On The Proposal To Repeal § 174A Of The Act On Courts And Judges

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zrušení § 174a zákona o soudech a soudcích

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.
264/2005 Coll.

Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic

The Constitutional Court decided on 28 April 2005 in plenary, composed of JUDr.
Stanislav Balik, JUDr. Frantisek Duchon, Mgr. Vojen Güttler, Mgr.
Pavel Holländer, Mgr. Ivana Janu, Mgr. Lastovecká Dagmar, JUDr.
Jiri Mucha, Mgr. George Nykodým, JUDr. Pavel Rychetsky, Mgr.
Miloslav Vyborny, JUDr. Elizabeth and Mr. Wagner. Michael Židlická on the proposal
Prague High Court to annul § 174a of Act no. 6/2002 Coll., On
courts, judges, lay judges and state administration of courts and changing
some other laws (Act on Courts and judges Act), as amended


The petition is denied.

Recap draft

Application lodged under Article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter
"Constitution"), which the Constitutional Court received on 8 November 2004, the High Court in Prague
sought the annulment of § 174a of the Act no. 6/2002 Coll., on
courts, judges, lay judges and state administration of courts and changing
some other laws (Act on courts and judges), as amended
. The Supreme Court received the request of the applicant, PP, as
to determine the deadline for ordering a hearing in a case
Regional Court in Usti nad Labem, with reference to § 174a of the Act on Courts and Judges
. The High Court concluded that the cited provision is not in conformity with Article
. 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(hereinafter the "Convention"), with Art. 96 par. 1 of the Constitution, as Art. 36 para. 1
Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (the "Charter"). This procedure
therefore stayed with the fact that recourse to the Constitutional Court for annulment
cited provisions of the law on courts and judges.

The petitioner is aware that the provision aims to fulfill
constitutional right of a party to a hearing without undue delay
while law enforcement decisions on matters of party
without undue delay may not be reserved constitutional court, but it is possible
positive legislation which lays down the procedure as this
obtain rights directly in court general, however, the petitioner believes that the
contested provisions of the law on courts and judges is a constitutional right
implemented while other violations Convention, the Constitution and the Charter
rights guaranteed.

Petitioner alleges that the contested provisions primarily contradiction with the principle of independence of judges
enshrined in Art. 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention and Article. 36 para. 1 of the Charter
. The contested provision runs beside the desired result to be
competent court moved the business, as well as unintended consequence that
lies in the fact that he has other court orders regarding how to proceed further
. Given that the procedure usually applies the principle
arbitrary order (the judge himself chooses the individual process steps in the procedure make
), which is also part of the tactics of any judge
imposition of specific steps he touted a tactic that is given
foreign control. This is more a question of expediency than of constitutionality, but by the judges undermines the independence
. Significant constitutional terms, according
petitioner believes that by identifying very concrete step may
significantly determine the nature of further proceedings with a direct impact on the outcome
. The appellate court, appellate court, but the Constitutional Court also reviewed the procedural steps
courts (eg. § 212a paragraph.
5 of the Civil Procedure Code), it is, however, a review of progress in matters
been discontinued, and is not to influence the subsequent procedure. Also
not evaluate the suitability and availability of individual process steps, but only
question whether the procedure was conducted in accordance with the Constitution, the Charter and
procedural rules. In the case of the contested provisions regarding the identification procedure
open, things still undecided. Because it's affecting things
definition of further action, which has yet to lead to substantive
decision, it is an interference in the independence of the judge in his decision.
In doing so, the result will match thus streamlined court and do not
whoever it streamlined.

The petitioner further argued conflict with the constitutional principle of equality, both
generally within the meaning of Art. 1 of the Charter, and specifically in relation to judicial proceedings
within the meaning of Art. 96 par. 1 of the Constitution. This contradiction pointed to the example.
If one side makes a proposal by the contested provision, it is just me

Party. The other litigant has no right to design,
to the court in a case where she is also a party, express, and perhaps a
this proposal just learn. In doing so, she should have the right to express themselves
to the management procedure and communicate their ideas. The contested provision was intended
in favor of the person who is interested in the quickest possible completion
things. In effect, however, may lead to the fact that on the contrary the one who will be interested
delay the proceedings will be injected repeatedly unreasonable, unrealistic or even
seemingly serious-looking proposals, only to be repeatedly transferred the case
the superior court and could not proceed.
In this respect, the whole thing can turn against the principles which protect

The petitioner concluded that an action under § 174a of the Act on Courts and Judges
without further constitutionally possible and even desirable, but not
pursue the goal that the court was required within a certain period to make very specific || | procedural steps. It would only lead to a court which is in the management
unnecessary delays enjoined not to continue and
delays in the matter promptly acted without him under what path has || | take control. An example of positive legislation is
§ 79 of the Administrative Procedure Code, which imposed an obligation leads to the result and not the process
. Also, the Constitutional Court correctly determined
duty to leave promptly and immediate action, and did not establish how
has the court or administrative authority specifically to act (eg.
Summon the parties, to request documents, etc.).

At the hearing, the petitioner added, referring to its proposal
Supreme Court decision dated January 12, 2005 sp. Ref. 21 Cul
3/2004, in whose justification saw confirmation of some of their arguments


The proceedings and the recapitulation of observations of the

According to § 69 par. 1 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll., On the Constitutional Court, as amended
amended (hereinafter the "Law on the Constitutional Court")
proposal was sent to express the parties.

Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in its comments on the draft
stated that the reason adjustments § 174a of the Act on Courts and Judges
was insufficient protection against inaction and delays in judicial proceedings
which was criticized Czech Republic and the European court of human rights.
It was therefore proposed to replace the existing administrative review
handling complaints about delays in the proceedings to file an application for a deadline for implementation
procedural act, which would be decided by the court.
The explanatory memorandum to the Law on Courts and Judges noted
consistent with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and with international treaties to which the Czech Republic is bound
, as well as compatibility with the legal acts of the European Communities
. Deputies expressed the belief that
contested provision can not be considered to conflict with the principle of independence
enshrined in Art. 6 Sec. 1 of the Convention nor Article. 36 para. 1 of the Charter and Article
. 38 par. 2 of the Charter, which corresponds to Art. 6 of the Convention. In Art. 36 para. 4
is included authorization for legal regulation. The contested provision corresponds
also required by Article. 13 of the Convention, according to which everyone whose rights and freedoms granted
Convention are violated have an effective remedy
remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in | || official duties. The contested provision also meets the procedural
principle of equality of the parties under Art. 96 par. 1 of the Constitution, because
lets each participant or one who is a party and has
considers that his complaint about delays the proceedings were not properly handled,
file a motion for a deadline for the implementation of a procedural act for which
according to him, there are delays in the proceedings.

Deputies noted the formal aspect, the bill
promulgated under no. 192/2003 Coll., Amending Act no. 6/2002 Coll., On
courts, judges, lay judges and state administration
courts and amending certain other laws (Act on courts and judges), as amended
amended, Act no. 283/1993 Coll., on the Public Prosecutor
as amended, and certain other laws It was approved
Chamber of deputies on May 13, 2003 (for the 175
deputies voted in favor, 1 opposed). The Senate was delivered May 14, 2003 and

Was subsequently returned to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments, by
which was voted on 10 June 2003. It was approved bill
as submitted to the Senate, but the original draft in the version passed the Senate
. The proposal was adopted when the present 181 MPs were in favor
127 in favor, one against, the others abstained.
On 10 June 2003 the law was approved by the necessary majority of deputies
Deputies, was signed by the appropriate constitutional authorities and was duly promulgated

Conclusion of Deputies expressed the belief that the law is
in accordance with the Constitution and the legal order. At the same time he said that he agreed with
fact that the Constitutional Court refrained in this case from the hearing.

Czech Senate first briefly summarized the contents of the draft
High Court in Prague and later said the reasons behind the adoption
background of § 174a of the Act on Courts and Judges.
The main reason for its adoption was to meet
European Court for Human Rights because, in the opinion of this court's protection
court's inactivity or delays in proceedings insufficient.
As a means of effective remedies to speed up the trial, respectively.
to eliminate delays in the proceedings was proposed institute a deadline for the implementation
procedural act systematically included in the Law on Courts and Judges.
Provisions of § 174a of the Act on Courts and Judges described as
simple procedural rule, which is essentially common to both
criminal or civil proceedings, as well as for administrative justice.

In addition, the Senate discusses the legislative process in the Senate.
Based on the recommendation of the Constitutional Law Committee on 28 May 2003 and after consultation
at the 6th meeting of the fourth term of the full Senate on May 29, 2003
was decided to repay the bill as amended by the Chamber of Deputies adopted
amendments. These proposals, however, do not touch § 174a
law on courts and judges. During the debate the law was questioned
efficiency, and therefore the uselessness (formality)
contested provisions. They were especially pronounced fears of possible flooding
general courts due to excess idea proposals for a deadline for implementation
procedural act, since it can be expected that the subject of the lawsuit will just
disputes are complicated, and it is questionable how
way the judge will be able to assess whether the delay to what extent
will need to be familiar with the file, and whether there will be a situation where
regional courts will resolve accusations of delays in district courts and
themselves will judge. Regarding the legislative process concluded that the Senate proposal
Act discussed and decided on it within the limits of its constitutional powers.
Returning to bill the Chamber of Deputies with amendments
voted 60 out of 64 senators present.

In another part of his statement summarized the background of the Senate
issues. . Article 6, paragraph. 1 of the Convention and Art. 38 par. 2 of the Charter
enshrine the right to a hearing within a reasonable time without unnecessary delays
. What is a reasonable time, none of these standards define,
however, the court held that the reasonableness of the length
management is a matter of individual assessment and is to be understood
series of objective factors. Before adopting § 174a
it was the only legal means of legal protection against delays in proceedings
procedure under § 164-174 of the Act on Courts and Judges in the so-called.
Appeal procedures, which were implemented by a state court administration.
Moreover, it could someone who inaction or procrastination court felt damaged
invoke his rights only through a constitutional complaint.
Czech Republic was not able to use these two national laws
resources to achieve acceptable results, as
justified complaints about excessive length is constantly increasing.
Based on the above mentioned solutions it was possible to conclude that the fundamental human rights
in this direction not placed sufficient institutional reflection.
It was therefore approved the provisions of § 174a of the Act on Courts and Judges.

The actual substance of the draft divided the Senate's statement into two parts.
The first dealt with the issue of judicial independence, the other has
question of equality of the parties. In the first part, stated that the proposal
silent apprehension of interference with the independence of the judiciary from the power

Legislative or executive, but the threat to independence within the judiciary
as such. Judicial independence also can not be interpreted as a lone
legal principle, but as a component of the right to a fair trial
that the content fills and finishes. The legislature offered
procedure pursuant to § 174a of the Act on Courts and Judges. The proposal is
so decided not administratively, but after an independent judicial
line, according to the law designated by the rules of procedure.
Sufficient constitutional guarantees to allay concerns about interference with the independence of the court is, in the opinion of the party
court's duty to follow the law defined
way. Make the whole process rationally justifiable, it must have judgment
addressee binding effects. Under § 174a paragraph.
7 of the Law on Courts and Judges Court is therefore competent to carry
procedural action bound by a deadline specified in the decision.
Legislature are elected next straightforward method of determining the legal procedural deadlines
addressed the court only another path, leading to the same goal.
Expression of individual judicial decisions is that it can be determined however long
constitutionally acceptable limit, but the proposal may be rejected
respectively. rejected. Moreover, it is not excluded that the majority decision on the proposal for a deadline
will, rejected as groundless without a court
handling a case, in its procedure or the tactics of the petition
"distracted" or affected. Opposite of the statutory deadlines with the procedure under
§ 174a of the Act on Courts and Judges seems more appropriate. Procedure referred
§ 174a of the legislature attempted to constitutionally defined space
fulfill the principle of due process in all its elements, ie. Including
preserve judicial independence.

The part concerning the equality of the parties, the Senate stated that the procedure for determining
deadline for implementation of procedural step is a procedure sui generis.
This procedure is entirely in the hands of the judiciary, which can be marked as special
narrowly focused, incidental, and not unlike that in which decisions are made on
disqualification of a judge under § 14 et seq.
Civil Procedure. Special management is also reflected in the definition of complicity when
sole party to proceedings the petitioner. This follows from the fact that
proposal for a deadline for the implementation of procedural action seeking, through the proposing person
against the side of the dispute, but against the entity that stands above parties.
If it is true that part of the process is fair hearing within a reasonable time
, it does not matter who is on the steering delays
initiated. It is essential that the mechanism is activated, under which must
court which decides on the proposal, the alleged slowness
evaluate and decide upon it. They shall be based on the criteria set out in
provisions of § 174a paragraph. 7 of the Law on Courts and Judges (complexity of the case, meaning
subject of proceedings for the petitioner, the behavior of participants or parties
management). The Senate does not agree with the petitioner's objections, which concludes
violation of the principle of equality from the fact that the other party is not able
to the proposal for a deadline to comment. As noted above
party, the procedure must be done in favor of a fair trial such as
. In the proceedings, the court must take into account the behavior of all participants
management, but on the other hand, any comments on the proposals, with the exception
expression "under trial" for the moment irrelevant. Now
communicating their ideas participants regarding further action the court would
might be unacceptable interference in judicial independence, as stated
Prague High Court in its proposal. Party to the proceedings reminded that
none of the parties has not rejected the possibility of initiating proceedings
proposal for a deadline; a court may call both parties
independently. From the foregoing, it can not occur
violation of the principle of independence in connection with § 174a of the Act on Courts and Judges

With its systematic inclusion is the ability to use the provisions of § 174a
Law on Courts and Judges reserved for cases that
complaint about delays in the proceedings were not properly met within one month of the Enlarged
management held by the competent authority court administration.
Sense modification fully justifies its placement in Part 6, Title III, Part One
Law on Courts and Judges. Jednoinstančního mechanism for deciding on draft

Under § 174a of the Act on Courts and Judges are not unique
finish. A similar pattern applies from 1 January 1990 and Austria. Finally
she pointed to the party and to the legal sentence Constitutional Court judgment.
Brand. IV. US 180/04 (Collection of Decisions of the Constitutional Court, volume 34,
judgment no. 112), according to which the existence of a draft for a deadline for the implementation
procedural act in accordance with § 174a of the Act on Courts and Judges carry || | brings a qualitative change removes an earlier innocuousness
complaints about delays in proceedings. The procedure complainants under § 174a of the Act on Courts and Judges
will be essential to the admissibility of the constitutional complaint
terms of § 75 para. 1 of the Constitutional Court.


Text of the contested regulation

"§ 174a

proposal for a deadline to carry out a procedural act

(1) If a party or a person who is a party, for the fact that his complaint
delays in the proceedings, lodged with the competent authority of the state
court administration, it has not been properly resolved, he may file a petition the court to determine
deadline for implementing the procedural act, in which, in his opinion
there are delays in proceedings (hereinafter 'the proposal for a deadline ").

(2) proposal for a deadline to be filed with the court against which the delays in the proceedings
unenforceable. the proposal must be clear who it serves (hereinafter
"Offeror"), a kind of thing, and what procedural step is, what are
according to the petitioner perceived delays in the proceedings and what the petitioner seeks
; further proposal must include the designation of the court against which is directed
must be signed and dated.

(3) the court against which they are invoked delays in the proceedings, shall be forwarded
within 5 working days of receipt of a proposal for a deadline
their opinion to the court competent to decide on the proposal;
about his progress petitioner informs. The competent court to decide on the proposal
in civil and criminal proceedings, the court closest to a higher degree
if the petition against the district, regional or Supreme Court, and
Supreme Administrative Court, if the petition against the regional court in
matter of administrative justice; if the petition against the Supreme Court or the Supreme Administrative Court
decide on it by a different panel of this court has jurisdiction pursuant
work schedule (hereinafter the "competent court").

(4) The parties to the proceedings the petitioner. Unless specified otherwise in this Act,
shall apply to proceedings on a petition for a deadline adequately
provisions of Part One and Part Three of Civil Procedure.

(5) The competent court shall decide on the proposal for a deadline resolution.
Rejects the proposal, if the appellant did not complaint about delays in the proceedings, or
was filed by someone who is not entitled to file or
if the petitioner has not corrected properly or failed to complete a proposal for
period otherwise decide on it without holding a hearing within 20 working days of
when a case was submitted or when the proposal was properly repaired or

(6) If the court against which the proposal seeks to determine the deadline, already
procedural act for which the design has pleaded delays in the proceedings, he did
competent court rejects; as well as advances, panel if
conclusion that there is no delay in the proceedings.

(7) If and competent court to conclude that the proposal for a deadline
is justified because, given the complexity of the case, meaning the subject of proceedings for
petitioner process participants or parties to the proceedings and the existing | || court procedure is in control delays, determines the deadline for implementation
procedural act for which the design has pleaded delays;
this deadline, the court is competent to carry out a procedural act, bound. If the proposal is accepted as legitimate
shall bear the costs of it happen.

(8) The resolution of the competent court has ruled on the proposal for a deadline,
to deliver the petitioner and the court, against which it was filed.
Against the court decision on the proposal for a deadline not to appeal
means. "

The explanatory memorandum to the contested provision states that existing regulation
Law on Courts and Judges allow for protection against inaction | || court or delays in the proceedings only lodging a complaint which is handled
competent authorities in the courts.
examined the handling of such complaints then also took place only after the administrative line. such
solution was deemed insufficient, especially with respect to

Law of the European Court of Human Rights on Articles 13 and 35 of the European
European Convention on Human Rights (right to an effective
remedy before a national authority in the excessive length of proceedings).
It is assumed that the remedy must be effective and accelerate
judicial proceedings if the implementation of individual actions occur delays -
after an unsuccessful complaint is processed by a state court administration therefore proposes
(instead reinvestigation complaints over administrative line under § 174, it
is left only with complaints about improper conduct of court or violation of dignity
at the trial) to the complainant, if
delays in the proceedings continue to exist, they had the opportunity to go
directly to the court and a higher court then had an obligation as delays in proceedings
actually finds impose competent court can be performed within a specified period
. It should be a simple process procedure in principle
common to both criminal and civil proceedings and administrative
justice, for this reason (and also to follow up on complaints to the authorities
court administration) It is proposed to include this adjustment directly to the Law on courts and judges
. Following treatment application for determining
deadline for implementation of procedural action and the management of it needed to be amended and
previous procedure in cases of complaints about delays in court proceedings
whose handling should be entrusted only to presiding judges.


Terms of locus standi of the petitioner

The Constitutional Court first addressed the question whether the petitioner - The High Court in Prague
- may file a motion to annul the contested provisions.
According to Art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution happens if the court concludes that a statute which has
be in resolving the matter, is inconsistent with the constitutional order, submit
matter to the Constitutional Court. According to § 64 par. 3 of the Constitutional Court is
proposal to repeal a law or its individual provisions is entitled
filed also by the court in connection with its decision-making activities under Art. 95
paragraph. 2 of the Constitution. The High Court in Prague submitted a petition to annul § 174a
law on courts and judges, when in proceedings initiated on the basis of a proposal to a deadline
to perform a procedural act concludes that the cited
provision is inconsistent with Czech constitutional order.
With regard to the above provisions of the Law on the Constitutional Court and the Constitution is given
locus standi of the petitioner.


Substantive consideration of the Constitutional Court

The very foundation of our constitutional system enshrined the principle of separation of state power
. It is expressed in Art. 2, paragraph. 1 of the Constitution, which states that
source of all state power is the people, which exercises it through
bodies of legislative, executive and judicial.
Its aim is to prevent the concentration of power and its misuse (see sp. Nos. Pl.
US 7/02, Collection of Decisions of the Constitutional Court, volume 26, USN. No. 17).
To this basic objective was fulfilled, it must be able to exist on three
independently, which means that they were not connected, but they must be separate
enough to power one could not assume the powers of other
. This mutual balance of all three powers is essential for good
functioning democratic system.

Constitution in relation to the courts above principle enshrined in Art. 81, in
which provides that the judicial power is exercised by independent courts and in relation to judges
Article. 82 para. 1 of the Constitution, from which It shows that judges are at
perform their duties independently. The petitioner in the contested provision
sees interference in the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the courts. It is therefore appropriate to
first deal in general terms with this issue. The Constitution in Art. 81
talks about the independence of the courts and in Art. 82 para. 1
independence of judicial decision making. These concepts are closely related, but not identical
. Where the Constitution talks about the independence of the judiciary, he means
their institutional independence from the legislative and executive power.
It is a provision which is closely related to the provision of Article. 2. 1 of the Constitution
in the sense that it defines the relationship of the judicial power for the two remaining state
power. In contrast, when talking in the subsequent provisions that
judges in the performance of their duties independently, he has a mean
own decision of the Court. This distinction is not without significance. If
petitioner was referring to a breach of the principle of independence of the judiciary, headed by

Its proposal for the creation of institutional Court as the court
power, which saw the overwhelming influence of one of the two remaining
power base, and therefore the balance between them, which is
basic principle of separation of powers. The content of the proposal, however, does no such thing
. It is directed against the provisions of the Law on Courts and Judges
which gives the court the power to intervene in the management process, others
subordinate courts. This law created opportunities sees his
words, "a contradiction with the principle of judicial independence, founded on Art. 6
Item 1 of the Convention and Art. 36 para. 1 of the Charter." In terms of the Constitution, however, it regards
independence of judicial decision-making.

Principle of independence of the judiciary holds in many aspects,
which in their aggregate they create the conditions for that
courts to fulfill their tasks and responsibilities especially in the area of ​​rights and freedoms of man and citizen
. To meet the condition of independence is essential that the court could
base its decisions on its own free opinion on the facts and their legal
page, without having any obligation to
parties or public authorities, and without his decisions subject to review by another body,
which would not equally independent in that sense.

Constitutional guarantee of judicial independence means that nobody is entitled
intervene in the proceedings before the court and the court decision.
Law on courts and judges in § 79 expresses this principle so that judges are at
perform their duties independently and are bound only by the law.
Are required to interpret it according to the best of my knowledge and belief and rule
reasonable time, without delay, impartially and fairly and on the basis
facts in accordance with the law.
Independence and impartiality of the courts should not interfere with anyone. Independence of judicial decision-making is therefore
term absolute, but rather relative, because the judge in his decision
can not act arbitrarily, but within the law, which
however, in which the applicant is right, must be in accordance with
constitutional order. Indeed, if there were absolute independence, she worked
would be counterproductive, because it would rather it difficult for decision than
is enabled. Thus, judicial independence has its limits.
Allegiance law does not mean dependence on the legislation. In relation to the legislative power
judge it is also independent. Independence of judges on legislation means that
legislative power is forbidden to exercise direct influence on decisions
specific cases during the running of the proceedings. That does not prevent
legislative power, but rather it is its main task to set
rules and procedures to be judges in the realization of the right to apply.

The petitioner sees as violating the constitutional order of the contested provision
law on courts and judges that on the basis
superior court may order a subordinate court to "a certain period amounted to quite a
legal action." Thus, in his view forcing a subordinate court of
unacceptable manner tactics of the process, and may significantly
determine the nature of further proceedings with a direct impact on its outcome.
This procedure can not be compared with the procedure Court in appeal proceedings because there is not a
influencing subsequent proceedings, but the review process
management of discontinued already. In his view, therefore, the contested provision
creates conditions for influencing decisions in pending cases, and therefore
to interfere with the independence of the court in its decision making.

With this reasoning, the Constitutional Court does not concur.
Judicial independence does not mean that a judge may be dilatory in their decision making.
Judge must decide impartially and fairly, according to his best
conscience and consciousness in accordance with the law and without delay. It is not possible to build
rate decisions in opposition to the independence of judges.
Both of these values ​​are equally important from the point of view of constitutional order must be
they provide adequate legal protection, so as to avoid disturbing their
. Therefore, you must create the right conditions for consistent
protect the independence of the judicial decisions as well as consistent
protection against sluggishness court decisions.

Provisions of § 174a of the Act on Courts and Judges in our legal system
first attempt at a systemic solution to delays in judicial decision making.
The existing legislation was adopted primarily on the basis of numerous complaints

By the European Court of Human Rights, which considered the previous
remedies for delay management as inadequate. Indeed, the Constitutional Court
in a number of its decisions has found violations of the right to a fair trial
caused delays in proceedings and notify the state that it is necessary
take such systemic measures that would prevent delays in proceedings.
Options Constitutional Court, however, were and are limited. Additionally
proceedings on the constitutional complaint had been caused another delay in the proceedings. The new regulation
with its relatively strict time limits laid down is a solution that should satisfy
meet the requirement of proper protection of participants before
delays in the proceedings.

This adjustment is based on the principle that it is within the jurisdiction of the superior court to
assess whether delays occur. It is not the intervention of other powers
to exercise jurisdiction. That such action by a superior court
if he chooses to, he had a sense, it must be conceded
corresponding legal liability. Can not stand the objection that it is unacceptable
influence tactics court proceedings at a stage where management still
over. Statutory regulation aims to cases of inaction on the part of the court
and not on tactics of management. Perhaps the legislature has the right to assume that
superior court is able to distinguish when it comes to inaction, and when it comes to
tactics of control. Especially in a situation where the judge against whom the application is directed
they have to comment on the proposal, and therefore
explain the reasons why this or that act is not yet done in its implementation or non-implementation
decided. It is therefore a statutory process
procedure which excludes arbitrariness of the judge. Guarantee a proper decision
can be deduced from the fact that the matter be decided, although a senior judge, but he is
in its decision also independent. In addition, the superior court only
determines whether procedural acts for which it is alleged that the non-implementation
there are delays in the proceedings to be made and in what
period. Evaluation of these operations are entirely in line with the principle of free evaluation of evidence
things finding court.

Indeed, our legislation is not in addressing delays in the proceedings
unique. Similar solutions can be found for example in Austria. The provisions of §
91 Austrian Law on Organisation of Courts (RGBl. Nr. 217/1896, as amended
BGBl. Nr. 343/1989, Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz) allows a participant
management to turn to the superior court for
determining the reasonable period of time to perform a procedural act (die Vornahme der Verfahrenshandlung)
if the court decides that the matter merits, hesitates to its execution. Can
to be because as examples of regulation negotiations, submission of the expert report or
copy of the decision. The Court of delays
has an obligation to immediately submit the proposal to the superior court along with
its statement, if during four weeks alone does not
all required tasks and inform the petitioner.
If the petitioner within 14 days of notification of the acts performed declare that they
insists on the petition shall be considered in this case
proposal to be taken back. The draft decision panel of three with maximum rapidity.
Against the decision not permissible remedies.

Another question is the concern of the petitioner abuse of this institute. Such
option are really threatened. However, it is difficult to determine in advance to what extent
this threat becomes a reality. In any case, the legislature should consider
a statutory provision which would misuse put obstacles
example. limiting the possibility of submitting a proposal for a deadline to assess
procedural step after already one such proposal has been made, or to bind such
option on time, which would have run from the design
procedural act.

Petitioner in the contested provision sees a further breach of the principle of equality
expressed in Art. 1 of the Charter and Art. 96 par. 1 of the Constitution.
According to the contested provision, the proposal provides only one party to the dispute and only
she is a party. The fact that no other participant
parties (petitioner talks on disputed sides, although
does not always about the litigants) sees as violating the principle of equality
parties in the dispute because they have no opportunity to comment on the proposal and
or otherwise participate in the course of such proceedings.

Even in this respect the Constitutional Court does not concur with the conclusions of the petitioner.

Control on the proposal for a deadline to carry out a procedural act is not an adversarial process
continuation or continuation of criminal proceedings or
continuation of proceedings to review the administrative decision.
This proposal is triggered by a specific procedure whose object is merely assess whether
in court there is no unjustified delays.
This procedure does not undermine the rights of other parties, because in fact
it comes to assess whether the court had already certain procedural steps
done. It is not a decision-making substantive but procedural in nature. Although
situation can arise that this is a procedural step which one party proposes and contradicts
second well is always a situation which is purely at the discretion of the court
. The proposal can not be another argument why has such
procedural act to be performed, but only argument in what are seen
delays in the proceedings. Content requirements of the proposal are yet precisely
defined in § 174a par. 2 Act on Courts and Judges.
This procedure therefore can not serve to enforce procedural acts which the court
wants to perform.

Although the law for party refers only to the petitioner, in
actually a dispute petitioner and the court in question conduction velocity
management, which must be decided by a superior court. It is not about the relationship between
parties. Indeed, about inequality not go well because everyone
parties have the right to bring an action under § 174a of the Act and the Courts and Judges

If the petitioner pointed to supplement the draft resolution
Supreme Court dated 12 January 2005 sp. Ref. 21 Cul 3/2004, this voucher
inapposite. On the contrary, the Supreme Court in this decision that §
174a of the Law on Courts and Judges is the fulfillment of Art. 38 par. 2 of the Charter.

In light of the above circumstances does the Court find the provisions of §
174a of the Law on Courts and Judges in conflict with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic
, and are therefore not given reasons for its withdrawal. Therefore, the proposal to repeal
cited provisions in their entirety pursuant to § 70 para. 2
Law on the Constitutional Court.

Chairman of the Constitutional Court:

JUDr. own hand

Related Laws