384/2009 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic of
The Constitutional Court ruled on 15. September 2009 in plenary in the composition of Stanislav
Package, Vlasta Formankova, Turgut Güttler, Pavel Holländer, Ivana Janů,
Vladimir Crust, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jiří Mucha, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodým
and on the proposal of the petitioner Pavel Rychetský regional court in Hradec
The Kings under article. paragraph 95. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic on the abolition
the provisions of section 23 (a). (c)) of Act No. 329/1999 Coll. on travel documents
and on the amendment of the Act No. 283/1991 Coll., on the police of the Czech Republic, as amended by
effective from 1. January 2005,
as follows:
The provisions of section 23 (a). (c)) of Act No. 329/1999 Coll. on travel documents
and on the amendment of the Act No. 283/1991 Coll., on the police of the Czech Republic, as amended by
amended, is hereby repealed on 31 December. 12.2010.
Justification:
(I).
1. the applicant, in accordance with article. paragraph 95. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic
with its proposal to seek the Constitutional Court annulled the provisions of section 23 (a). (c))
Act No. 329/1999 Coll. on travel documents and on the amendment of Act No.
283/1991 Coll., on the police of the Czech Republic, as amended,
(the law on travel documents), in the version effective as from 1. January 2005,
(hereinafter as the "law on travel documents, as effective from the 1.
January 2005 ").
2. In the grounds of its proposal, said that the decision of the Regional Office
Hradec Králové region (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate body") of 30 March 2004. 6.2005,
No 10687A//from 2005, the appeal was rejected by Ing. M. h. into the decision
The municipality of the city of Hradec Králové (authority) of 10 June 1999. 3.2005
No j. OS3/DV/2005, of refusing to issue a passport under section 23 (b).
c) of Act No. 329/1999 Coll., the top appointed handed the decision
the appeal of the administrative authority of an action pursuant to part three, title 11, part 1
Cust. No. 150/2002 Coll., the Administrative Court of law. Of administrative documents, in particular the
then, from the decision of the authority of first instance and the District Court of appeal authority
in preparation for the hearing found that the issue of the Passport on the basis of the
žalobcovy applications for the issue of a travel document of 31 August. 1.2005
denied without making the plaintiff proposed evidence with reference to section 23
(a). (c)) of the Act with the understanding that the administrative authority is not competent to examine the
justification for the request, if it is proven that the applicant is prosecuted for
the offence in aiding and abetting fraud, intentional
an offence for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed for up to twelve
years. The administrative authority does not have the option of a separate assessment of the reason of the refusal
Passport and is only on an assessment of the law enforcement authorities of the
management is refusing to issue a travel document.
The applicant added that the plaintiff in the paragraph. V and VI action (article 4 and 5 of the
file) detailing the objections stated, for which it considers the provisions of section 23 (a).
(c) contrary to constitutional law) fine. Their transcription into the design
the District Court therefore considered unnecessary duplication and, since the applicant
the doubts raised by shares, bequeathed to him by that argument and
designed by the contested provision.
3. The Constitutional Court has called upon the petitioner to supplement its proposal about the proper
no constitutional argument; Even so, to the consolidated
the proposal (without reference to the content of the file) to send to the representation of both
the Chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
4. In the supplement of the proposal, the applicant stated that the reasons for the
which considers the contested provisions conflicting with the constitutional order, the
in principle agree with the reasons for which the Constitutional Court found unconstitutional
the provisions of section 23 (a). (b)) of Act No. 329/1999 Coll. on travel documents
and on the amendment of the Act No. 283/1991 Coll., on the police of the Czech Republic, as amended by
effective until 31 December 2006. 12.2004; It has made in its award dated June 20. 5.2008,
SP. zn. PL. ÚS 12/07. A regional court as the plaintiff while he pointed out
in particular, the fact that the contested provisions of the law of travel
documents does not provide the administrative authority adjudicating on withdrawal
travel document or travel document of refusing to issue the application
Authority participating in criminal proceedings, any possibility of consideration within the
the condition that the rights shall be in a democratic society
the inevitable or necessary. If it is satisfied the legal reason-request
body active in criminal proceedings, if it is against the citizen are conducted
prosecution for an offence for which the prison sentence may be imposed
the freedom of at least 3 years-does not have the administrative authority at all no room for
the administrative discretion of the necessity or appropriateness of such measures and
the travel document shall withdraw or deny its issue, which in their
the implications of significantly limits the options of the review of the administrative court.
Cited provisions limiting the right of the holder of a travel document or
the travel document of the applicant to pursue in court or at another institution
the protection of their rights in such a way that it is not excluded constitutionally
guaranteed rights to his assessment of the intervention in terms of inevitability or
the necessity of the restrictions on freedom of movement. According to the petitioner so contested
provision does not allow the courts to fulfil their obligations to the General when
the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, if the review
the application Authority participating in criminal proceedings concerning the withdrawal of the travel document
or refusing to issue travel document to a person against that leads
prosecution for an offence for which the prison sentence may be imposed
freedom for at least 3 years; It represents a failure to respect the principles of
enshrined in article. 2 (2). 2 and article. 4 (4). 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and
freedoms. This is denied to the right of individuals to effective judicial protection
According to the article. paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, which in the final
as a result, leads to violation of the article. 14 paragraph. 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and
freedoms and article. 2 of the Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms. For this reason, followed by a regional court pursuant to § 95
paragraph. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic.
II.
5. The Constitutional Court has taken to the proposal's representation of the Chamber of Deputies and
Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
6. In the representation of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is
stated that the contested provisions contain print no 605 IV. the electoral
period-the Government Bill amending the Act No. 326/1999 Coll., on the
civil documents, as amended, law No. 329/1999
Coll. on travel documents and on the amendment of Act No. 283/1991 Coll., on the police
The Czech Republic, as amended, (the law of travel
documents), as amended, Act No. 200/1990 Coll., on
Offences Act, as amended, Act No. 153/1994 Coll., on
the intelligence services of the Czech Republic, as amended,
and Act No. 326/1999 Coll., on stay of foreigners on the territory of the Czech Republic and the
amendment to certain acts, as amended. In the explanatory memorandum
the Government expressly states that it presented to the amendment of the Act is in accordance with the
the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, in particular the then fully respects the Charter of
fundamental rights and freedoms where the right to freedom of movement and
the stay. Then the whole amendment in accordance with the law of the European
community and with international treaties by which the Czech Republic is
bound to the related legal relations. The first reading
This print was held on 7 December 2004. April 2004. The Bill was referred to the
the Committee for public administration, regional development and the
environment. The Committee for public administration, regional development and the
environment to discuss printing no 605 on 14 July. April 2004 on their 33. the meeting,
While the draft amendment to Act No. 329/1999 Sb. Amendment filed
was not. Second reading of the press took place on 16 605. June 2004 and to
the contested provisions of the amendment has not been made. Third reading
took place on 30. June 2004. The Chamber of Deputies a draft law
approved, as from 185 MPs voted for the Bill
171 deputies were against 2 MEPs. The Bill was approved
referred to the Senate on 15. in July 2004. The Senate Bill is back
The Chamber of Deputies with amendments, which, however, the law on the
travel documents were not related. The Chamber of Deputies about the law returned by the
The Senate again voted on 24. September 2004. For the Bill, as amended by
the amendments submitted by the Senate of 194 MPs
spoke for 96 members, against 38 members was. The proposal was not accepted,
Since the prescribed quorum of votes, up from 98. After the Chamber of Deputies
approved the draft law in the version in which it was sent to the Senate, and it
of 194 MPs for the 130 deputies, against 14 members.
The law containing the contested provisions of the President of the Republic signed the day
October 18, 2004. The amendment was approved by the required majority
members of the Chamber of Deputies, has been signed by the respective constitutional
agents and was duly published in the collection of laws of the day 9. November 2004
under number 559/2004 Sb.
7. The Chamber of Deputies, that the legislature acted in
the belief that adopted laws are in accordance with the Constitution of the Czech Republic
and our legal system and is the Constitutional Court, in the context of the
the design of the regional court in Hradec Králové on abolition of the provisions of section 23 of the
(a). (c)) of Act No. 329/1999 Coll. on travel documents, as amended by
effective from 1. January 2005, examined the constitutionality of these laws and decided
(Note: the Chamber of Deputies-unlike the Senate-to procedure
the adoption of the original text of Act No. 329/1999 Coll. did not comment.
8. the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in its comments stated that the
the contested provisions of the proposal of the law on travel documents is the result
legislative activities topped off by the announcement of the cited law 27 December.
December 1999. A draft of the Bill was referred to the Senate
The Chamber of Deputies the day 26. October 1999. The Senate Bill has been forwarded
(Senate printing No. 109), in the prescribed manner discussed in its committees
and then on its 11. Meeting 2. term of Office 12 May. November 1999.
The Senate, on the recommendation of the three committees, which was Bill returned
The Chamber of Deputies, the law in question with amendments to its
resolution No. 185 dated May 12. November 1999. The resolution was adopted
a significant majority of 60 senators present voted for the proposal
56 senators, against none, and 4 Senators vote zdrzeli.
The Senate adopted amendments to the provisions of § nesměřovaly 23
by refusing to issue and the withdrawal of the travel document; When discussing this
the Senate Bill in Committee, however, were representatives of the Government as the
the claimant (in the debate) explicitly pointed out that the Government has missed the
submit a new Bill to change the existing structure of legislation,
that the withdrawal of the travel document shall be decided by the administrative authority of the Passport
at the request of various State authorities, for the reasons listed factually
neorganicky also in the law on travel documents. Committees of the Senate
It was stated that the reasons for refusing or withdrawing the travel document would
should be included in the procedural legislation, in which
This tool was related to the adjustment of the relations, for which purpose it is intended.
The power of the decision refusing the issue or withdrawal of a travel document to
have State authorities, whose scope is for those relationships the law
defined, as in the context of such legislation is also created mode
the relevant guarantees the proper consideration of the case, including the standard rights
party to the proceedings and the possibility of subsequent judicial review. The Senate, however,
It was not the resolutions of its committees recommended to proceed to the adoption of
the amendments within the meaning of the above applicable comments that
as for the solution, which is to prepare for their performance of the care of the Government
as a comprehensive solution, and in the full legislative process.
9. The Senate continued, adding that the contested provisions of the proposal was
the amendment only once, by law No 559/2004 Coll., This an amending
the effort, however, has not changed the factual nature of this edit. To change the provisions of §
23 (b). (b)) of the law on travel documents, valid until 31 December 2006. 12.2004
consisted only in that condition for refusing the issue or withdrawal of
the document should not be in the future criminal prosecution for intentional criminal offence,
but for an offence for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed for at least
three years. By inserting a new subparagraph (b)) in section 23, then the formal designation
the provisions in question has changed from the former subparagraph (b)) to the present
the letter c). The above outlined the amendment was referred to the Senate Chamber
the House on 14 July. in July 2004. The Senate forwarded a Bill (Senate
print no. 392) in the prescribed manner discussed in its committees and then on the
its 17. Meeting 4. term of Office 22 December. in July 2004 he returned to the
the recommendation of the Committee resolution No. 493 of May 22. July 2004
relevant amendments to the law with amendments the House of Commons.
The resolution was adopted in a vote no. 32 of 57 unanimously
Senators present voted for the proposal from the 57 senators. From the above
It follows that the appeal was valid and its resolution was adopted
the necessary number of votes. The Senate adopted the amendments, however,
nesměřovaly to the provisions on refusal of issuance and withdrawal of
document, and even the committees and the plenary Chamber of the contested provisions
touch. In the case of amendment is interested in the legislature were denied mainly to
the provisions, in which a change of fundamental effect, which, however, by Senate
was not the case for the provisions of the changes. The Senate said that, discuss
the present proposal of the law in the majority belief, that is in accordance with the
the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and international obligations; leaving on
The Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of the contested provisions of the proposal.
III.
10. The Constitutional Court as soon as possible in accordance with section 68, paragraph. 2 Act No. 182/1993
Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48/2002 Coll., examined whether
the unconstitutionality of the provisions of the Act, the appellant argues, was accepted and
issued within the limits of the Constitution of the Czech Republic set out competences and constitutionally
in the prescribed manner. Found while (from representation of the Chamber of Deputies and
Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, as well as sent to the Council
prints, těsnopiseckých reports, the relevant resolutions and information on the progress of
the vote of both Chambers), that, as the original law, and its amendment, the changing
the contested provisions (Law No 559/2004 Coll.) was adopted and issued
The Constitution of the Czech Republic in the prescribed manner and within the limits of the Constitution, the Czech
the Republic established competence, while observing the quorums, laid down in the article. 39
paragraph. 1 and 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic. Referred to the amendment to Act No. 329/1999
Coll. was signed by the competent constitutional actors and published in the collection of
under laws No 559/2004 Sb.
IV.
11. the provisions of section 23 of the law on travel documents, as amended by Act No.
559/2004 Coll., effective since 1. 1.2005, sounds (the proposal challenged the part is
underlined):
The issue of a travel document is issued to a citizen denies or travel
the document is to be withdrawn at the request of
and the Court is) if the citizen enforcement of the Court decision,
(b)), the court bailiff execution, if
clearly there is a danger that the execution could frustrate the way abroad,
c) Authority participating in criminal proceedings is conducted against a citizen
prosecution for an offence for which the prison sentence may be imposed
freedom for at least 3 years, or
(d)), which carries out or arranges for the decision in accordance with
special legal regulation, did not exercise the citizen imprisonment;
This does not apply if the penalty was pardoned or its performance
barred.
In the.
12. The Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that the proposal is reasonable.
13. The Constitutional Court, in assessing the constitutionality of the contested provisions
in particular, he found that the crux of the matter is, in principle, the same as the case
a remarkable finding of the Constitutional Court of 20 March. 5.2008 under SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
12/07 (promulgated under no 355/2008 Coll.). If the Constitutional Court in that
the award said that the provisions of section 23 (a). (b)) of Act No. 329/1999 Coll., on the
travel documents and on the amendment of Act No. 283/1991 Coll., on the police of the Czech
Republic, as amended by Act No 217/2002 Coll. and Act No. 320/2002 Coll.
It was in breach of article. 2 (2). 2, article. 4 (4). 1, article. 14 paragraph. 1 and article. 36
paragraph. 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms and article. 2 of the Protocol No. 4 to the
Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter as
"The Protocol"). In the provisions of section 23 (a). (b)) of the law on travel documents
in force and effective until 31 December 2006. December 2004 stated that "the issue of the
the travel document shall be refused or issued the travel document shall be withdrawn at
request Authority participating in criminal proceedings against which the citizen is
guided by the criminal prosecution for intentional criminal offence ". Change, consisting of-
Since the effectiveness of the law No 559/2004 Coll.-withdraw or deny options
the issue of a travel document only if the citizen is to be conducted
prosecution for an offence for which the prison sentence may be imposed
freedom for at least 3 years, is not of such a nature as to the constitutional
konformitu analysis of the provisions.
14. The Constitutional Court is therefore reiterate that freedom of movement,
guaranteed by the article. 14 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, is one of the
fundamental human rights and according to the article. 4 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic is under
the protection of the judicial power. The rights arising from the freedom of movement you can claim
directly, immediately, not only through laws that
the provisions are carried out. Constitutional guarantees, however, are not unlimited; freedom
movement is limited by the constitutional limits. These restrictions generally summarize
so, that must be established by law for reasons exhaustively listed in paragraph 2(a).
3 article 14 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, and that, "if it is
the inevitable ". Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the
Protocol No 4 guaranteeing freedom of movement to the citizens of the State concerned, and
foreigners in a different manner (cf.. "who is legally staying"), and
their limits, determined by just for the cases set out in paragraph 1(b). 3 of the Protocol
for the conditions, "if it is necessary in a democratic society". No other
the limits of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms or Protocol; Therefore, it is
freedom of movement must be understood as a right that includes not only the right to
to move and reside freely anywhere on the territory of the Czech Republic, but also
the right to freely travel abroad and return.
15. As already stated, the Constitutional Court in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 12/07 (see
above), in relation to the citizens of the Czech Republic the constitutional adjustment admits
to exercise their freedom of movement was restricted by the intervention of the public authorities. In order to
This intervention could be considered constitutionally permissible, must be determined
by law, must be directed to a legitimate objective pursued, and must be the inevitable,
or necessary in a democratic society. Legitimate objectives are
The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms and the Convention for the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms defined by the so-called. concepts such as fuzzy.
State security, national security, public order, public
safety, the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals,
protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the protection of nature. Some of these concepts
are defined by the Act, some of them, though widely used, e.g..
the term "public order", the law clearly does not, and therefore
the case-law of the courts are interpreted, respectively. the decisions of the other institutions
the public authorities. From the constitutionally legal terms it is irrelevant whether these are
terms by the legislature or interpreted by case-law-populated, is applicable,
that may not be further disseminated. The contested provisions can restrict
the freedom of movement of individuals outside the territory of the Czech Republic as a result of his
in a prosecution for an offence for which you can-de lege lata-save
imprisonment for at least 3 years. The criminal proceedings leading to the
the proper detection of offences and their fair punishment
Offenders (§ 1 para 1 tr.) in order to protect the interests of the company,
the constitutional establishment of the Czech Republic, rights and legitimate interests of individuals and
legal persons (§ 1 tr. law) are generally legitimate public
interest. What, however, relates to the additional conditions that rights must be
the inevitable or necessary in a democratic society, the Constitutional Court
He stated that, although these terms are not in the Charter of fundamental rights of the
and freedoms and the Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms closer
defined, it is clear that entails a need for urgent social,
the specification represents the space for discretion and justification
by the legislator. If not so provided by law, the characteristic features of the
This needs derived from case law.
16. The Constitutional Court in connection with the assessment of the necessity of the intervention
public authority to the rights and freedoms of the individual judikoval that
"he admits to the constitutional order of the Czech Republic a breakthrough into the protection of the rights,
It is only and exclusively in the interest of a democratic society,
where appropriate, in the interest of the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms of others;
This includes in particular the necessity of the general interest in the protection of
the company before the offences, and that such offences were detected
and punished. It is therefore only permitted such intervention of State power to
the fundamental right or freedom of man, which is a necessary intervention in the
that meaning. To have not exceeded the bounds of necessity, must
there be a system of adequate and sufficient guarantees, consisting of
relevant legislation and effective control of their observance. "
[cf. find SP. zn. II.-502/2000 of 22.1.2001 (collection of findings and
the resolution of the Constitutional Court, volume 21, finding no 11, page 83)]. Also from
the case-law of the European Court of human rights shows that, when assessing the
the intervention leading to the violation of the freedom of movement of the individual, in this Court's
the principles set out in article. 2 of the Protocol No. 4 notes for example. the result of the
investigation, or the development of a particular case, and in this context
considering that the action was in relation to the intended objective [cf..
for example. thing in France, Baumann. complaint No. 33592/96, the thing in the Iletmis.
Turkey, complaint No 29871/96 Luordo v. Italy case, complaint No.
32190/96, court judgments of the ECTHR case-law Overview, no 6/2003, p. 317
(324) and other].
17. the purpose of the contested provisions, withdrawal or refusal of release
travel document tracking to the person being pursued by for separately
qualified (serious) offence could not avoid prosecution,
hinder him or him completely escape. It is therefore clear that the adequacy of the
This measure from the point of view of its inevitability, or the need to
consider only on the basis of the status and development of the criminal prosecution of persons concerned
This measure, and that this assessment is the responsibility of the authority in the criminal law
the proceedings. The criminal procedure code, however, does not provide procedural means to the person prosecuted,
that would achieve an effective review of the proportionality of the proposed measures,
Since the application Authority participating in criminal proceedings for the deprivation of
the document to the person prosecuted shall be decided in other than in criminal proceedings.
18. The Constitutional Court therefore-once again-judged above all the question of whether
standard limiting the scope of the facts under which can be limited
freedom of movement of the holder of the travel document, is in contradiction with the constitutional
policy, in particular with article. paragraph 36. 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms,
that is true, that everyone can claim a set procedure, your
the law of an independent and impartial court and in cases provided for by the
another authority. Sense and the purpose of this provision is to establish
the obligation of the State to provide protection of the rights of everyone, as in the legal
the State cannot have a situation in which the holder of rights could not be enforced
his protection (to the Court or other authority). In General, the Democratic
the State is there to its citizens (but also the visitors to his
the territory) to protect and to provide them with guarantees that their rights will be
protected. As the Constitutional Court has already interpreted in the award of 29 June. 1.2008 sp.
Zn. PL. ÚS 72/06, paragraph 4 of the article. 36 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms
(which basically refers to (1) of article 36 the Charter of fundamental rights and
freedoms textací "set procedure") refers to the law that
modifies the "conditions and details" in the session to all previous
paragraphs in the article. 36 of the Charter; such a law, issued on the basis of the constitutional
authorization, however, is the provision of article. 36 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms
capped and from its content, therefore, cannot derogate. The sense and purpose of the
"ordinary" law, according to the article. paragraph 36. 4 of the Charter of fundamental rights and
freedoms is only to lay down the conditions and details of implementation to its
content (already) in the ústavodárcem article. 36 of the Charter enshrined rights, therefore,
conditions and details only of a procedural nature. If according to the article. paragraph 36.
1 Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms of everyone the right to seek the protection of their
rights in court or other authority, with the conditions and rules of implementation
This law lays down the law, then such law, issued on the basis of the
the constitutional mandate, cannot claim "everyone" to seek the protection of their
rights in court or other authority in the situation completely negate, and by
Thus the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right, if only in certain cases,
deny it. The provisions of article 36, paragraph. 1 of the Charter, each constitutionally
guaranteed option to claim the protection of their rights in court or other
authority in all situations of his violation (there is a constitutional
restrictions). No person can not be completely excluded by law from the options
claim the protection of their rights – even if only in a certain case-
that would be its right pursuant to article 4(1). paragraph 36. 1 of the Charter was annulled. The opposite
the interpretation would also be represented, that the entrenchment of the rights of everyone to
judicial and other authorities to protect their rights, made by the ústavodárcem-so
gifted the highest legal force-would essentially lose sense, since it would
could be eliminated for that situation will only (simple)
the legislature.
19. The Constitutional Court referred to the finding that the contested provision ruled
the law on travel documents of the administrative authority does not provide
deciding on the withdrawal of the travel document application Authority participating in the
criminal proceedings, any possibility of considerations under the conditions
the inevitability of such interference or the need in a democratic
the company, as it was fulfilled the legal reason-request by the law
in criminal proceedings, which led to the person concerned against prosecution for
the offence in question-has the administrative authority at all no room to
the administrative discretion of the necessity or appropriateness of such measures and
the travel document must withdraw. He added that from the point of view of the constitutional law
the key is whether the powers of the inevitability of the need to consider or use
the device, which leads to the restriction of rights or freedoms
individuals in order to protect other constitutionally protected values, is gifted with the
or that the public authority (the administrative authority of the passport or the authority
criminal proceedings); applicable is that its decision should not be excluded from the
effective judicial control. The contested provisions of the law of travel
the documents, however, the administrative authority does not provide any possibility of considerations, which
in its consequences considerably limits the possibilities of its review of the administrative
by the Court. Deny permissions issue a travel document or withdraw
travel document, as determined by law and justified by the reasoned public
interest (a legitimate aim) may be in a particular case
the inevitable (necessary) measures; decisions on such measures
However, it cannot be excluded from the actual judicial protection and replaced by a judicial
protection only illusory.
20. The supporting reasons for the finding of the Constitutional Court of 20 October. 5.2008, SP. zn. PL.
TC 12/07 (see above), they express a binding legal opinion, which is now bound by the
the Constitutional Court (article 89, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the Czech Republic).
21. The Constitutional Court (now) to the conclusions expressed above and contained in the already
the cited award SP. zn. PL. ÚS 12/07, therefore just added and again
recalls that one of the fundamental conceptual assumptions constitutionally
guaranteed the right to a fair trial (articles 36 et seq.. Of the Charter
fundamental rights and freedoms), decision-making is independent and impartial
the courts in accordance with the specific principles, laid down in the relevant procedural
regulations; You must, however, in its individual provisions such
the process also realistically allow and ignore the gratuitously between
each of the entities whose basic rights are comparable. Such
the procedure, although it must be a common interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions
allows for direct intervention in the leads of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights
or freedoms of concerned public holders of subjective rights, and in the vast
most and their violation; the core principles of modern democratic
the legal and constitutional State (article 1, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of the Czech Republic),
that is understood and defined as the so-called. the material law, bound
the highest constitutional principles and values, something like that
do not allow. And the essence of legal security as one of the attributes of the
rule of law-including the protection of trust in law-in particular
in fact, that everyone can rely on the fact that his State will provide effective
protection in its rights and helps make him the realization of his subjective
rights.
22. The Constitutional Court has considered that it is not up to him to lawmakers
in detail, what the legislation has on the assessed
the issue of accept. Before its adoption, however, will be on legislators,
to thoroughly and consistently consider, whether it is reasonable to
refusing to issue a travel document or withdrawal decisions of administrative authorities
and administrative courts and whether this problem for their competence at all. In
its consequences as a reinsurance Institute; the decision about the
you need to use it, you should do those public authorities that
proceedings, in which such locking means used, i.e.
authorities active in criminal proceedings. A review of such a decision by the Court
in the same proceedings (i.e., in the criminal proceedings) carries a number of uncontested
the benefits of. It's not just about flexibility and greater knowledge of the reasons for which
the competent public authority, considered it necessary to ensure the
to proceed, but mainly about the removal of unwanted mingling of different
processes conducted by the various authorities, i.e.. law enforcement authorities in criminal proceedings, and
the administrative courts and administrative authorities. Moreover, it pointed out in the Senate
their representation in the cited stuff Pl. TC 12/07. Cancellation of the contested
the provisions of the law on travel documents, therefore, the Constitutional Court does not intend to
přisvědčit opinion, according to which the right broad discretionary powers in the administrative
the Office, supplemented by judicial review in the administrative courts unlimited jurisdiction, is
that way, the legislature had had to take.
23. The Constitutional Court therefore considers that the provisions of section 23 (a). (c)) Law No.
329/1999 Coll. on travel documents and on the amendment of Act No. 283/1991 Coll.,
the Police of the Czech Republic, as amended effective from the 1. January 2005 does not allow
the general courts to live up to their responsibilities in the protection of fundamental rights and
freedoms of individuals when reviewing the application Authority participating in criminal
management and the withdrawal of the travel document to a person against whom a criminal leads
a prosecution for an offence for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed
at least 3 years; This is true in terms of the limits of the conditions the necessity or
the inevitability of such interference in a democratic society, which
represents a violation of the principles enshrined in article. 2 (2). 2 and article. 4 (4).
1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedom. It is the individuals at the same time
denied the right to effective judicial protection under article. paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter of
the basic rights and freedom, in which ultimately led to violation of the article.
14 paragraph. 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms and article. 2 of the Protocol No. 4 to the
Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
24. therefore, the Constitutional Court of the petitioner's proposal in accordance with article. paragraph 95. 2 of the Constitution
The Czech Republic fully complied with and the contested provisions set aside. At the same time
However the appropriately put aside the enforceability of its award to lawmakers
allow ústavněkonformně to respond to the situation.
25. The Constitutional Court has come to the conclusion that from the oral proceedings could not be expect
further clarification of the matter and therefore from him, with the consent of the participants.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
