299/1997.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court ruled on 30 November. September 1997 in the plenary on the proposal of the regional court
in Hradec Králové on the repeal of § 9 para. 4 of the law of the Czech National Council.
37/1989 Coll., on protection from alcoholism and other addictions,
as follows:
The provisions of § 9 para. 4 of the law of the Czech National Council No. 37/1989 Coll., on
protection from alcoholism and other addictions, is repealed on the date of
publication of the finding in the journal of laws.
Justification
The regional court in Hradec Králové under the provisions of article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution and
§ 64 para. 4 of law No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, the proposal made by the
repeal the provisions of § 9 para. 4 of Act No. 37/1989 Coll., on the protection of
from alcoholism and other addictions. The District Court concluded
that the provisions of Act No. 37/1989 Coll. is in breach of article. 8
paragraph. 6 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms ("the Charter"), and therefore
According to the provisions of § 109 paragraph. 1 (b). (b)) code of civil procedure (hereinafter
"the row") in its resolution of 16 December 2004. May 1997 No. 30 Ca 67/97-8
interrupted the proceedings for review of the decision of a public authority.
The regional court in Hradec Králové comes from the fact that the District Office in
Trutnov by decision of 3 July 2001. March 1997, SP. zn. Health. SPR 5/97-ST
order the MUDr. P of the constitutional obligation to submit to alcohol treatment therapy
psychiatric hospital, which treated was left to the consideration of the
přednostky Department of psychiatric hospitals. Against this decision
Mudr. P. z. filed a timely appeal, which sought
review of the decision.
Before the regulation hearing found the regional court in Hradec Králové,
that of the obligation to submit to the constitutional treatment is decided by the District National
the Committee, now a District Office. Puts forth that article 8 (2). 6 of the Charter
lays down the cases in which a person may be taken or kept in
Constitutional health care without their consent. Such measures must be
notified within 24 hours of court which decides about this location within seven
days. The proposal for the regional court in Hradec Králové was annexed a file 30 Ca
67/97.
The challenge of the Constitutional Court has sent the case to its statement to the Chamber
the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. Concludes that the regional court in Hradec
Kings bases its conclusion on the fact that while article. 8 (2). 6 of the Charter
deciding on the location of the person into custody confers on the courts, the provisions of
§ 9 para. 4 of Act No. 37/1989 Coll. clearly provides that the
the obligation to submit to institutional care in cases of alcohol dependence
shall be decided by the District National Committee, now a District Office.
Alcohol addiction is treated in the wards of mental hospitals either
on an outpatient basis or in the form of institutional care. Residential care dependent persons
alcohol are subjected to on a voluntary basis (they log on) or obligatory
the basis of the decision of the District Office.
The mandatory alcohol treatment treatment of these persons picked up without further in
the deadline or this mandatory treatment. If a person is
dependent on alcohol, avoiding treatment-even against their will-forwarded to the
the medical facility providing in-patient care, this
medical devices must report within 24 hours of the locally competent
Court taking over such a person. The Court then, within seven days from the date on which the
assuming such a person to a medical institution without his consent,
the resolution decides whether to take the medical establishment was
due to legal reasons.
The Charter in article 6(2). 8 (2). 6 edits that only the law stipulates, in which
cases, a person may be taken or kept in institutional health care
without his consent. One of these cases is the regulation on mandatory
constitutional treatment, alcohol treatment decided District Office pursuant to § 9
paragraph. 4 of Act No. 37/1989 Coll., Act No. 48/1997 Coll., on public
health insurance and amending and supplementing certain related
laws, is to ensure that admission to institutional care shall be
the medical establishment in the case of compulsory treatment is denied. As well as
It is not possible to treat the patient prematurely from the statutory release on the release form.
Act No. 20/1966 Coll., on the health care of the people, as amended, and also
o. s. l., as amended, is the medical establishment that always take
person without her written permission to institutional care, to
-in accordance with the requirement of the Charter-to notify such acceptance to the Court that
the location of such a person in the clinic subsequently decides. From
for this reason, the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
considers that the procedure for placing people in the mandatory constitutional treatment according to the
§ 9 para. 4 of Act No. 37/1989 Coll. is not contrary to the Charter.
Act No. 37/1989 Coll. was approved by the required majority of members
the legislature of the day 28. March 1989, was signed by the competent
constitutional factors of the Czech Socialist Republic and has been properly declared.
Article 8 of the Charter guaranteeing personal liberty in paragraph 6 specifies the binding,
that only the law stipulates in which cases a person may be taken
or kept in institutional health care without their consent. Such
the measures shall be notified within 24 hours of court about this location
shall decide within seven days. Therefore, the only court to a final decision on
This location, on the basis of the mandatory notification requirement
medical device. The exception is the receipt and possession of
the person in the clinic that he ordered a court in another proceeding,
(e.g. pursuant to § 72 of the Criminal Code). Article. 8 (2). 6 of the Charter creates
the basis for the detenčnímu control. On the basis of it was then amended by law
No. 20/1966 Coll., Act No. 563/1991 Coll., of 5 December. December
1991, which in its substantive edit § 23 para. 4, and in particular, section 24
contains the reference to the footnote no longer article. 8 (2). 6 of the Charter, at the time
introduced by the Constitutional Act No. 23/1991 Coll.
§ 23 para. 4 of Act No. 20/1966 Coll., as amended, no longer
exhaustively the grounds can be calculated by the patient without his consent
take care. These are the following cases:
and in the case of) disease laid down in a special regulation, which can be saved
mandatory treatment,
(b) if the person posing mark) mental illness or intoxication
threatens themselves or their surroundings,
(c)) is not possible due to the health of the ill request
and as for the urgent operations needed to save a life or
health.
In § 24. law is then laid down the obligation of notification of the competent
medical devices to within 24 hours of court announced, in whose district the
It is situated, the takeover of the patient without his consent to care.
There was also an amendment to s. l., by Act No. 519/1991 Coll.
November 5, 1991, when it was inserted into the law new provisions entitled
"Control for the vote on the admissibility of the takeover or kept in the Institute
health care "and that is contained in section 191a to 191g.
Judicial control of detention under these provisions is breaking up into two
parts:
1. The proceedings on the admissibility of the takeover to the Institute, where they will examine the legal
the reasons for such removal. The Court shall make an order within seven days.
Beneficiaries have the opportunity to appeal, which is, however, without suspensive
effect.
2. If the Court had pronounced that the takeover of the person was in accordance with the legal
reasons, continue with the procedure for the vote on the admissibility of its further
the possession of and a length of this holding. Already decided by the judgment within the time limit to
three months.
The Constitutional Court was thus forced to examine whether the provisions of § 9 para. 4 of the law
No. 37/1989 Coll. is contrary to the sense article. 8 (2). 6 of the Charter. § 9 para.
4 of Act No. 37/1989 Coll.:
"(4) on the obligation to submit to institutional care, termination, or
for subsequent outpatient care is decided by the District National Committee; the decision of the
on the obligation to submit to the Constitutional Court shall examine, on a proposal from the care of the person
to which the decision relates, her guardian or a person close to her. "
It should be noted that the 37zákon has been issued yet in the old mode,
However, the text of the amendments in the part has not been changed.
That provision therefore confers on the decision of the administrative authority the obligation to
-District to the National Committee, now [according to § 5 para. 1 (b)) law
No. 425/1990 Coll., on district offices, modify their scope and
some of the other measures related to the District Office.]
In this context, it is necessary to mention the § 13 para. 2 (a). (b))
Decree No. 187/1989 Coll., which is directly linked to the provisions of § 9 para.
4 of Act No. 37/1989 Coll., it states that the medical devices
provide residential care to dependent persons on the basis of the decision of the district
the National Committee (now the District Office). The contested provision of § 9
paragraph. 4 follow also the provisions of § 9 para. 7 and § 9 para. 5.
the law, which is working with the information on avoiding institutional care, or
their institutional care.
The whole proceedings is thus subordinate to both an administrative order duplicate and
the Civil Court of law. Act No. 71/1967 Coll., on administrative proceedings
(administrative code), and the Board of management and addresses the Act No. 99/1963 Coll., as amended by
amended, refers to the Appeals Court (section 247, paragraph 2
o. s. l.). The review procedure is then built on dispozitivním and
rather than the mandatory provisions of the parties.
In addition to the duplicates in the current proceedings legislation and to move
the powers of the Court. Administrative authority refers to § 247 paragraph. 2.
with the round, IE. the head of the second part of the fifth deciding on actions brought against
decisions of administrative bodies. The decision about whether to take over there from the
for legal reasons, however, the law confers on the Charter and pursuant to section 191a et seq.. about.
with the row before the courts. For this purpose was amended by row inserting special
the chapter "Control for the vote of the admissibility of the receipt or possession of at the Institute
medical care ".
Article 8 (2). 6 of the Charter, which follows on from article 5 (3). 1 (b). (e))
Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, talks about the
the measures, which shall be decided by the Court, not by the decisions of other
authorities. To the revised of the row was actually taken to edit
its detention procedures (almost in the literal text with the exception of certain time limits)
the previously applicable code of civil procedure (Act No. 142/1950 Coll.). This
the adjustment was abandoned, in connection with the adoption of Act No. 20/1966 Coll.
Historically, the US has a tradition dating back to the detention centre at the proceedings
of the last century. A revised substantive modification of Act No. 20/1966
Coll., on which has been discussed above, was then fulfilled the first condition of article.
8 (2). 6 of the Charter, that only the law stipulates in which cases can
the person be taken or kept in institutional health care without their
consent. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the second condition of article 8 (2) ^.
6 of the Charter, that the location of the person without her consent to Institute health
care shall be decided by the Court.
The provisions of § 9 para. 4 of Act No. 37/1989 Coll. is inconsistent with the
the quoted article 8 para. 6 of the Charter and is unconstitutional. Therefore, The Constitutional
the Court decided about its cancellation.
This finding does not preclude the establishment of procedures to implement the measures referred to in paragraph
23 para. 4 of Act No. 20/1966 Coll., as amended.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
The rights to bring the different opinions on the findings in the Protocol on the acts and
on its connection to the decision, stating their name pursuant to section 14 of the Act
No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, judge took advantage of JUDr. Ivana Janů.