the case of legal entities)-according to the
opinion of the Constitutional Court-protection in accordance with Act No. 101/2000 Sb.
do not benefit from.
For all these reasons, the Constitutional Court a group of MPs at the Cancel
parts of the text of the provisions of § 11 (1) 3 of the Act on regions in the words "as well as the
and the adequacy of the amount of the fine because of the wealth of the person who
infringement committed "under the provisions of section 70 para. 2
the law on the Constitutional Court rejected.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v.r.
