321/2000 Coll. CONSTITUTIONAL Court on behalf of the Czech Republic's Constitutional Court ruled on 3 July 2000 on the draft District Court in Hradec Kralove, in the revocation of section 1 of Act No. 309/1999 Coll., On the withdrawal of additional salaries for the second half of 1999 and the second half of the year 2000, representatives of state authority and certain state bodies , judges, prosecutors and members of the presidium of the Securities Commission, as follows: The petition is denied. REASONING AS WELL. On 10 April 2000, the Constitutional Court received a proposal from the District Court in Hradec Kralove, in the revocation of section 1 of Act No. 309/1999 Coll., On the withdrawal of additional salaries for the second half of 1999 and the second half of 2000, representatives of state authority and some state bodies, judges, prosecutors and members of the Presidium of the Securities Commission , and the word "judges". President of Chamber, acting for the C 7 District Court in Hradec Kralove-Mgr. Boris Nypl, the petitioner stated that on 12 January 2000, the court delivered an action in which a judge of the Regional Court in Hradec Kralove, JUDr. PK suggested that the court order the defendant to the Regional Court in Hradec Králové to pay the applicant the additional salary for the second half of 1999, amounting this 64 900 CZK. Prosecutor believes that he is entitled to the additional pay that was based on § 4 para. 2 of Act No. 237/1995 Coll., On salary and other indemnities associated with the position of representatives of state power and some state bodies and judges, as amended. The petitioner also stated that the decision would have to be used by the law No. 308/1999 Coll. The Court considers that that law is in part that the salary of judges withdraws, in conflict with Art. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (the "Constitution") and Art. 2 paragraph. 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. It is known that he travelled widely in the recent past, the Constitutional Court decided in an analogous case. Finding published in the Collection of Laws under no. 233/1999 Coll was partially repealed Act No. 269/1998 Coll., on the withdrawal of additional salaries for the second half of 1998, representatives of state authority and certain state bodies, judges, prosecutors and members of the Presidium of the Securities Commission, not just in terms of withdrawal of additional judges ' salaries. The Constitutional Court expressed the view that the withdrawal of additional salaries for judges is a threat to the principle of judicial independence. Act No. 309/1999 Coll., Which should be in the control of the applicant's request. PK is used, it is alleged by the petitioner in conflict with the Constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms for the same reasons. II. After finding that there were no grounds for rejecting a petition under section 43 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., On the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter "the Constitutional Court Act"), or to stop the proceedings under section 67 of the Act on the Constitutional Court, the proposal in accordance with section 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court sent the Chamber of Protect and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic's request for comment. Protect in its statement, signed by the chairman, Prof. Ing. Vaclav Klaus, PhD., Said that during the discussion of the bill's Budgetary Committee of the Chamber of Protect protect the Chamber of pointed out that the Constitutional Court judgment of 15 September 1999 sp.. PL-13/99, promulgated under no. 233/1999 Coll. was it exempt judges from the provision on the withdrawal of additional salaries (section 1 of Act No. 269/1998 Coll., on the withdrawal of additional salaries for the second half of 1998, representatives of state authority and certain state bodies, judges, prosecutors and members of the presidium of the Securities Commission). In the second reading of the bill filed deputy-Intelligence government bill amendment for the launch of judges from both the title of the Act and the provisions of § 1 of the government bill. Protect, however, did not accept this proposal and has not accepted any similar version of the bill approved by the Senate. Protect the perceived as a threat that the judicial independence that is fully and repeatedly withdrawing acertificate part of the pay claim to the judges, because judges not considered a special category of citizens, which would not be subject to legislative action. Judicial independence it would threat, would be if a particular judge in deciding a particular specific case was designed that either increase or decrease the pay claim to get the judge decide it in a certain way. Act No. 308/1999 Coll. It was approved by the necessary majority of protect, signed by the appropriate officials, the line and doula promulgated in the Collection of Laws. Under this condition is not the view of the Chamber of Protect, but that express the opinion that the legislative assembly acted in the belief that the law is in conformity with the Constitution, the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and our legal order. Dr. chairwoman of the Senate. Libuse Benesova in response to the petition stated that when considering the present Senate bill respected the decision of the Constitutional Court adopted in 1999 and the proposal that the repeal of Act No. 269/1998 Coll., Which was published under no. 233/1999 Coll. In this context, it refers to the observations the Senate sent to the Constitutional Court and petition it annul the Act No. 283/1997 Coll., Which Part III. the expressed opinion of the Senate on the nature of the additional salaries and respecting the constitutional principle of judicial independence. The statement points out that the material security of judges is done primarily through the regular monthly salary, its amount and conditions of the provision. That performance is no monetary restriction affected. However, even in the evaluation report of the European Commission on the Czech Republic, it stated that "judges ' salaries are relatively high", while in other areas, eg. In terms of police and administrative structures, as it has been the persistent problem pointed to the low level of salaries. These aspects are very well perceived by our community. Other salary is in accordance with legal regulations, disposable cash benefits provided under specified conditions once a year, and the conditions themselves claim when one of them is the duration of the employment relationship, and judge on the last day of the calendar half-year shows that the financial payment can hardly be considered a material security of judges, the reduction could result in a violation of the principle of judicial independence. The Senate discussed the bill at its 11th meeting, on 18 November 1999, and returned it to the Chamber of Protect, as amended by the adopted amendments. III. After reviewing the draft Constitutional Court found the merits of the grounds on which it is based for the annulment of the word "judges" in section 1 of Act No. 309/1999 Coll., As the draft statement of claim is required. Petition presents the case for a concrete norm control. This means that in the context of Constitutional Court reviews the constitutionality of the contested provision of the Act, which is generally binding, however, this procedure was initiated in order to resolve the specific case before a general court when the proceedings were in accordance with Art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution suspended and thing (ie. for the annulment of the provisions of the Act) was submitted to the Constitutional Court. Also in this type of proceedings, however, the adoption of a decision of the Plenum of the Constitutional Court annulling the provisions of the law are not enough judges to simple majorities, but a qualified majority of at least nine judges present (§ 13 of the Constitutional Court). Consequently, according to settled case-law of the Constitutional Court ' proposal that repeal and the law or its individual provisions is rejected in case if the date on which this Act required majority has been expressed, ie. Even when the majority voted for repeal amounts it less than nine judges "(Judgement May 15, 1996, file. Nose. PL. ÚS 3/96, the Constitutional Court: Collection of Decisions, Vol. 5, CH Beck, Prague, 1997, pp. 319, similar to the finding of May 17, 1994, SP. zn. PL. No. 36/93, ibid, Vol 1, 1994, p. 183). As in other parts of the preamble stated, in this case the Constitutional Court discussed the analogous proposal after nine months and again dwell on legislators original opinion in other circumstances and in a somewhat different composition than the plenum at the hearing in the case file. Nose. PL-13/99. Given that the proposal it repeal the provisions of the Act in this case did not reach the qualified statutory majorities of nine judges, was dismissed, and the arguments of opponents of this law, respectively. the contested provisions were thus overcome. This situation is the result of a conflict of dual access to the alleged violation of the principle of judicial independence, which occurred both in relation to the first finding, as well as now. The first approach, which is enforced in its judgment of 15 September 1999 sp.. PL-13/99 (No. 231/1999 Coll.), And which was dealt additional analogous situation concerning the salaries of judges for the second half of 1998, based on the view that this way of dealing with the additional salaries of judges by the legislature actually devalues one of the fundamental democratic value, which represents the judicial independence. According to proponents of this concept the so called withdrawal. The fourteenth salaries for judges It represents a breakthrough in the kind of "inalienable" right of judges not decreasing it compensation provided that them as a guarantee of their independence and legal certainty. The second concept that the final vote prevailed in the now adjudicated matter, on the contrary, considers it important that emphasize that a different assessment of only one group of state-paid people-judges, even if protected increasingly constitutional the safeguards the principle of independence would mean in this context "barely acceptable advantage when the procedure of the legislature was generally on the material prejudice to the security of the public sphere as a whole. In terms of the legitimacy of the objective of the contested Act, the Constitutional Court recognizes that the judges of the ordinary courts are not in a "legal and economic vacuum" that is completely isolated from the surrounding economic and social reality. Therefore we can not categorically say that ordinary court judges have a prior right to such material security, which can not be legislative form in any way and under any circumstances changed. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court believes that distanced the salary of judges should be moveable factor depending on the momentary ideas of one or another government. Considers therefore found a solution for an exceptional act which can be justified only for serious reasons and only in the context of an overall appropriate adjustment of salaries in the entire sphere of state representatives and employees. Only in this context can be recognized overall impact of the state's financial problems also on the judges ' salaries. It is in these circumstances would be admitting exceptions violation of the constitutional principle of equality, on the basis of which the statutory regulations are subjected to the whole area of civil and very public officials. According to the explanatory memorandum to the Act No. 308/1999 Coll it "considers it right that, as in 1997 and 1998 were representatives of state power and other persons whose salary is derived from salaries of employees of ministries, are entitled to an additional salary for the second half of 1999 removed". Judges ' salaries are regulated by Act No. 237/1995 Coll., As amended. According to § 3 para. 2 of this Act shall be determined by multiplying the salary base salary and wage rate set according to accountability and performance of functions performed. Under paragraph 3 of the same section, then it means the sum of the base salary of the highest salary and the maximum amount of personal bonuses stipulated by special regulations for employees of ministries. The salary is thus directly dependent on the level of salaries of the employees of state administration bodies. In the opinion of the Constitutional Court, the interconnectedness of the salary if it was once accepted as a principle for the remuneration of state employees should be honored as in the case of indexation of tariffs (eg. An increase of 17% from 1 January 1999, which resulted in an increase in the salaries of representatives state power and state employees, including judges) and also in reducing the amount of certain material benefits. The Constitutional Court respected the Parliament of the Czech Republic, the adoption of Act No. 309/1999 Coll. exercised its legislative powers (art. 15 paragraph 1 of the Constitution), and starting from the national budget and the economic situation of the state II that solidarity with others is one of the civic virtues, which are the members of the judiciary bearers and which has its foundation in the liberal society. Non-payment of additional salaries can not threaten the independence of judges, especially because this is not surprising, nor profound interference in the material security of judges. The independence of judges is also characterized by a number of constitutional guarantees, such as the appointment without time limit (art. 93 of the paragraph 1 of the Constitution) or the apart against games will be dismissed or transferred (art. 82 par. 2 of the Constitution). Nadřazováním this quite partial changes in the material security of judges over the other attributes of judicial independence would in turn could reduce public confidence in an independent judiciary, which certainly themselves judges of the Constitutional Court assumes the aware. The purported withdrawal of unconstitutionality additional salaries for the second half of 1999 and the second half of 2000, the judges must be noted that these additional salaries were simultaneously removed judges also representatives of executive and legislative power. Exceptional financial cuts in income in the entire sphere of legislative, executive and judicial respecting the balance of the classic separation of powers and limited in their scope and temporal dimensions did not provide a rational justification for the unilateral exemption of judges from the general state intervention when government regulations No. 244/1998 Coll. and no. 126/2000 Coll. It was previously the additional salary cuts for employees of state administration bodies, certain other bodies and municipalities. The legislator, who was in the time delay could not, due to the possible objection of retroactivity, use the same methods for reduction of the salary (ie. Two additional salaries by half) it achieve its objective of budgetary anti-austerity, as well as to reduce the inequality in both the categories of recipients of additional salary, and came Therefore, the withdrawal of the entire one and a later one. The Constitutional Court all these reasons finding procedure of the Parliament of the Czech Republic the situation reasonably and did not conclude that the contested provision of the Act violated the principle of judicial independence. Therefore, the Constitutional Court for the annulment of the word "judges" in section 1 of Act No. 309/1999 Coll. rejected (§ 82 para. 1 of the Constitutional Court). Chairman of the Constitutional Court: pp. JUDr. Holeček vr Vice dissenting opinion took the decision to the full court judge JUDr. Vladimir Cermak, Mgr. Vladimir Paul, Mgr. Vlastimil Hs and lawyer. Eva Zarembová and its justification judges JUDr. Pavel Holländer, Mgr. Ivana Janu and lawyer. George Malenovsky.