236/2011 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic of
The Constitutional Court under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 9/06 decided on 12 April. July 2011, in
plenary in the composition of Stanislav Duchoň, Franz Package, Vlasta Formankova,
Turgut Güttler, Ivana Janů, Vladimir Crust, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jiří
Mucha, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodým, Pavel Rychetský, Miloslav Výborný,
Elisabeth Wagner and Michael April about the design of the regional court in Brno,
for who is chairwoman of the Senate 31 Ca JUDr. Jaroslav Skoumalová, on
repeal of provisions of article. In the second sentence of section 1 of Act No. 260/2002 Coll.
amending Act No 191/1999 Coll., on measures concerning
import, export and re-export of goods infringing some rights
intellectual property and amending certain other acts, as amended by
Act No. 121/2000 Coll., Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income tax, in the
as amended, Act No. 593/1992 Coll., on reserves for
the findings of the corporate tax base, in wording of later regulations, and act
No 569/1991 Coll., on the plot of the Czech Republic, as amended by
amended, with the participation of the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament
the Republic and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic as parties to proceedings
as follows:
The provisions of article. In the second sentence of section 1 of Act No. 260/2002 Coll., which
amended Act No. 191/1999 Coll., on measures relating to the import, export and
the re-export of goods infringing certain intellectual property rights
and amending certain other acts, as amended by Act No. 121/2000 Coll.
Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended,
Act No. 593/1992 Coll., on reserves for the findings of the corporate tax base,
in the wording of later regulations, and Act No. 569/1991 Coll., on Plots
Fund of the Czech Republic, as amended, shall be abolished on the date of
the publication of this finding in the statute book.
Justification
(I).
Recap of the proposal
1. On 29. February 2008 the Constitutional Court was instituted by the regional court
in Brno (hereinafter referred to as the "District Court") for annulment of the provisions of the second sentence of point
1 article. In Act No. 260/2002 Coll., amending Act No. 191/1999 Coll., on the
measures concerning the import, export and re-export of goods
infringing certain intellectual property rights and amendments
other laws, as amended by Act No. 121/2000 Coll., Act No. 586/1992 Coll.
on income tax, as subsequently amended, Act No. 593/1992 Coll.,
on reserves for the findings of the corporate tax base, as amended
regulations, and Act No. 569/1991 Coll., on the plot of the Czech Republic,
in the wording of later regulations. A regional court in its proposal states that
hearing an action, which the applicant seeks annulment of the decision
Tax Directorate in Brno from day 5. 12.2005 No. 3181/05/ANALYSIS
110-0107, as well as his previous decision to the tax office Brno
(II) of 9 June 2005. 12.2005 No. 178259/04289913/9780 which was the plaintiff
levied income tax for the tax period of the year 2002 in the amount of $87 028.
Action by the contested decision the defendant and administrative authority of first instance
against the tax, the applicants on the basis of the application article. (IV) and article. In point 1 of the law
No 260/2002 Coll., which a change was made to Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on the
income taxes. In proceedings before the regional court while the defendant
administrative authority delivered its opinion (see no. l. 45 and 46 judicial record sp.
Zn. 31 Ca 27/2006), in which he stated that, as the authority of the Executive was not
in administrative proceedings shall be entitled to assess the consistency of regulation of the lower legal force
with the law or compliance of the law with the constitutional order, although it was in
the administrative procedure the applicant requested. The defendant as an administrative authority is not
open for submission to the Constitutional Court to abolish the law or the
its individual provisions and the law did not permit the defendant, as well
as neither the tax administrators in the first degree, a different procedure when assessing the article. In
the second sentence of section 1 of Act No. 260/2002 Coll., for interpretation of
the provision is ambiguous.
2. Also the regional court in the present case before it came to the conclusion that the
the contested provisions of article. In point 1, the second sentence is based right
the retroactive effect, that there has been a fundamental disadvantage of individuals
trading in securities, and a simple system using double-
accounting. He pointed out the finding of 12 October. 3.2002, SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
33/01 (see below), in a similar case in which the Constitutional Court has come to the
the conclusion on the neústavnosti application of retroactive tax legislation. Therefore,
the regional court of actions interrupted in accordance with § 48 para. 1 (b). and)
Code of civil procedure of administrative and handed according to art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the United
Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") proposal to assess the constitutional conformity
the provisions of article. In the second sentence of section 1 of Act No. 260/2002 Coll.
II.
Representation of the parties
3. the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom expressed its
Chairman Ing. Miloslav Vlček, who was limited to a mere description of the course
discussion of the draft Act No. 260/2002 Coll., noted that the proposal
(The Chamber of Deputies. III. vol. period. Print no. 1267) was submitted to the Government
solely as a change of law no 191/1999 Coll. in the 2. reading on 23. 4.
2002 the contested provision was proposed as an amendment to the Knesset
Antonin Macháček. Bill was in the texts of amendments
approved 2. 5.2002 162 from 168 votes of present members. The nature of the
the proposed amendment, which is the issue of imports, exports and reverse
export of goods infringing certain intellectual property rights concerns,
the President of the Chamber of Deputies.
4. the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic expressed its Chairman MUDr.
Přemysl Sobotka. He stated that the draft of the Bill was referred to the
The Senate on 7 December. 5.2002. After discussion in the committees adopted the Senate on 18.
meeting of 24 April 2001. 5. the 2002 resolution, which expressed the will to the draft of this
the law does not deal. 51 voted for this proposal from 54 present Senators
and senátorek. Chairman of the Board, these data demonstrate appropriate documentation
from the acts of the institutions of the Senate.
III.
Formal conditions of discussing the proposal and the constitutionality of the legislative
procedure
5. The Constitutional Court has come to the conclusion that after the formal proposal is in
accordance with the requirements of article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution and § 64 para. 3 of Act No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as
"the law on the Constitutional Court"). In proceedings for annulment of the law is
the duties of the Constitutional Court must first examine whether the provision in question was
issued by the constitutionally prescribed manner (section 68, paragraph 2, of the law on the constitutional
of the Court). The proposal refers to the regional court of law, which the Court
immediately used in the solution of the case, i.e.. When deciding on administrative
the lawsuit led by before the regional court under SP. zn. 31 Ca 27/2006, and
on the assessment of the constitutionality of the proposal for the contested provisions of law No.
260/2002 Coll., the next steps depend of the applicant in this proceeding. The proposal was
authorized by the applicant, therefore, filed.
6. The contested provisions of Act No. 260/2002 Coll. (also for the law as
the whole) ruled constitutionally prescribed number of members of the Chamber of Deputies,
While the Senate constitutionally prescribed by the number of its members, expressed the will of the
draft law does not deal (see sub 3 and 4). President of the Republic law
signed 11. 6. the 2002 law was declared in the collection of laws on 28. 6.
2002 under no. 260/2002. The contested provision has not been changed. The proposal is
Therefore, admissible. The Constitutional Court in this connection, considers it necessary to
noted that did not consider it necessary to deal with the question of the nature of the amendment
the design of a Deputy Anthony Macháček, who at 49. the meeting of the
the Chamber of Deputies on 23 December 2005. 4. the 2002 "loaded" amendment to amend the draft
the law amending the Act No 191/1999 Coll., on measures in relation to
the import, export and re-export of goods infringing some rights
intellectual property and amending certain other acts, as amended by
Act No. 121/2000 Coll. points out on its findings in cases
reviews of the so-called. přílepků, which concluded in its findings, SP. zn. PL.
TC 77/06 of 15 July. 2.2007 (N 30/44 SbNU 349; 37/2007 Sb.) ^ * and in particular
SP. zn. PL. ÚS 55/10 of 1 March. 3.2011 (promulgated under no. 80/2006),
section 105 when he took into account not only the fact that this aspect is not in
the design of the regional court, listed as its mounting point, but in the wake of
to the case-law also that the proposal covers only part of the Act No.
260/2002 Coll., in addition, adopted at the time already considerably remote.
7. Similarly, it was necessary to take into account the fact that the proposal of the regional court
Although it is directed against the novelizujícímu, rather than novelizovanému the law [to the fact
from the case law see, in particular, find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/96 of 8 July. 10.1996
(N 98/6 SbNU 203; 286/1996 Coll.), resolution SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/2000
15.8. 2000 (27/19 SbNU 271) and find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 21/01 of 12 October.
2.2002 (N 14/25 SbNU 97; 95/2002 Coll.)]. The contested provisions of article. In point
1 the second sentence, however, is a provision on the entry into force of amended
the provisions of Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended by
amended, and Act No. 593/1992 Coll., on reserves for the detection
the tax base from income, as amended. Such
provisions has a separate meaning in contrast to the provisions of the Act on taxes
income [, in particular, the provisions of § 24 para. 2 (b). r) and w)] revised
Act No. 260/2002 Coll., which, however, are not the subject of judicial review
in this proceeding. There was also need to consider changes to the provisions
the income tax Act, as the regional court will assess the matter
According to the legal situation which is the subject of the proposal. The proposal is, therefore,
in this regard, tolerable.
8. Due to the fact that the present legal problems and also all the
the facts of the case were sufficiently obvious from the documentary
the supporting documents, the Constitutional Court according to § 44 para. 2 of the Act on the constitutional
the Court refrained from the oral proceedings, since it could not be expected
further clarification of the matter and the parties to the proceedings agree with dropping.
IV.
The assessment of the constitutionality of the provisions of the proposal
9. On this basis, after a review of the contested provisions of article. In point 1,
the second sentence of the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that the proposal is reasonable. The contested
the provisions as a whole:
"Article. In
Transitional provisions
1. for the tax liability for the years 1993 to 2001 the existing legal
regulations. The provisions of article IV, shall apply for the first time for the tax period
2002. ".
As already mentioned above, only the second sentence is attacked by this
the provisions, as a result of the amendment to the application
income tax for the tax year 2002, although according to the article. (IX)
Act No. 260/2002 Coll., this Act shall take effect up to 1. 9.2002. In
as a result of these provisions by the authorities of the financial intertemporálních
the administration required for the tax year 2002, apply in relation to the
the applicant in the proceedings before the regional court the following provisions
§ 24 para. 2 of the Act on income taxes, as amended by article. (IV) Law No.
260/2002 Coll., This provision (subject to review):
"10. In § 24 para. 2 the letter r) reads as follows:
"r) value of the securities when selling captured in the accounts in accordance
the special legislation ^ 20) on the date of its sale, with the exception of
referred to in subparagraphs (a) w)) ".
13. in § 24 para. 2 the letter w):
"w) the acquisition price of shares that is not valued in accordance with a special
^ law 20) at fair value, the acquisition price of the share on the
limited liability company or limited partnership, or
the team, and that's only to the amount of revenue from the sale of the shares or of the
share, ".".
10. The Constitutional Court is within the specific control of constitutionality of laws cannot
deal with your own subject of proceedings on administrative lawsuit, because it would
interfering with the independence of the judiciary performance general courts (here in
the administrative judiciary). His role is in the present case, to assess whether the
the application of the provisions of § 24 para. 2 (a). r) and w) Tax Act
income, as amended by Act No. 260/2002 Coll., has in terms of tax payer
the nature of the right claimed retroactive as from the beginning of the administrative
(vytýkacího) to control the applicant and how does it indeed, in this case
agree the defendant authority financial administration and regional court. whether you want
the nature of false-retroactivity, which under certain circumstances may be
also found the legislator institutional procedure.
11. The Constitutional Court States that the provisions in the amendment to the
income taxes (whether or not in relation to the Act No. 563/1991 Coll., on accounting, in the
the current version) in effect mean that in terms of section 24 of the Act on
income tax (in the version applicable to the tax year 2002) for
expenditure (costs) incurred to provide and maintain,
taxable income to determine your tax base (section 24 (1)) shall be deemed to
also the value of securities in a sale that was captured in the accounts in
accordance with the specific legislation (i.e. the Act on accounting) to
the date of sale, except as provided in subparagraphs (a) w) and of paragraph 2).
This means that the provisions of § 24 para. 2 (a). w), which is based on the
the acquisition price of the shares, and not from their real values, you must use the
for those who charge in the system of bookkeeping. This is because
under § 15 para. 6 of the Act on accounting, as amended, (at that time in
This provision is now cleared) is the entity that charges
in the system of bookkeeping shall not apply the provisions of § 7, 14, 27 and
28 of the Act on accounting. Because of section 27 of the Act on accounting, which
of the individual components of assets and liabilities at the time of the award pursuant to section 24 of the
paragraph. 2 (a). (b)) are valued at fair value, it meant that the
units using a simple accounting system (in this case
being the applicant in the case by the District Court under the SP. zn. 31 Ca
27/2006) cannot use this costing method. Decisive for them because
should be the acquisition share price rather than its real value. In the case of
the shares have been sold by the so-called. under price, the difference could not be for
tax year 2002, recognized as a tax loss in accordance with § 24 para. 1
the law on income tax, as in the sense of § 24 para. 2 (a). w)
This was an exception to the provisions of § 24 para. 2 (a). r), pursuant to which the
In contrast, the expenditure was also the value of securities "in the sale of the captured
in the accounts in accordance with the specific legislation on the date of its
the sale ", and a special regulation was necessary to understand the above
the provisions of the accounting Act. In this context it should be emphasised that the
It reflected not only to balance the management of the business units
using double-in the system of bookkeeping, but also to their
other payment obligations (e.g. in terms of payment of health and
social insurance).
12. The Constitutional Court considers it necessary to recall here that this programme
became effective in the course of 2002, namely from 1. 9. in 2002, and
should apply for the tax year 2002. Of crucial importance in terms of
the assessment of the constitutionality of the application of possible false-retroactivity (closer
Sub 14 to 16), however, has an additional circumstance. Substantial in terms of reviews
the constitutionality of the procedure of the legislature in this regard in relation to the status of payers
income tax using double-bookkeeping system is
the provisions of § 9 para. 4 of the Act on accounting, as amended, for the year
2002. It was true that the transition from the system of bookkeeping
in double-entry accounting system is required, if the accounting
the unit must meet the conditions laid down pursuant to paragraph 2 or 3 to
in the system of bookkeeping accounting, with the fulfilment of the conditions
set out under paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be assessed for the immediate
the previous accounting period. In doing so, "Transitions according
the previous sentences are possible only to the 1. day of the accounting period,
following the accounting period in which the entity has determined
above. ". In this context, § 23 para. 10 of the law on taxes
the income stated that when determining the tax base is based on the
the accounts maintained by a special legal regulation, IE. According to the
of the above, the provisions of § 9 of the accounting Act, which implies that the
during the year 2002, or retrofitted at a later time, it was not possible to calculate the basis
taxes in the system of double-entry accounting, and thus compensate for the cumulative
losses and gains from the sale of securities as before. In other words, in
tax year 2002, not the entity using the system
a simple accounting ability to respond to unexpected change in the law on
income taxes. If it is legally possible to make transitions between
simplified and full range of accounts only on the first day
of the accounting period, had such a taxpayer income tax option
customize their accounts in addition to the conditions set in the course of
in 2002. In addition, this amendment was hidden in the Act is completely different
subject to editing. According to § 1 (1). 1 of law no 191/1999 Coll., as amended by
Act No. 260/2002 Coll., the Act primarily regulates the conditions,
under which the Customs Office implements measures against persons who
owned, held, stored or sold the goods to which they are violated
intellectual property rights in the customs territory of the European communities,
as well as in the protection of the internal market.
13. in accordance with article 6(1). 1 (1). the Constitution is the duty of the State authorities in the
deciding on the legal position of the individual in accordance with the
the demand for the rule of law. These include the requirement to
State may require from the natural and legal persons whose behavior
the rules are established and announced in advance. Another procedure, if there are
This particularly serious reasons is a violation of the principle of legal certainty and the
protection of trust in the law, as is apparent from article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution. In a given
If no such reason is found to be not in the course of the legislative and
the process of, or have been formulated. The amending proposal containing the contested
the provision was "loaded" without it, he would have been somehow on a legally
relevantly justified. Such a procedure of the legislature at the same time represents
interference with the protection of property rights under art. 11 (1) 1 in conjunction with the
article. 11 (1) 5 the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms ("the Charter").
At the same time such action is discriminatory, since it lacks justification
the distinction between entities in relation to the system of a simple
accounting (could not appreciate the fair value of the shares and not so
apply any loss for tax purposes) and entities
relation in the system of double-entry bookkeeping. By the legislature at the same time
violated the requirement of equality of content and protection of property rights of all
owners without distinction according to art. 11 (1) at the same time he founded the inequality
in terms of the right to do business and engage in other economic activities
According to the article. 26 paragraph 2. 1 of the Charter, thereby violating article. 4 (4). 3 of the Charter.
14. with regard to the legal position of the taxpayer in the present case,
It should be noted that the Constitutional Court did not find in terms of factual
circumstances, the full analogy with the situation, which the judge in the case
the provisions of article retroaktivního. III (1) of Act No. 209/1997 Coll., which
are changing and supplementing Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended by
amended. In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 33/01, which is the regional
the Court relied on, it was the determination of the new duties, which the tax
the taxpayer could not assume at the beginning of the tax period. In the now
the present case, there was an intervention in the legal status (and thus to the
disadvantages) of the payer of income tax, while the taxpayer is this
intervention in the legal qualification of his legal proceedings could not subsequently
Customize with regard to that, so he had to make before the law
fixed accounting and tax period for 2002. In terms of the
However, assessment of the constitutional law on the matter relate just
the conclusions in the cited award SP. zn. PL. ÚS 33/01 of 12 October. 3.
2002 (N 28/25 SbNU 215, 221 and 225; 145/2002 Coll.) The Constitutional Court and the
which again confirmed in the establishment of rules for the procedure of the legislature when the
time conflicts of old and new legislation in the award SP. zn. PL.
TC 53/10 of 19 April 1996. 4.2011 (promulgated under no. 119/2010 Sb.), see sections
114 to 149. This legal opinion of the Constitutional Court had to apply in
the present case. The concept of tax policy is a matter for the State, which
Specifies what will be the tax burden on the taxpayer's particular taxation and how to
adjusts its obligations in connection with the verification of the correct assessment of the
the tax. Such search and respond to changing conditions to demonstrate the development of the
the legislation contained in sections 23 and 24 of the Act on income taxes in their
series of amendments from 1993 to 2002. Even in this extent
the legislative discretion is, however, the duty of the legislature to respect
the rules arising from the content of the principle of the rule of law (article 1, paragraph 1,
The Constitution), as well as from related constitutionally guaranteed basic
rights and freedoms in the region, i.e.. in particular, from article. 11 (1) 1 and 5, and article. 26
Of the Charter. Similarly, it should be pointed out the requirement of compliance with the rules of sound
the legislative process of which the infringement in the present case (here to load
the amendment without ties to the Government a draft law amending the
Act No. 191/1999 Coll., on measures relating to the import, export and
the re-export of goods infringing certain intellectual property rights
and amending some other acts) to unconstitutional modification opened the way.
Moreover, in this context, the Constitutional Court has pointed out that a question of trust
in the right lies not only in the fact that the legislature does not adopt laws,
that will change, the effects of legal action by their addressees, but also in the
trust that these recipients are from possible excesses of the legislature
protected constant case law of the Constitutional Court. This is especially true in
present case, where the contested provisions of Act No. 260/2002 Coll.
taken immediately after the Constitutional Court in a similar case such
How to qualify as unconstitutional.
15. Finally, the Constitutional Court of the petitioner's allegations about the dedicated
retroaktivitě the contested legislation. The contested adjustment was approved to
24.5. 2002, the validity of acquired 28. 6.2002 and from 1. 9.2002,
and should apply for the tax year 2002. In the case of
the adoption of the legislation during the tax period and its application on
the same tax year. In this case, however, the character of retroaktivního
of action is unique; with comparative reference to the case-law
The Federal Constitutional Court [e.g., decision of 19 March 2003. 12.1961
BVerfGE sv. 13, p. 261; of 14 July 1999. 5.1986, SP. zn. 2 BvL 2/83, BVerfGE
SV. 72, s. 200] such a procedure, the Constitutional Court without further does not rank as a
the retroactive effect right. While the right is the legal standards;
admissible only exceptionally, in the case of retroactive false is
considered the case law and the theory of mind, that its use (in particular in the area of
tax law) is permitted in principle, but only in the specific
on the contrary, being exceptional cases. Fake is in;
the field of tax legislation with respect to its mission, the permissible
then, if this is necessary to achieve the objective pursued by the law and if it can be
the Court concludes that, in the overall measurement "disappointed with" confidence in the law and
importance and urgency of the changes has been retained for reasons of legal boundaries
load capacity [cf. in detail find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 53/10 of 19 April 1996. 4.
2011 (promulgated under no 119/2007 Coll.), paragraphs 144-149].
16. now the facts, however, the Constitutional Court finds that such reasons
for exceptional conclusion about constitutional inadmissibility false-retroactivity are
Danes. Accessing a discriminatory nature of the contested conclusions on the
the modifications that would be sufficient in themselves to the conclusion about the need to cancel
the contested provision. In the present case, the legislature does not justify,
that there existed serious reasons stipulated that as a tax loss
the sale of shares at a loss, may apply for the specified conditions
only business units using double-entry accounting system. Only
to them should be subject to the rules of section 27 para. 2 of the accounting Act,
that determine what is required to understand the real value of the securities
(market value, valuation or expert,
If the market value is not available or does not sufficiently represents the
the fair value, or valuation provided for under special laws
the rules, if you cannot follow the rules determining the market value, or
based on expert opinion). On the contrary, the business units using
a simple accounting system should in future (but already for
tax year 2002) covered by Act No. 260/2002 Coll.
the amended rules § 24 para. 2 (a). w), which should be of
acquisition (the so called historical) stock price or the share purchase price of the share on the
limited liability company or limited partnership, or
the team, and that's only to the amount of revenue from the sale of the shares or of the
the share. For their case, the legislature retroactively ruled out that these accounting
the drive could take account of the loss-making sale of the securities. In the meantime,
could tax subjects using a simple accounting system
their legal proceedings (trading securities) to expect that
will be able to apply the loss from the sale of securities in the following
three years as expenditure within the meaning of § 23 para. 1 of the Tax Act
income. As a result of the contested provisions, however, each individual
loss on sale of shares has become a tax-neuznatelnou, as well as already
It was not possible in the sale of more shares in the tax period cumulatively
to compensate for the losses and gains in terms of section 24 of the Act on income taxes.
This conclusion is confirmed by the course of tax and court proceedings in the matter,
that gave rise to the decision of the Constitutional Court and implies
that is not possible, another, IE. constitutional interpretation of the
provisions. Therefore, even this procedure in the present case, the legislature must be
be considered as a breach of the legitimate expectation of the taxpayer in the right,
Since it is necessary to take into account the other aspects of the unconstitutionality of the contested
provisions (paragraphs 14 and 15). If the legislature imposes the tax payers and the
units, for example. the obligation to adhere to the rules they've chosen for
set out the accounting and the tax period on its origin (here the management
accounting in a certain system, submission of tax return based on
posting in the previously selected system, the inability to bring additional tax
return in the course of a tax audit, as it benefited from the law on
accounting, of the law on income tax and the law on the administration of taxes and
fees, in the version applicable in the year 2002, and of the implementing regulations thereto
issued), the legislature itself in terms of the rule of law, this
the rules for such period also respect and do not change it without
for serious reasons chargeable to tax payer, that accounting and
the tax year it with confidence in the law. The legislature must therefore
respect this peculiarity of the tax law in the light of the problems
should accounting and tax collection were different reviews of the nature
tax-relevant facts during the financial year and the tax
period. In doing so, it should be stressed that, nor can the different reviews
the legal grounds for the calculation of taxes and the tax burden
only on what accounting system leads the taxpayer of its
accounting.
17. therefore, the Constitutional Court and the regional court upheld the proposal under section 70
paragraph. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court, the provisions of article. In paragraph 1(b). 1 second sentence
set aside. The decision was in accordance with the provisions of section 44 para. 2 of the law on
The Constitutional Court adopted with the consent of the participants without an oral hearing.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
* Note. Red: a collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, Volume 44,
find no 30, p. 349, promulgated under Act No. 37/2007 Sb.
