331/2005 Sb.



FIND



The Constitutional Court



On behalf of the Czech Republic



The Constitutional Court ruled on 14 July. July 2005 in plenary in the composition of Stanislav

Package, Francis Skinner, Turgut Güttler, Pavel Holländer, Ivana Janů,

Jiří Mucha, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodým, Pavel Rychetský, Miloslav Výborný,

Elisabeth Wagner and Michael Židlická in the matter of the proposal of the Group of Senators

Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic for annulment of the Act No. 361/2003 Coll.

the staff members of security corps



as follows:



The proposal is rejected.



Justification



(I).



The Constitutional Court received 26.4.2004 draft according to § 64 paragraph. 1 (a). (b))

Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as "the law of Constitutional

the Court "), which is a group of 26 Senators of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech

Republic (hereinafter the "appellant"), for which the Senator is MUDr. To the.

T., turning to the Constitutional Court for the annulment of the Act No. 361/2003 Coll.

the staff members of the security forces. Unconstitutionality of the law

sees in the circumstances that lie in the way of examination of the application

the law.



The appellant described the progress of the negotiation and approval of the draft of this

the Bill in both chambers of Parliament of the Czech Republic in the period from his

submission to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the Czech Republic Day 18.3.2003

After its final approval on 23.9.2003. Specifically, it stated that the proposal

was submitted to the Government and circulated to members as print no 256/0. In the first

reading was commanded by the Committee for defence and security, which it recommended

for approval as 50 amendments (resolution No. 256/2). Further

the proposal was discussed by the Committee, without the amendments of the European

integration. In the 2. reading on 18. a meeting of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament

The Czech Republic, MEPs tabled other amendments 46.

All the proposals were then processed as print no 256/3. In the third reading

18. July 28 meeting he gave only Member I.L. proposal on

legislatively-technical adjustment to your amendment, held by the under

E4 in print letter No 256/3. Other proposals have not been submitted. Subsequently,

resolution No. 581 was the bill approved in the text of the approved

the amendments.



The Czech Senate approved a law proposal was delivered

17.7.2003. On the basis of the recommendations of the committees, which demonstrated the

a discrepancy between the wording approved by the Chamber of Deputies and the wording of the

postoupeným Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech

Republic on its 9. meeting of 7.8.2003 this proposal from the agenda

the meeting. The President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic called on the President of the

The Chamber of deputies that the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic to

further negotiations, sent the text of the draft law, which was actually the House of

approved. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic received a new draft law

with a new deadline 13.8.2003 to his discussion, which should elapse

During the discussion the following 12.9.2003. proposal was passed the day 10.9.2003

again, some senators pointed out that even when the second

the referral were not irregularities removed. Fear of 12.9.2003

the deadline for consultation, the Senators discussed the proposal, without the requested

new delivery. Therefore, the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic on 10. meeting day

10.9.2003 returned a bill the House of representatives with the EP amendments,

proposals (resolution No. 197) and added that an accompanying resolution No. 198, in

the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic notes that the text of the draft

the law even after repeated referral to the Chamber of Deputies the day 13.8.2003

It is not identical with the wording approved in the Chamber of Deputies. It was

found that of 13 of the differences, referred to in the annex to the proposal, has been

removed only one difference, and in section 10 of the Bill.



The Chamber of Deputies on the draft again voted on the 20. meeting day

23.9.2003, and did not approve the proposal as amended by the amendments

Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, and remained on the original version

the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic transferred the day 13.8.2003, not in

the text originally transferred. The President of the Republic signed the Act of the day

59, according to the appellant, without apparently could know the defects of the previous

the procedure, which the Chamber of Deputies the draft arbitrarily amended so

be de facto misled. The legislative process was therefore burdened with defect

It is irregular and the procedural steps, in which the Act was adopted, shows

unconstitutional defects.



As the relevant facts, the appellant stated that:



1. The constitutional foundations of the adoption laws provides for the Constitution above all

The Czech Republic (hereinafter the "Constitution") in the article. to article 41. 52, while in this

the case is a decisive article. 45, which States that the draft law, which

The Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament agreed,

forward this Chamber of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. It pointed out

the finding of the Constitutional Court promulgated under no. 476/2002 Coll., according

which is the competence of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic

exhausted by the adoption of the resolution, which agreed with the draft Bill, and

the proposal could not be beyond the decision to change.



2. The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in favour of the proposal

of the Act, as amended by the agreement, which has not been in 13 cases

identical to the text that the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic

refer the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. It wasn't so much about the Bill

within the meaning of article. 45 of the Constitution, at the same time the violation occurred, in particular, article. 46

The Constitution, which regulates the position of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in

approval of the draft law.



3. Such a procedure are without prejudice to the appellant by the constitutional principles

the separation of powers within the legislative power under article. 45 to 48 of the Constitution and

representative democracy under the article. 2 (2). 1 of the Constitution.



4. Furthermore, it is a violation of the principle of the rule of law in accordance with article. 1 of the Constitution

and the article. 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (the "Charter"). Buckling

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic of the constitutionally provided for

the legislative procedure here by the appellant founds elements of arbitrariness and

nekontrolovatelnosti to be able to, if they have not been able to correct the

přezkumnou the activities of the Constitutional Court. In this context, it was again

to find no 476/2002 Coll., which was accentuated by the requirement

procedurally flawless process including the hard point, which

the decision-making process in the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic

ends, which prevent the potential risk of usurpace power, which

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is not for.



The appellant stated that the analysis of the relevance and impact of total 13

the provisions already goes beyond the proposal. Violation of the constitutionality of

in its opinion, puts a strain on the law as a whole, and therefore cannot be

apply only to the following provisions. In addition, the abolition of only those

the provisions could restore their text actually approved. However,

submission of the appellant added its proposal 11.11.2004 expression

his attorney, that an opinion to express Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic (see below). It argues, as

representation of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic shall evaluate the changes made under the

point 2, 6 to 9, 11, 13, and proves that finding, according to which the

legislatively-technical editorial the law did not change the design or the content or

legally, must seem like a very misleading and unacceptable. As well

so does not agree with the opinion, which was on the edge of the expressed in

the opinion of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, namely, that the eligibility

proposal to repeal of the law is a critical presentation of the content violation

of the law with the constitutional order, and only in the context of its examination of the (derivatively)

You can also detect whether it was constitutionally prescribed Act issued

in a way.



The appellant, therefore, with reference to the infringement of article 81(1). 45, article. 46 to 48 and article.

50 of the Constitution in the process of adopting the draft law stated that it has been tampered with

the legislative process, which is also in breach of article. 2 (2). 1 of the Constitution and

article. 2 (2). 2 of the Charter. Therefore, the law is contrary to the constitutional order

The Czech Republic pursuant to article. paragraph 87. 1 (a). and) of the Constitution. As the proposal

the law has not been adopted within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and constitutionally

in the prescribed manner (section 68 of the Act on the Constitutional Court), has proposed to his

the cancellation.



II.



The Constitutional Court after the receipt of the draft concluded that the design meets the

the terms for proceedings before the Constitutional Court. Did not find the reason for the stop

proceedings under section 67 of the Act on the Constitutional Court not to reject the proposal

under section 43 of the same Act. The contested Act No. 361/2003 Coll. was in

Meanwhile, amendments to the law No. 186/2004 Coll., no 436/2004 Coll., no.

586/2004 Coll. and no 626/2004 Coll., but it could have with regard to the content of the

the design and nature of the alleged defects in the law effect on its further consideration.

[NB.: this is a Act No. 186/2004 Coll., amending certain

laws in connection with the adoption of the law on the customs administration of the Czech Republic,

Law No. 436/2004 Coll., amending certain laws in connection with the

the adoption of the Employment Act, Act No 586/2004 Coll., amending

Some laws in connection with the adoption of the law on military conscription and

its provision (military law) and law No. 626/2004 Coll., amending

Some laws in the wake of the implementation of the public finance reform in
the area of remuneration]. The proposal was filed by the applicant within the meaning of the authorised

§ 64 paragraph. 1 (a). (b) the law on the Constitutional Court). Therefore, the Constitutional Court

called for under section 69, paragraph. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court of the Chamber of Deputies

The Czech Parliament and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic as

the parties to this proposal. Furthermore, with regard to the

a reminder that the President of the Republic at the signing of the law acted in error,

He was asked about the comments and President of the Republic.



The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic expressed its then Chairman

doc. JUDr. Petr Pithart, who on the issue of the admissibility of the

legislatively-technical editors draft bills, respectively, of the admissibility

a range of editors pointed out that these issues are devoted to minor

debate of the Senate of the Czech Republic in the framework of the consideration of the draft

the Act on the service of members of Security Corps (Senate

print no. 135) 10. Meeting 4. term of Office the date of 10.9.2003. In

the debate has demonstrated the view that the changes in the grounds of the draft law, which

the appellant, in its submission to the Constitutional Court stated under no. 2 to 13,

constitute a permissible legal-technical adjustment proposal. This

the opinion then in some sense match the majority decision of the Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic, which the Chamber has accepted the Bill,

When it adopted the date of 10.9.2003 resolution No. 197, which returned the Bill

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic with amendments,

that, however, unrelated to the respective modifications No. 2 to 13. In the debate

Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic were also strongly expressed views

containing some of the doubts about the legitimacy of the species

legislatively-technical adjustments. Referred to the doubts of the Senate

The Czech Republic were reflected in the Chamber adopted a resolution No. 198 dated

10.9.2003, which points out that the texts are not identical.



Furthermore, the States that it is necessary to agree with the appellant in

that adopted the Bill cannot be changed. From this, however, is to be

distinguished legislatively-technical editor of the text of the Act that follows.

This is no longer a creation of law, she does not create, alter,

the proposal regulates only her in connection with the clearance applied

by the legislator. Typically it, logically resulting from the

the approved amendments, when their nepromítnutí to

the relevant provisions of the Bill would undermine the unity of the legislature

tracked changes. In other words, the legal-technical adjustment cannot be

a Bill to amend the slightest factually or legally, since it is reserved

only amendments by the legislature (the formation of the law). In addition, it has

legislatively-technical editors to contribute only to the removal of formal

the defects of the Bill and for the clarity of his arrangement.



Alone the law No. 90/1995 Coll., on rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, in the text of the

amended, remembers the legislatively-technical editing

přičiněné members within the framework of the third reading. Modifications in the third reading

usually reaches the axle just in some cases, very simple

Masters. It is practically inconceivable that outline the laws, which are

atakovány the dozens, often hundreds of amendments have been

left without the final legislated-technical editorial the following after

assent of the Chamber of Deputies. Indeed, cannot be predicted

which of the amendments will be finally adopted, and "run" is so

create new variants of arrangement of the entire draft. However, even this

the editors cannot exclude omission, misconduct, etc., as it is a human

activity. In this context, the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic

He stated that the implementation of legislated necessity-technical editor

is recognized in the Czechoslovak and Czech legislative practice at least since the

nineties of the last century and is already firmly perceived practices.

If it should be the final legislated-technical editors excluded

It would be very substantially change the rules of the legislative process

(law-making) in the tabling of amendments in the Chambers

The Parliament of the Czech Republic including the consistent implementation of the principle of

projection presented by the amendment to the other provisions of the

the draft law and the rules of voting on them.



Whether there has been a deviation from the limits of the legal-technical editors, and thus to

content or legal change in the Bill over a form approved

Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, is to be found in the

specific analysis of 13 cases presented. the amended

the provisions of the draft law. Therefore, the characteristics of the said

changes in the text of the Government's draft law (print no. 256)

so, as the appellant has identified under no. 1 to 13. In this context, the

It was in the comments to the individual differences identified by the appellant

stated the following:



To point 1. Replacement of the words "less than" the words "more than" was an inadmissible

by editing. The authorities of the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament have implemented

the correction of the text in the newly transferred to the draft law.



To point 2. It was a change triggered by the approval of the proposed amendment in section A5 (

7 paragraph 2 has been deleted). This intervention has become an alternative

"the officer or senior officer" and the "Chief Officer or Assistant" in section

26 paragraph. 3 redundant and confusing, because changing the A5 ruled out

the peculiarity by which the lowest staff rank "officer" was

reserved only for the fire brigade, while the other

security forces began to scale on the rank "Chief Officer".



To point 3. Amendment G5 joined the Alternatively arranged

items in section 42 paragraph 5 a new item that is unquestionably

the other alternative (context does not allow a different option), and it was therefore

connection coupling "or" moved from a position between the first and second

entry at position between second and third.



To point 4. The conditions for the grant of leave provided for in the staff regulations § 69 paragraph. 4

they were not, unlike the conditions for other kinds of leave, sufficiently

clearly assigned to the grounds of leave under section 68. The link of the Tween

the words "in accordance with section 68, paragraph. 5 (a). (d)) "has made quite clear diction.



To the point of 5. In the Government's version of the provisions of § 95 paragraph. 4 link was used to

the specific provisions of other legislation which is considered

legislatively-technical misconduct. According to the rules of the practical

legislation (inter alia, in accordance with article 45 of the legislative rules of the Government)

uses the content of the modifications with reference to specific legislation and

his citation footnote. This adjustment has been correctly carried out.



To point 6. The turnover of the "Director of security corps" was the proper use of

(by projecting) legislative shortcuts introduced in the provisions of section 1 (1). 2 to

all of the following provisions of the Act. Has been corrected

legislative technical error.



To point 7. The reason for shortening the reference ", pursuant to section 54, paragraph. 2 and 3 "on" under section 54

paragraph. 2 "was obvious. In paragraph 3 it was contained only

the general definition of service overtime, but the link is directed only to a specific

because of service overtime.



To point 8. The provisions of § 131 (section 127) refers to the provisions of the

governing those components of the service income security, the Director of the choir

which lays down his superior. The deletion of the reference to section 114 was reasonable,

because it provides for the "hard" basic tariff of each service

income, which is determined by law. without the ability to affect it (change

in the scope of its parent). The deletion of the reference to section 114 of the

the provisions of § 131 (section 127) was a legislatively-technical intervention against

confusing redundancy.



To point 9. Change the title by changing the wording might not have been enforced.

The modified title expresses the same fact in other words. This change

Apparently, however, does not affect the factual or legal control of the page.



To point 10. In paragraph 7, the provisions of section 138 (§ 134) was contained assurances

that edit rights to the natural elements is not the Director of the

Security information service, because its elements are adjusted

a special law, meaning the law no 236/1995 Coll., on salary and other

terms related to the performance of functions of the representatives of the State power and

some State authorities and judges, as amended, in

the head of the sixth grade are adjusted and the natural elements

the Director of the security information service. Gain insight into parts of the twentieth

the fourth Act No. 362/2003 Coll., amending the laws related to the adoption of the

the Act on the service of members of security forces, we find

that same day, which relates to the provisions of section 138 (§

134), short for paragraph 7, shall be effective also abolition of the head

the sixth Act No 236/1995 Coll. legislatively-referred to the technical adjustment was

the result of the legislature's intention, expressed in parallel.



11. The provisions of § 153 (para. 149). 1 lays down the right to a refund

travel expenses, if is a converted from a variety of

reasons to another place of duty. One of the reasons he was

expressed by reference to section 27. Reading this provision, we find that the

transfer of the Director of the intelligence service within the same space
of the staff. Edit was removed the contradiction between the two

the provisions.



To point 12. Clearly erroneous reference to § 157 (para. 153), i.e.. common

provisions, has been replaced by the correct reference to § 153 (para. 149).

the conditions for entitlement to the refund of travel expenses. Was

removed the legislatively-technical error.



To point 13. The annex to the Act there is only passive summary of requirements

(brief information) about the requirements of the fare class. There is no doubt

about custom requirements are set out in the provisions of section 7. Modification of the annex

in the section for the eighth fare class-Bachelor of education for the high

Commissioner-only reflected a change-based amendment G1

in section 7 (2). 1 (a). (h)), it means a Bachelor's degree for high

Commissioner 8. tariff class. The adjustment was the result of an authoritative

Amendment of the legislature.



Analysis of 13 cases of the above changes, the President of the Senate is growing up

The Parliament of the Czech Republic to the conclusion that you can differentiate both editing

causing the factual or legal change in the draft law (case No. 1),

you need to clearly reject as inadmissible, and

the permissible adjustments legislatively-technical (all other cases),

which can be further divided into two subgroups according to the theme of the editorial

activity. First, it's about the adjustments that are the result of a rational

adopted the amendment (cases no. 2, 3, 10 and 13). You are

in a sense, forced, to ensure the souladnost of the amendment with the

environment in which to incorporate. These interventions represent

the best type of legislatively-technical adjustments. Second then goes on

editing, but by aggressively in favor of

legislatively-the technical level of the text of the law, as are minor interventions to

delete obvious errors, inconsistencies and redundancy, and interventions to increase the

the clarity of the text (case No. 4 to 9, 11 and 12). Even if it is

also the modifications that do not alter the substantive and legal status of the draft law, the rate of

initiatives in this type of editing may vary, and therefore their use is in the

kind of problematic. Use a few of the

legislatively-technical adjustment is in practice the final redaction rather

the exceptional and limited to the cases of frapantní errors.



As regards the so-called "objection. the repeated assignment of the draft law,

representation of States that the position of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic to these

issues can draw from some of the acts, conduct, respectively, of the

the conduct of its organs. After the Chamber of deputies of 17.7.2003

The Parliament of the Czech Republic has forwarded to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic

the Bill in question, began run 30-day constitutional deadline for consideration

the proposal, which was to expire on the date of 18.8.2003. The Bill (Senate

print no. 135) was by the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic eliminated from the programme

his 9. the meeting of the day, i.e., 7.8.2003. 11 days before the deadline. The President of the

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic found that in the case of section

10, paragraph 1. 2 in the text of the draft law to the transferred gratuitous confusion

the words "less than five years" after the words "more than 5 years" and posted by the Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic corrected the date of 13.8.2003 (i.e. before the

expiry of the period to discuss running from the first transmission)

the premise that mutually perceived this new referral eliminates

the effects of the previous 30 days, and the period shall start to run again. The Senate Of The Parliament Of

The Czech Republic, its subsequent behaviour undoubtedly accepted the new

referral, if forwarded a draft law discussed within

and it came back with 12.9.2003 amendments (see resolution No. 197 from

day 10. on 10 September 2003. a meeting of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic).

Also, the Chamber of deputies of Parliament of the Czech Republic in the next

legislative procedure in relation to the return of the Bill accepted

referred to the way the repair with a 30-day deadline, running again as the day

23.9.2003 on its 20. meeting to draft properly decided (resolution No. 645).



The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic knocked out the Bill from the agenda of the meeting

with the knowledge that if the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic

(its President) to accept the option of sending the approved version, the time limit for

discussion of the draft law by the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in vain

elapses. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has not taken any step that would

could invoke the presumption of non-constitutional powers.

The subsequent match Chambers on the removal of errors would be legitimized by the aim was

keep the original will of the legislature. Debate Of The Senate Of The Czech Parliament

Republic to the case on 10. the meeting of the day was limited to 10.9.2003

the expression of thoughts, that absentee law of contact of both Chambers is

suplován parliamentary practice (landmark judgements behaviour Chambers), which you can rely

on an earlier resolution of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic No. 316 of

5.4.2000. Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in it interpretačně

assures that, in the case of the cession of the revised text of the draft law

the Chairman of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic begins to run

the 30-day time limit referred to in article. paragraph 46. 1 of the Constitution to run again, while the constitutional

the period of previous versions is not taken into account. In addition, the Senate of the Parliament

The Czech Republic, this resolution notes that, under the draft law, the

which the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament agreed

within the meaning of article. 45 of the Constitution, can be considered only a draft bill forwarded

Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic the President of the Chamber of Deputies

The Parliament of the Czech Republic. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic this

the resolution rejected earlier attempts to deal with certain repairs passed

the draft law at the level of the services of the Office of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament

Of the Czech Republic.



In compliance with the will of the Chamber sent the proposal corresponds to its signature in accordance with §

29. 1 (a). I) and section 68, paragraph. 2 of the law on the rules of procedure of the

the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, its President. In this context, the

the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic pointed out the nature and function of the

the signature of the President of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic under the

the approved Bill. He stressed the presumption of correctness of such act

and mutual respect the status of both Chambers in the legislative process.

The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is not gifted with the powers of the review

the associated procedures, which passed the Bill in the Chamber of Deputies

The Parliament of the Czech Republic. If the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the

The Czech Republic made an error, it is for the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech

of the Republic, that gave her the option to repair. In his opinion,

legislatively-technical editors draft of the Act on the prison service

members of the security forces has not changed this proposal nor factually nor

legally against the text, which expressed the consent of the Chamber of Deputies

The Parliament of the Czech Republic, and which, with the exception of later corrected

provisions, refer the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. The adjustment was

apparently applied in intensity, which is used in the long term and

respected in the parliamentary legislative practice. As well as the repeated

(corrected) referral of a Bill to derail the constitutional arrangement

the balance of legislative power and other constitutional values and practices, as

has been implemented in actual compliance authorities of both chambers of Parliament,

The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament

Republic finally fully accept. At the conclusion of representation of the President of the Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic noted that the proposal to repeal

the law in question does not seem reason, however, is only on the Constitutional Court,

to assess if this law in breach of the constitutional order. Finally, the

only on the edge, he added, that the eligibility of the proposal for the repeal of the law is

a critical presentation of content contrary to the law with the constitutional order, and

only in the context of its examination of the (derivatively) can also detect whether it was

the law issued by the constitutionally prescribed way.



In the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic its

the President of PhDr. Lubomír Zaorálek also pointed out the progress of the consultation

the draft law No. 361/2003 Coll., stressed that in addition to the compliance with the established

competence and constitutionally prescribed method of acceptance is to be taken,

that the laws were understandable, clear and internally and externally

nerozporné. This fact is of greater importance that a detailed discussion of

the draft law has under the Constitution to take place primarily in the Chamber of Deputies

The Parliament of the Czech Republic, saying that the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic

some bills may not deal with at all, or when the House

the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic remains after repayment of the Act on its

the original version. Therefore he has to the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament

Republic sent basically "finished" laws that meet and

legislatively-technical requirements. Legislatively-technical adjustments

of course must not affect the substantive content of the law and may only

delete some technical inaccuracies, to contribute to the fulfillment of the purpose of

the law, as it would otherwise, in practice, could produce insurmountable

the interpretative difficulties. These adjustments are carried out by MEPs-newsletter

the committees, in cooperation with the applicant and the Legislative Department of the Office of the
Of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, primarily in the course of the 2.

read the proposal. You can also repair a legislatively-technical design

in the 3. read. Even under this procedure cannot affect absolutely

all of the editing, because a considerable portion may result from the results

vote on individual amendments to the conclusion 3. read.

If you could, however, have such an effect on the material content of the correction of the text,

even with these faults of the text referred to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. In

in this context, he stated that the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament

in an effort to clarify these procedures adopted resolution No. 656 of the

26.9.2003, which regulates the procedure for such adjustments and define their

the scope of the. The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is aware of the

conflict of requirement to legislate without the technical deficiencies and request

to legislate that accurately reflect its will. In order to solve this

the clash was also adopted the amendment of the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies

Parliament of the Czech Republic, which extended the deadline from 1.9.2004 between 2.

and (3). reading from 24 hours to 72 hours.



To own the problem out, that in all the cases cited

the changes were only about legislatively-technical adjustments, including

editing the text of § 10 (1). 2 of the draft law. Therefore, in order to prevent

any subsequent questioning of the provisions in question were modified.

and the proposal was again sent to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic to the new

consultation. This once again sent the proposal, the Senate of the Czech Parliament

Republic has accepted for eligible for consideration, and also to discuss it. A sense of

the accompanying resolution is therefore somewhat unclear. The Chairman Of The

the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic pointed out that after the return of the proposal

law, the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament with the EP amendments,

the proposals of Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is always presented to members

as the Council's text printing, which was the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech

Republic sent to discuss (print no 256/4). Therefore, if the Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic posted the text of the provisions of the Act and all

the respective modifications actually discuss and then this text received

all members and decided that this text remain, according to the

his opinion, all the adjustments to the deputies of the Parliament

The Czech Republic accepted and recognised as justified and carried out in accordance with the

laid down by the procedure. The constitutionality was subsequently confirmed by the President of

of the Republic and the Prime Minister. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has

responsibility to remove any material (content) of the defects of the approved

the law. However, as regards the technical adjustments that do not affect the General Ledger

page Act and are detected before sending the Bill to the Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic, it would be carried out in accordance with the constitutionally

established competence and constitutionally prescribed way for adoption

laws. It also pointed out that by signing the law, or of the accompanying

Letter certifies and confirms that the legislative process passed a constitutionally

in the prescribed manner. G/l adjustments can only be made to the final

the vote, which is to avoid any arbitrariness. Technical modifications are

carried out prior to the signature of that signature is the Chairman of the

the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, effectively approves and includes the

the text of the law. Finally, the President of the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament

Republic stated that the law at the time the expression was not yet effective,

However, he could no longer effectively set up a whole series of relationships. Should therefore be

the proposal for the abolition of the assessed from the viewpoint of relation between the alleged violation

the constitutional procedures, and the possible violation of these relationships. However, things

The Constitutional Court, in order to assess the proposal and issued the award.



The challenge to the Constitutional Court, the draft also expressed President

Republic, which stated that it is not of the opinion that, when his signing

the law could play the role of his mistake. And now can not find a reason

for the law of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic

returned. The text of the law, he was sent to the Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies

The Parliament of the Czech Republic pursuant to § 107 of its rules of procedure. The signature of the

President of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic shall be considered as

The Constitution and rules of procedure for proof that he is presented with a text

the approved law.



III.



Under section 68, paragraph. 2 of the law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court shall examine the content of the

the laws in terms of their compliance with constitutional laws and checks whether

have been received and issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and constitutionally

in the prescribed manner. In the present case, in the context of this tripartice

compliance with the constitutionally prescribed way disputed acceptance and release

Act No. 361/2003 Coll., on the service of members of security

Corps. The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic this law

adopted so that his proposal again voted on the 20. meeting day

23.9.2003, when before did not approve the proposal as amended by the amendments

Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, and remained on the original version

transferred of the Senate of the Czech Republic Chamber of Deputies

Parliament of the Czech Republic on 13.8.2003. The law was signed by the

respective constitutional actors and has been properly declared in the amount of no 121

Collection of laws, which was circulated the day has existed, its effectiveness was

Law No. 626/2004 Coll., on the day of the date moved.



The basic question in the present case, the appellant is under way

the way the proposal was modified after the end of the legislative process in the Chamber of Deputies

House of Commons of the Parliament of the Czech Republic after 3. reading on 18. the meeting held

day 28. In this context, the Constitutional Court, after examining this question

It concluded that the proposal is not reasonable. Was guided by the following

reflections.



The situation, which was created in August and September 2003, it should be noted that

This is not analogous to the case of the amendment of the commercial code, which solved the Constitutional

the Court finding no 476/2002 Coll. (find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/02, collection of findings

and the resolution of the Constitutional Court, Volume 28, finding no. 117) and in

in this context, the appellant invokes. In 2001, it was the

inadmissible second Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament vote

Republic, whereas in the present case, voted only once, correctly

and validly. The problem of discrepancies and errors lies in the fact that the President of the

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic had to confirm their

the signature of the authenticity of the text, which, however, is not what is the Chamber of Deputies

in the opinion of the appellant agreed. On the contrary, in the case of commercial

the code made by Act No. 501/2001 Coll. has been the unity of views in that

What is the Chamber of Deputies agreed, the contradiction was that, whether it could

Act. In case of discrepancies between the postoupeným Bill, that

approved by the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, and writing about the

its meetings (amendments, voting on them) as for other

the situation, which cannot be solved according to the principles of the acquis as a vote or ne bis in

idem.



The Constitutional Court therefore notes that is competent to decide on the cancellation

laws or their individual provisions, if they are in conflict with the

the constitutional order. It is obliged to comply with the constitutional order and the

by law, within the meaning of article. paragraph 88. 1 of the Constitution regulates the rules of procedure

before the Constitutional Court. The law on the Constitutional Court, demanding that the Constitutional Court

under the control of the constitutionality of the laws reviewed their content in terms of

their compliance with constitutional law and to detect whether they have been accepted and

issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and the constitutionally prescribed

in a way. In the present case, the appellant does not question the

the contents of Act No. 361/2003 Coll., respectively, argue that the assessment content

the law would not lead to the removal of the defects, which is linked to its adoption.

The procedure for adoption of the proposal itself act in question complains that it

There has been a violation of article. 45, article. 46 to 48 and article. 50 of the Constitution, which at the same time

considered a violation of the article. 2 (2). 1 of the Constitution and article. 2 (2). 2 of the Charter.



With these objections of unconstitutionality with the Constitutional Court, Fowles did not. In the first place

It should be noted that the process of adoption of laws in the Czech Republic is entrusted

the sole authority of the legislature, which the Parliament is composed of two

Chambers. Adoption of the law, however, is a more multi-faceted and complicated process,

that is only partly modified constitutional requirements. An important role here

also play other provisions reglementového rights that represent

both standards contained in the law on the rules of procedure of the Parliament Chambers

The Czech Republic, on the one hand the resolution, which the Chamber of the Czech Parliament

Republic governing under the laws of the rules of procedure of its internal ratios

and more detailed rules of conduct your plenum and its authorities. Cannot be

overlook, that a significant part of our parliamentary rights is not yet

modified. The law has not been adopted, which has pursuant to article. 40 of the Constitution provide for

bases necessitated Chambers and in particular their rules of mutual

contact, as well as performing. Therefore, an important part of the relations of both

Chambers represent the parliamentary practices, interpretative resolutions and

the informal agreement of their leaders, which from 1996 to

currently the Chamber defined by their mutual relations. For the Constitutional Court are
However, in the case of a mandatory criterion of evaluation of the only constitutionally

as defined by the rules of the legislative procedure. However, their breach of the

did not find.



Act No. 361/2003 Coll., on the service of members of security

Corps, the "ordinary" law, which does not fall under the reservation agreement of both

Chambers of Parliament, according to the article. 40 of the Constitution. Its smooth adoption was therefore

You must comply with all the rules of the legislative process, as defined by the

article. paragraph 39. 1 and 2, article. 41, article. 44 to 48 and article. 50 to 52 of the Constitution. This

the rules must be interpreted in the spirit of the basic provisions of the Constitution,

in particular, article. 1 (1). 1, according to which the Czech Republic is democratic

the legal State, which according to the article. 1 (1). 2 observes the obligations

under international law. The Constitutional Court found violations of the

rules for the submission of the draft law as an exercise of the right of legislative

the initiatives of the Government (article 41 (2)) in relation to the Chamber of Deputies

The Parliament of the Czech Republic (article 41, paragraph 1). The Chamber of Deputies

The Parliament of the Czech Republic approved the draft law in accordance with article. 39

paragraph. 1 in the presence of 178 members of the majority of the 130 present

members of Parliament (article 39 (2)). Approved the draft law without undue

delay relinquished under article. 45 Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and

the same thing has made to his request to send the exact text. The Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic sent the text of the draft law discussed in the

the prescribed time limit of 30 days (article 46 (1)), specifically, 10.9.2003, so in

the present case, it was not necessary to deal with the nature of this period and its

counting. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic sent a proposal accepted with

knowing that it is again sent to the Bill. Voted on this proposal

According to the article. paragraph 46. 2 so that the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament

of the Republic according to article. paragraph 46. 2 back with amendments, which

they were approved in compliance with the article. paragraph 39. 1 in the presence of the required

one-third of the senators (specifically 73 senators were present), with the

for it was 51 senators, therefore most of the requested article. paragraph 39. 2.

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic thus returned the draft

the law again discussed. Meanwhile, a representative of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech

Republic Senator f. k. stated that thanks to the helpfulness of the leadership

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic was replaced, and the print

could be discussed with all the effect at the next meeting of the Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic (Těsnopisecká report on the meeting Of 20.

the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. IV. the electoral period, with. 60). About

This design, the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament voted

within the time limit prescribed by its rules of procedure so that the procedure laid down in article 4(1). 47

paragraph. 2 the draft law in the version approved by the Senate of the Czech Parliament

the Republic did not accept because of the 182 MPs for him

most requested when the petition for the proposal was only 79 present

members. Subsequently, according to the article. paragraph 47. 3 a total of 108 of 183 voting,

Therefore, by an absolute majority of all its members, approved the draft law in the

the text in which it on the request of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic posted by

the President of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic on 13.8.2003.

This law was signed by the respective constitutional factors according to

article. 51 and properly in accordance with the article. 52 of the Constitution promulgated in the collection of laws.



From the above, there is no doubt that comply with the constitutionally provided for in rules

the legislative process. From the submitted documents relating to the constitutional

the plane of the present case, it follows that both Chambers agreed

the subject on which they act. That the President of the Chamber of Deputies

The Parliament of the Czech Republic in terms of its reglementových permissions

comply with the request of the President of the Senate of the Czech Republic, and sent

Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic the new text of the draft law, saying that the

Opens the new deadline of 30 days to its consideration by the Senate of the Czech Parliament

Republic, cannot be considered a violation of the constitutional rules of the legislative

process. The President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic presented the opinion

most of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic expressed in poll no. 21

9. a meeting of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic date of 7.8.2003. That,

a group of 26 senators this procedure now heralded as unconstitutional, is

unsubstantiated. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic expresses its willingness to

a vote under the terms of article. paragraph 39. 1 and 2 of the Constitution. Partner of the President

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is the President of the Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic, which presents the majority opinion of the Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic, not opinion subsequently incurred by minority

a group of senators. The opinion of the majority achieved in each of the "i

the identity of the subject of the vote in the form of a draft law on the prison service

members of the security forces are, therefore, for the Constitutional Court.

For the evaluation of the Constitutional Court is the decisive resolution of the Senate of the Parliament

Czech Republic of 10.9.2003 No. 197, rather than a resolution, which the Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic notes that the text of the proposal referred to

the law is not identical with the wording approved in the Chamber of Deputies

The Parliament of the Czech Republic. This resolution, regardless of its

ambiguity, does not affect the validity of the resolution No. 197, which the Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic returns the Bill as adopted by the

the amendments.



The Constitutional Court emphasises the principle of mutual autonomy of decision-making ".

Each House within the legislative process accepts separately its

the decision and its affairs, the procedure chooses to their content management

processing in terms of providing the requirements of legislative techniques. It is also

Affairs of the rules of procedure and other rules (section 1, paragraph 2, and section 71 of the rules of

the order of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, § 1, paragraph 1. 2 of the Act

No 107/1999 Coll., on the rules of procedure of the Senate), which means the Chamber's

chooses to check the wording of its resolution (objections to President

verifiers, deadlines, etc.). It is not within the competence of the other deputies to its

the resolution of this point of view, checking or even ... The Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic must therefore respect the acts of the

the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, which have been properly made and

signed by its President, as required by the rules of procedure of the

the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in section 29. 1 (a). (f)), g), (h)), and

I) and section 68, paragraph. 2 (approval of minutes within 15 days), and the Chairman of the

the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (not just the apparatus) Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic officially surrendered. However, a number of

options, what with its content, how to proceed, if with the resolution

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. Similarly,

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is constitutionally provided for

options, how to deal with the resolution on the draft Bill, which the Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic returned. She cannot, however, be carried out

legislatively-technical editorial staff changes, with whom her Senate

The Czech Republic officially on the way its President Bill returns. It

could modify the law, predicted in the article. 40 of the Constitution. So far, however, is not

accepted and the practice of any of the issues addresses the parliamentary practice,

Since 1996, in contact ".



The correctness of the wording of the House resolution be validated by official signature

its President. However, it is necessary to distinguish between constitutional matter, which

It is the nature of the signatures of the constitutional factors under the law adopted in accordance with article. 51

The Constitution, which is part of the constitutionally prescribed legislative

procedure, and the signature of the President of the Chamber of deputies in nature under the resolution of the House of Commons,

where this is a reglementovou question. Because even such a Council resolution

is a public Act, it is necessary that its accuracy has been designated by the

an official of the institution in terms of confirmed that the proposal was approved in the

accordance with the procedure laid down in the constitutional rules, the rules of procedure

and the closer the rules contained in the relevant resolutions of the House, and that is

the right of the House resolution. His signature is therefore not only the notification, but

identification and verification function in relation to such

public act as a signature of the public service act. The President's signature

deny (not sistační), as well as cannot correct

factual errors and mistakes, which the Chamber of Deputies during the vote. It's in the

When the final vote on approval of the draft law can not new

do not vote, the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament

Republic (cf. find no 476/2002 Coll.). Therefore, his signature has function

acknowledgement (confirmation), as would result from the expression of the

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. Its task is to use the

other bodies of the Chamber of Deputies (rapporteurs, verifiers) and office machinery

the Chamber of deputies to ensure that the final manifestation of the will of the House of Commons was also

formulated in accordance with the requirements of the law in terms of the Democratic

the rule of law (certainty, clarity, clarity, clarity,

clarity, consistency, linguistic and stylistic flawlessness). To do this,

the President also serves such traditional rights, reglementového tool

like a record, which shall be drawn up on the basis of section 68, paragraph. 1 and 2 of the rules of
the order of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and section 86, paragraph. 1 and 2

the rules of procedure of the Senate of the Czech Republic. Write function

the official, while těsnopisecká only report features information. After the expiry of the

15 days is write an authentic record of the meeting and certifies everything that is in the

it and its annexes. His challenge is the internal affairs of the

the Chamber of Deputies, unless otherwise specified. As already mentioned, nothing else

in this direction there. Contact law has not yet been adopted.



In that case, it was recognized that the wording of section 10(4) of the adjustment. 2 the draft law

the staff members of the security forces were changing factual,

not only legislatively-technical adjustment, and therefore, the President of the

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic advanced Chamber

The Parliament of the Czech Republic approved the new wording of the draft law. This

the procedure initiated by the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic was also subsequently

The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic accepted and thus transferred

the draft law was the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic meritorně

treated. As well, this Bill was accepted without reservations at

the new hearing in the House of Commons of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.

It is not the subject of this proceeding to assess progress in the case, if the President of the

The Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament Chamber application

The Parliament of the Czech Republic failed because of this situation in

the present case, it is not. So it was not necessary to deal with the question of

that suggested the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in its

representation, i.e., whether it was necessary in the case of compliance with the proposal to cancel the

the law as a whole or only the provisions which the discrepancy between

approved and postoupeným text.



As regards its own problem 13 adjustments made in the text of the approved

the draft law on the prison service of members of security forces,

from the point of view of the Constitutional Court on the question, which is to be interpreted in the spirit

the principle of democratic rule of law enshrined in article. 1 (1). 1

Of the Constitution. From this principle it follows, first, a general requirement of clarity,

clarity, certainty and legal nerozpornosti rules of conduct

which lays down the requirements for the final legislated-technical editorial

Edit the text of the draft law, on the one hand a requirement respecting the competence of the

each of the constitutional authorities in the framework of the legislative process. Our

reglementové right in this direction on these issues of legislative practice

not responding completely satisfactory (cf. § 112, paragraph 1, of the rules of

of procedure of the Bundestag, according to which-if after a final vote before the

the referral of the draft law of the Federal Council established a printing and other errors

obvious inconsistencies, the President of the Bundestag, in conformity with the

the guarantee Committee make the correction). The Constitutional Court in this connection

notes that, in the context of the review of the constitutionality of the law is obliged to deal with the

also the respect of the constitutionally prescribed method of acceptance and release

the law. But the idea that the Constitutional Court would be in the same range, in which

regularly evaluate the compliance with the requirements of a quorum and majority provided for in article. 39

The Constitution, began to review the minutes of meetings and evaluate the space apparatus

Chambers, their verifiers, rapporteurs and Chairmen, on what the Chamber

actually concluded, is de constitutione lata unacceptable and hardly

practically feasible, would go beyond the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court

According to the article. 87 of the Constitution, and would involve interference in the Division of power, which is otherwise

the appellant alleges. Such adjustments are carried out practically

each bill in both chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and

The Constitutional Court would be subjected to the quantity of the proposals, which would address

questions that have, by their nature fall within the competence of someone else and

that are otherwise commonplace throughout the world of legislative

the services of the parliaments under the supervision of officials "(closer to

Filip, j.: Notes on the correction of irregularities in the resolutions

". The magazine for legal science and practice, vol. 2003, no. 4). As for the thing,

the Constitution expressly confers on the decision, which can only be achieved

the consent of both Chambers ' approval on the way of the law on the rules of their trade.

It is reglementového the rights to ensure that the text of the control

the approved resolution and possible legislatively-technical adjustments will be

carry out the one who has the mandate to do so based on the choice. A different procedure would

He was in conflict with the requirements of the constitutionally prescribed method of adoption of the law

within the meaning of section 68, paragraph. 2 of the law on the Constitutional Court, and in such case, the

It was the task of the Constitutional Court to review the objections, if any, regardless of the

It is also namítán the content of the law, compliance with the constitutional order.

Should be pointed out that this had to happen on the basis of the minutes of the meeting

House of Commons (section 68, paragraph 2, of the rules of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament

The Czech Republic, section 86, paragraph. 2 of the rules of the Senate of the Czech Parliament

of the Republic), not just on the basis of the těsnopisecké of the message. In the present

things, however, this is not the case, when there was a contradiction between the will of the

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and its result.



At the same time, you cannot overlook the more fundamental aspect of this matter. Input

The Constitutional Court in the autonomous area, "the Fund would

The Constitutional Court opened a wide space for their decisions

He said, what is actually the appropriate Chamber of the Parliament of the Czech Republic

agreed, without it even became part of the legal order. This would

replace the autonomous decision-making and at the same time a violation of the principles of

the separation of powers. As a result, there was not only a danger that

The Constitutional Court will become the so-called. the third Chamber of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, but

and the risk that began to take over the tasks of the officials and the legislative

apparatus of both ". The provisions of sections 66 to 68 of the Act on the Constitutional Court

in doing so, implies that the subject of the checks are legal provisions which are

promulgated by the law laid down by the way, not "resolution, which

they only have a State. To do in order to ensure consistency between the will of the

the Chamber of Deputies and its resolution are set out the competence of the individual

constitutional bodies and constitutional factors, starting with the Verifier in the

spoken to the agents referred to in the article. 51 of the Constitution. The Task Of The Constitutional

the Court is to interpret the results of the vote on the individual

the amendments and their consequences for the concept of the draft law

as a whole in relation to other provisions of such a proposal and the rules

legislative techniques. Its task is the interpretation of the constitutional text, in relation

to the law published in the collection of laws. Way to the adoption and

the publication of the law has occurred, it is subjected to the cognition of the Constitutional Court only

the framework, which sets out the constitutional order, and that was the amount of detail

divorced. The subject of the review activities of the Constitutional Court is therefore

the approved text of the law, the minutes of the meeting "serves as the main

evidence in the evaluation of one folder from the guest, tripartice

i.e.. compliance with the constitutionally prescribed method of adoption of the law.



For the Constitutional Court in the present case, it was essential that the Senate of the Parliament

The Czech Republic on the way its President asked for a new referral, the proposal

He came to the conclusion that the new wording, you can discuss this and discuss with

the amendments came back. The same text of the Chamber voted

the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, it is also recognised for the hlasovatelné and

adopted in its original form is sent to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech

of the Republic. A different view of the appellant was already undermined by, where is the

to do this, place-by a vote of both chambers. The Constitutional Court is so identified with

the views contained in the submissions of both parties to the proceedings "as well

President of the Republic, which was, in this context, with regard to its

role in the legislative process is asked to give its opinion.



The legal representative of the applicant has submitted to the Constitutional Court in the course of the

the oral proceedings for consultation by the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament printing

No. 1002, 2005, containing an alleged new Government proposal on

Another amendment to the Act No. 361/2003 Coll., which, in the appellant's

supports its arguments in favor of the repeal of this law, the constitutional

by the Court. After the assessment of the written material, the Constitutional Court

notes that, in the light of the reasons already detailed decision-making

of the document is irrelevant, incapable of anything change on his

the decision about the necessity of the complainants reject the proposal.



With regard to the above, the conclusions of the Constitutional Court did not find the proposal to

repeal of Act No. 361/2003 Coll., on the service of members of

security forces, reason. Therefore, under section 70, paragraph. 2 of the law on

The Constitutional Court has rejected.



The President of the Constitutional Court:



JUDr. Rychetský, v.r.