269/2011 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic of
The Constitutional Court ruled under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/09 day 3. August 2011 at the plenary
consisting of the President of the Court, Pavel Rychetského and Stanislav Bumpkin,
Franz Duchoně (reporter judge), Vlasta Formánkové, Vojena
Güttlera, Pavla Holländera, Ivana Janů, Vladimir Crust, Dagmar
Lastovecké, Jan Jiří Musil, Nykodýma, Miloslava Excellent, Eliška
Wagner and Michael Židlické about the design of the Supreme Administrative Court on
abolition of the transitional provisions to the first article. (II) points 3, 4, 5, 6 and
7 of law no 183/2009 Coll., amending Act No 120/2001 Coll., on the
bailiffs and enforcement activities (execution order) and amending
other laws, in wording of later regulations, and Act No. 121/2008 Coll.,
the higher court officials and senior officials of the State
the Prosecutor's Office and amending related laws, as amended by Act No.
7/2009 Coll.,
as follows:
The proposal is rejected.
Justification
I. the content of the proposal and the arguments of the applicant
1. On 18 July 2005. December 2009 was the Constitutional Court delivered a draft of the Supreme
Administrative Court (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant"), on the abolition of the transitional
provisions to the first article. (II) points 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of law No. 183/2009
Coll., amending Act No 120/2001 Coll., on judicial executors and
enforcement activities (execution order) and amending other laws, as amended by
amended, and Act No. 121/2008 Coll., on higher court
officials and senior officials of the public prosecutor and amending
related laws, as amended by law No 7/2009 Coll., this is about the law,
was mj. changed Act No 120/2001 Coll., on judicial executors and
enforcement activities (execution order) and amending other laws, as amended by
amended. Article II, in which it is proposed to repeal
points 3 to 7, all sounds as follows:
"Article. (II)
Transitional provisions
1. Where a decision of the Presidium of the invitations to tender published in the official
before the date of entry into force of this law shall apply to this selection
the management of the existing legislation.
2. If the Chamber has proposed to the Minister before the date of the acquisition of the executor of the revocation
the effectiveness of this law shall apply to the revocation existing legal
regulations.
3. unless otherwise further, it is for the disciplinary proceedings
initiated before the date of entry into force of this Act, Act No 120/2001
Coll., in the version in force from the date of entry into force of this Act. Disciplinary
offense shall be considered and disciplinary measures are saved according to the existing
legislation.
4. If the disciplinary Commission, before the date of entry into force of this Act
pursuant to section 120 of the Act No 120/2001 Coll., in the version in force before the date of application
of this Act, and if not produced before the date of entry into force of
of this Act, a written decision or does not send the accused person is able in the printer
the bailiff or candidate decides on the proposal, again the Supreme Administrative
the Court. Similarly, the Presidium shall decide on the appeal before the date
the effective date of this Act pursuant to § 121 paragraph 2. 4 of Act No 120/2001
Coll., in the version in force until the date of entry into force of this Act, and
If not produced before the date of entry into force of this Act, a written
the decision or does not send the accused person is able in the printer.
5. If the Expired before the date of entry into force of this Act, the time limit for
lodging an appeal against the decision of the disciplinary Commission or if this period has started
to run after the effective date of this Act, an appeal shall be submitted to the
The Supreme Administrative Court, it was not before the date of entry into force of
This Act submitted to the disciplinary Commission. For the length of the period of appeal is
apply the existing legislation.
6. On appeal, the issue was not decided before the date of the acquisition of
the effectiveness of this law, as well as the appeal in accordance with section 4, second sentence, the
apply mutatis mutandis the provisions of law in cases concerning judges and
prosecutors. Decisions of the appeal boards, which act and
make decisions in proceedings concerning judges. If it does not reject the Supreme Administrative Court
appeal, the contested decision cancels the whole or in part and in the matter of
shall decide.
7. The Chamber shall surrender the Supreme Administrative Court documents and writings to the management
in accordance with points 3 to 6 within 1 month from the date of entry into force of this Act. ".
2. The reason for the application for revocation of points 3 to 7 above is based on the petitioner's
the fact that the effective date of Act No. 183/2009 Coll. took over
decisions in disciplinary matters of bailiffs. On 13 November. July 2009
was the applicant, in accordance with the transitional provisions of the said
the law, passed by the Chamber of the United States Experience the dossier in case
the disciplinary proceedings against a court bailiff. I. L. Executors '
the Chamber of the United States to escape prosecution, disciplinary decision, however,
It was not before the date of the effectiveness of Act No. 183/2009 Coll., in writing and
the file was, according to paragraph 4 of the said transitional provisions, passed to
the decision to the applicant. The order of the day 2. December 2009 No. 11
KSE 3/2009-51 interrupted proceedings in the case and made an application to the Constitutional Court
proposal to repeal part of the transitional provisions of the Act indicated above
No 183/2009 Coll., for their conflict with the constitutional order.
3. the appellant pointed to the fact that the Chamber of Deputies adopted a
Act No. 183/2009 Sb. already during its first reading, under section 90 of the paragraph. 2
Act No. 90/1995 Coll., on rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, (
"the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies"). According to the claimant were not
the conditions for the amendment of the disciplinary proceedings by the executors
of the cited provisions of the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, as it
This is an exceptional procedure, which must be duly justified. Justification
the Government relied solely on the fact the behavior of the central register of execution of
Parties to the enforcement service of the Czech Republic. Changing the rules of the disciplinary
management of bailiffs to be unrelated with the rationale expressed in the explanatory memorandum
message for an accelerated legislative procedure has not been adequately
urgent, and did not pass so the ordinary legislative process. The draft law
the Chamber of Deputies was presented on 14 July. April 2009 and 16. April
2009 was presented another proposal for the amendment of the disciplinary proceedings which the executors,
He was accepted in the ordinary legislative process under no 286/2009 Coll., according
the order report was a draft law no 183/2009 Coll., discussed in
comment procedures with all ministries, other administrative authorities and
the courts from the regional grades above, but in fact were not even regional
or higher courts to question. To submit comments
was not invited, nor the Supreme Administrative Court, although it this new legal
Edit immediately concerned. Changing the rules the disciplinary proceedings
Court executors, which occurred by law no 183/2009 Coll., there
the reason expressed in the explanatory memorandum for an accelerated legislative
procedure, nor in itself did not contain the urgency for this way of
consultation. It was therefore a misuse of section 90, para. 2 of the rules of
The Chamber of Deputies, so the aforementioned legislation actually did not pass
the ordinary legislative process.
4. The contested legislation raises the inadmissible right the retroactive effect,
because the application of the transitional provisions to the Act No. 183/2009 Coll. in
proceedings initiated as a result of disciplinary proceedings before the management mean
Supreme Administrative Court again from the beginning, without taking into account the
acts that have already been made in the proceedings in accordance with the previous legislation,
25. June 2009. Such a procedure is, in the opinion of the applicant in
contrary to the principles of economy, efficiency of proceedings, the right to legitimate
expectations of the parties regarding compliance with the principle of non-retroactivity
and the right to a fair trial.
5. the legislation also raises Doubts that is contained under points 4 and 6
the transitional provisions, which establish the competence of the Supreme Administrative
the Court made the decision on the matter, even in cases where the disciplinary
the Commission or the Presidium of the Chamber of bailiffs of the Czech Republic already
have decided, but the decision has not yet been done or sent in writing.
The already issued and announced the decision, in the wake of its
bid on or not send, seen as an undecided yet thing, in
which will further decide another authority (Supreme Administrative Court), using
other rules. The mentioned situation can occur even in the ongoing
the appeal proceedings, so the matter will be decided in the first
the degree. The appellant considered the disputed paragraph 5 also
the transitional provisions, as provided by the Board of appeal cannot lead
control. This procedure is also contrary to the principle of the prohibition of reformatio
in peius, contained in section 32 (a). (c)) and § 35 para. 2 disciplinary procedure
The enforcement service of the Czech Republic (Editor's Note: the above provisions
the disciplinary procedure has been canceled), which according to the new legislation already Disciplinary Chamber
It is not bound.
6. The application of the transitional provisions, therefore, leads to violations of the right to
fair trial, enshrined in an article. paragraph 36. 1 of the Charter of fundamental
rights and freedoms ("the Charter") and in the article. 6 (1). 2 of the European Convention on
the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention").
The appellant referred to the judgments of the European Court of human rights in the
things De Geouffre de la Pradelle against France, Bellet against France and
Coeme against Belgium. He stated that decision-making in matters of judicial executors,
in the current application enforcement code and Act No. 7/2002 Coll. on the management
in matters of judges, prosecutors and judicial executors, as amended by
amended, referring also to the reasonable use of Act No.
141/1961 Coll., on criminal court proceedings (code of criminal procedure), as amended by
amended, cannot be described as judicial proceedings under the bright
procedural rules.
II. observations of the parties
7. the President of the Chamber of deputies in its observations summarized the procedure
the adoption of Act No. 183/2009 Coll., and pointed out that the condition to
the procedure pursuant to § 90 para. 2 Act No. 90/1995 Coll., on rules of procedure
The Chamber of Deputies, as amended by law No 47/2000 Coll. (according to which the
The Chamber of Deputies entitled to adoption of the law in the first reading),
that is the justification for such a procedure, in the explanatory memorandum to its proposal,
has been fulfilled in the present case. Assessment of the adequacy of the statement of reasons is on
The Chamber of Deputies, so the proposal discussed in compliance with the
legal terms and conditions. The Government in the Assembly print # 799, that law No.
183/2009 Coll., the Commission has stated that the proposed legislation
the constitutional order and does not contradict international treaties by which the Czech
Republic. Thus, the legislature has acted in the belief that
accepted the law is in accordance with the Constitution of the Czech Republic.
8. the President of the Senate, recounted the procedure by which the Senate on its 7. a meeting of the
approved the draft law no 183/2009 Coll., as amended by the already approved
The Chamber of Deputies. He stated that in the context of the consideration of the proposal during
the debate divided the discussion into two groups. First support
the expeditious adoption of the amendment with respect to the inertia of the Chamber of bailiffs
The United States in the application of disciplinary responsibility of bailiffs.
The second then pointed out a certain "rashness" in the process of preparation of the statutory
master and its consideration in § 90 paragraph mode. 2 of the rules of
The Chamber of Deputies and called for postponing the date of the present
the law. The plaintiff alleged breach of legitimate expectations, in
due to the impossibility of able in the printer the accused invoke the bailiff
the prohibition of reformatio in peius, the Senate failed to address, among other things because the
This principle is not in execution of the order. Is embedded in the disciplinary
the order issued by the experience of the Chamber of the United States, which, however, has exceeded the
the scope of the authorization pursuant to § 114 enforcement code, in the version in force before the
the amendment, which allowed to edit in the disciplinary regulations only the proceedings before
exercise disciplinary Commission.
9. the proposal was sent to the Ministry of Justice to express and that
stated that at the time of deciding on the said amendment of the law was absolutely
clearly, the Disciplinary Chamber of the United States Enforcement authorities have not
its role. The length of the disciplinary proceedings was unreasonably long, in some
cases lasted up to 6 years of age. Number of pending goods was still high and
increased from year to year. Compared to the other professional chambers
(notarial and law) was not the purpose of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the experience of
Chamber of the Czech Republic according to the adjustments effective to 25. 6.2009 at all
filled with. On the necessity of an immediate transition to a different agenda, disciplinary
an independent body was clear consensus across the political parties
as represented in the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
10. The progress of the legislative process was characterized by broad consensus
members of the "across the political parties" and subsequently the senators. After the General
debate, the Chamber of Deputies has voted (under Order No. 75) resolution on the
review of the draft so that it could be ratified during the first
read. Of the 154 members voted for, against 145 members
There was no. After a subsequent detailed debate took place, under the order. No 77,
the vote on the entire draft, which was attended by 160 members of Parliament, for
151 members, voted against the No. In this context,
the Ministry referred to the arguments in paragraph 18 of the award SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
12/10 of 7 April. 9.2010 (269/2010 Sb.).
11. The aim of this new legislation has been withdrawn with immediate effect
Enforcement authorities of the Czech Republic all the powers in the area of
deciding on punitive wrongful acts. In order to guarantee the quality of the
deciding on the disciplinary responsibility of bailiffs and restored confidence in the
the responsibility system for the determining authority selected a Special Senate
The Supreme Administrative Court, to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the
in that process. The new legislation even in the test of constitutionality, because
matches the criteria of effectiveness, necessity and proportionality.
III. the locus standi of the applicant
12. the proposal is filed under article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the United States. In
the case under consideration is a direct application of the contested provisions necessary
the claimant, so its locus standi is given.
IV. the constitutional conformity of the legislative process
13. The draft law no 183/2009 Coll., has been submitted to the Chamber of Deputies
the Government of the day 14. April 2009 as a parliamentary print no 799 to with it
pursuant to § 90 para. 2 of the rules of the House of Commons could pronounce
agreement at first reading. According to this provision: "the applicant may,
at the same time with Bill, suggest the House draft Bill
agreed already in its first reading. Justification the proposal must
be stated in the explanatory memorandum. In the case that the reason for this is to perform
obligations arising from the contracts, which the Czech Republic is bound,
the offeror shall submit a proposal for an English translation of the full text of those
the legal norms that have to be made. ".
14. House printing has been discussed in the first reading on 29. April 2009 and
the Bill was adopted by a vote no. 77 (for 151 of 160 votes
present deputies), resolution No. 1183. The Chamber of Deputies referred the
the Bill the Senate on 15 December. 5.2009. The guarantee Committee was
Constitutional Committee, which adopted this print on 20 April. 5.2009
resolution No. 26 and 28 July. 5. resolution No. 27 of 2009 (Senate document No No 72/1).
The Senate included the printing on its 7. meeting and discussed it 28. 5.2009
resolution No. 186, issued after the vote, No 9 (for 55 of the 69 votes
Senators present) with the result-approved. The law was adopted and
issued within the limits of constitutionally established competence and constitutionally prescribed
way.
In the abandonment of the oral proceedings.
15. the parties have agreed to drop from the oral proceedings in this
things. Therefore, the Constitutional Court in accordance with the provisions of section 44 para. 2 of law No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, decided without oral proceedings.
Vi. Content compliance of the contested legal provisions with the constitutional order
16. After the Constitutional Court considered the arguments of the appellant contained in the
design and confronted them with the transitional provisions of the law challenged
No 183/2009 Coll., came to the conclusion that the proposal is nedůvodný.
17. the Disciplinary responsibility of bailiffs, edited originally by Act No.
120/2001 Coll., on the activities of bailiffs and enforcement (enforcement procedure)
and amending other laws, as amended, was in rapid
succession being amended by law no 183/2009 Coll., and then by law No.
286/2009 Coll. pursuant to § 114 enforcement code, in the version in force until 25.
June 2009, the Governing Council shall exercise disciplinary responsibility (of bailiffs in the
Title X) had a disciplinary Commission 9 members, who voted for her from among its
Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Act No. 183/2009 Coll., which entered into
into force on 26 June. June 2009, it was the provisions of § 114 enforcement code
repealed and § 121 enforcement code in the version introduced by law No.
183/2009 Coll. on disciplinary proceedings apply, mutatis mutandis, the provisions of law No.
7/2002 Coll., in cases concerning judges, prosecutors and judicial
the executors, as amended. Under section 4 of Act No 7/2002
Coll., in the version in force until 31 December 2006. October 2009, IE. Amendment
enforcement code made by Act No. 286/2009 Coll., in the proceedings
judges (and therefore also of bailiffs) Disciplinary Tribunal and decided upon by the
judges composed of a presiding judge, his Deputy, judge and 3
lay judges. The President of the Senate is the judge of the Supreme Administrative Court
(the Supreme Court), his Deputy is judge of the Supreme Court
(Supreme Administrative Court), and another Member of the Senate, from among the judges of the
a judge of the Supreme, County or District Court. Associate is at least
one Prosecutor, one lawyer and one person performing other
legal profession.
18. Law No. 286/2009 Coll., which became effective from 1 January 2005. November
2009, was amended by law No 7/2002 Coll., in the sense that the new provisions of the
§ 4b introduced disciplinary panels in matters of judicial executors, which
consist of a presiding judge, his Deputy and four lay judges. The President of the
the Senate is the judge of the Supreme Administrative Court, his Deputy is judge
The Supreme Court, two of the assessors are bailiffs, between
proceeded, who are not officers, must always be at least
one lawyer and one person exercising another legal profession.
19. According to the claimant were not met the prerequisites for the examination of the application
Act No. 183/2009 Coll., the Chamber of Deputies already in the first reading, which
It should be a violation of the ordinary legislative process. The constitutionality of the
the various stages of the legislative process, the Constitutional Court of competent
be assessed only within the competence set out his article. 87 para. 1 of the Constitution
Of the Czech Republic. According to the Chamber of deputies of the petitioner was not
authorised to approve the proposal of the law in the first reading, because the
legal conditions have not been met it. From the documentation which the Constitutional Court has to
indicate that the resolution No. 1183, adopted after the examination of the application
in the general debate, the Chamber of Deputies agreed to his discussing
so that they could agree with him already at first reading, with the
the Government as a promoter of the proposal fulfilled the legal requirements for such a
procedure. In this situation, it was just a sign of autonomous decisions
The Chamber of Deputies, made in accordance with the relevant legislation.
Number of members voting for both the procedure under § 90 para. 2 of the rules of
the order of the Chamber of Deputies, as well as for the adoption of the aforementioned Act establishes
that in this matter there was general consensus in the Chamber of Deputies. In
the basic parameters of this case reflects the conclusions of the Constitutional Court
expressed in paragraph 18 of the award SP. zn. PL. ÚS 12/10 of 7 April. 9.2010.
The Constitutional Court therefore concludes, guided by the principle of "harm" that
referred to the decision of the Chamber of Deputies was taken constitutionally Conformal
way.
20. the appellant further apart the individual points of the transitional provisions
Act No. 183/2009 Coll., which in its opinion enshrining the right, and
therefore inadmissible the retroactive effect.
21. in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 21/96 of 4 March. 2. the 1997 (N SbNU 87 13/7;
63/1997.) the Constitutional Court has established the basic aspects of the assessment
the constitutionality of the retroactive legislation [referred to legal opinion was then
confirmed in a number of other decisions, cf. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 35/08 from
on 7 December. 4.2009 (N 83/53 51 SbNU; 151/2009 Coll.), the opinion of the full sp.
Zn. PL. ÚS-St. 27/09 of 28 June. 4.2009 (Wed 27/53 SbNU 885; 136/2009
SB.) and other]. He stated that: "the basic principles of defining
the category of rule of law include the principle of the protection of the citizens ' confidence in the law and
with the related principle of non-retroactivity of laws.
For the retroactive effect therefore, lex posterior cancels (does not recognize)
legal effects in time of the effectiveness of legislation, where appropriate, the prioris raises or
brings together the rights and obligations of subjects with such facts, which at the time of
the efficiency of the legislative process should not be the nature of the legal facts prioris. ".
22. In general, therefore, the legal rules;, that is, their
retroactive application is inadmissible. In certain circumstances, however,
permissible called. "indirect;", which is a situation where a new
Although the law applies even to legal relationships arising prior to its
efficiency, but only from the time of the effectiveness of this new legal standard. The subject of the
the design is a minor procedural legislation on disciplinary proceedings with the executors, in
the form of the transitional provisions. The evaluation questions-retroactivity in
This section of the law it is necessary to take into account the provisions of § 25
Act No. 7/2002 Coll., on proceedings in cases of judges, prosecutors and
court bailiffs that "unless otherwise provided by this Act, or
unless from the nature of things different, in disciplinary proceedings shall be
provisions of the code of criminal procedure ". As regards the scope of time
the criminal procedure code, the principle applies here, that from the effective date of the new
the procedural regulation of the matter shall proceed in accordance with the new provisions. Only
exceptionally, if this is more favourable for the accused, the Criminal Procedure Code permits
the application of the previous procedural legislation. So it is, e.g.. in § 463
paragraph. 1 code of criminal procedure, regarding the assessment of the conditions for the recovery of
control. It can therefore be concluded that the part of the transitional provisions of Act No.
183/2009 Coll., the applicant proposed to repeal, only represents
the retroactive effect, mocked-up in procedural law authorized to
fundamental rights of the executors did not intervene in any way, for the reasons below landed.
Bailiffs is hereby made available a whole new process, before the high
qualified Chamber, the Supreme Administrative Court, whose composition
ensures compliance with all the principles of a fair trial.
23. in this case, the Act No. 183/2009 Coll., amended by
the provisions of the enforcement code governing the exercise disciplinary responsibility of judicial
the executors so that decision-making on their sins from the disciplinary
their own unitary authority (Czech Chamber of bailiffs
the Republic) passed on to the Supreme Administrative Court. He then decides by
the provisions governing disciplinary proceedings in cases of judges, as enshrined
Act No. 7/2002 Sb.
24. The question of possible exceptions of non-retroactivity of laws,
standards are dealt with by the Constitutional Court in its finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 21/96 of
on 4 April 2006. February 1997 (N 13/7 SbNU 87; 63/1997 Coll.), in which he
the cancellation of the old and the adoption of the new legislation is not necessarily associated with the intervention
the principles of equality and protection of confidence of the citizen in the right. This occurs in
as a result of the protection other public interest or the basic rights and freedoms.
The assessment of this aspect of the conflict of proportionality with regard to the
intertemporalitu should lead to the conclusion about the kind of legislative solutions
time of conflict of laws. Proportionality can be
characterized by a higher degree of intensity of public interest, respectively.
the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, warrants a greater degree of intervention in the
the principles of equality and protection of the right to a new citizen trust legal
regulations. At the same time apply the maximum constraints for injunctive
the basic law, or freedom, save its essence and purpose (article 4
paragraph. 4 of the Charter). To illuminate the issues, when the principle of the prohibition of exceptions can be
right-retroactivity of Constitutional Court to admit citations of legal theory said:
"Right the retroactive effect" can be ospravedlniti at most, where legal
the obligation for the past laid down previously at least as moral
obligation was felt "(a. walk,; laws, In:
A dictionary of public law, vol. III, Brno, 1934, p. 800) ... Criterion
the admissibility of the principle of the prohibition of derogations from the right is retroactive
the legislative principle of the protection of legitimate confidence in the stability of the rule of law "
(A. walk, the basics of the intertemporal law, Brno 1928, p. 111). ".
25. According to the promoters of the said amendment to the Act (Minister of Justice)
was the reason for the proposed changes in the disciplinary proceedings had been conducted by the
Experience of the Chamber of the United States, delete said inoperative
Edit and replace it with the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court. The mentioned
the procedure has been elected as a result of the many excesses that occurred in
the activities of bailiffs, in particular, in recent years. According to the
statistical numbers, which the Ministry of Justice compiled a to 20.
February 2009, 116 proposals were submitted from 2002 to 2008,
finally completed 75 things, to penalize the executor only in
21 cases. It was 10 and in 11 cases the admonition has been saved
the fine. Was not decided about 33 proposals and the rest of the
the decision has not yet nepravomocná.
26. In a recent finding, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 15/10 of 25 May. 1.2011 (39/2011
SB.) The Constitutional Court has repeatedly deduced that the legislative power is in its
activities conducted by proportionality (proportionality), and the prohibition of
legislative arbitrariness. The starting point is to test the constitutionality of the contested
legislation, based on gradual examination of the fulfilment of three conditions
for constitutional acceptance of this code: fitness (purpose),
necessity (necessity) and proportionality. In the context of this test
the constitutionality of an assessment of whether the selected resource (interference) is
not at all qualified to achieve the intended objectives, whether there is more
a resource that could lead to similar effect, and finally, whether the
There is excessive, and the nedůvodnému preference for one of the basic
rights before the law. It must pay, the more intense the intervention
public power is, the stronger must this restriction exist
a legitimate general interest [cf. also findings of the Constitutional Court of 9 June. 10.
1996, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 15/96 (N 99/6 SbNU 213; 280/1996 Coll.)].
27. the purpose of the contested provision was quickly and clearly to bridge the space
between the old and the new procedural rules by disciplinary proceedings with the bailiffs.
The Constitutional Court has considered that, after the experiences of the excesses in the work
bailiffs and Enforcement decisions after the bezzubém of the Czech Republic
on the proposals on their disciplinary penalty is in the competency of the Supreme
the Administrative Tribunal certainly a legitimate aim. The competence of this Court,
so, to emigrate, to deciding on disciplinary proceedings, the judges and the
prosecutors, as well as proceedings for disciplinary sanctions a third group
workers in the judiciary, namely the executors. The contested provisions are so
eligible to meet the requirements laid down in article 4(1). 1 and 4 of the Constitution of the United
of the Republic.
28. as regards the need for the adjustments from the perspective of its environmental performance in the
relation to the fundamental rights that have been violated, according to the applicant's
clear that the existing way of deciding the enforcement Chamber
States on proposals for a disciplinary sanction the executors made his lengthy
doubts about the interest of this Chamber on a fast, efficient and objective
the disciplinary proceedings, which meets the principles of a fair trial. The results of the
"activities" of this Chamber were then the immediate trigger for that
raised referred to legal solutions, which occurred in the Chamber of Deputies
the unprecedented agreement. From the perspective of the principle of necessity in this case is given by
a rational connection between the objective of, i.e.. consistent and fair disciplinary
management, and the means chosen to advance the cause, i.e.. pass this whole
competencies of the Supreme Administrative Court. New legislation is therefore
resource friendly and necessary in relation to guaranteeing the right to
to a fair trial (article 36 of the Charter and article 6 of the Convention).
29. In terms of the criteria of proportionality, that the injury on the basic law
must not be disproportionate in relation to the intended destination. Measures having
impact on basic human rights and freedoms shall not, in the case of a collision
the fundamental right or freedom with the public interest, extend the positives,
that represents the public interest in such measures. The Constitutional Court
did not find that the contested provisions institutional procedure limited
the right to a fair process for those against whom a disciplinary proceeding
conducted (bailiffs). On the basis of the new, the appellant criticized,
law are available to the entire process, conducted from the very
early, highly qualified by the Senate before the Supreme Administrative Court,
whose composition shall ensure equal, fair and independent assessment of all
cases no matter in which stage of the procedure were referred to him.
Just an individual, the applicant criticised, transitional provisions
the law in all of the options in the already begun and unfinished
process so that everything goes back to the very beginning. All executors, against
which the application is submitted, it will be in a flat position, and none of them will not be
have, as a result of this new legislation, nor the advantages or disadvantages.
30. It can be concluded that the public interest in a consistent and impartial
deciding on the disciplinary proposals against bailiffs is ensured by the fact that in
disciplinary procedures with executors shall be decided by a Special Chamber of the Supreme
Administrative Court, that is, the peak of the judicial instance, guaranteeing the independence of the
and impartiality of the process. To do this, you can add that if it is the same
the legal regulation of the disciplinary process suitable for judges and prosecutors,
cannot be unsuitable even for executors. The objective of the appellant contested
the transitional provision was just quickly and effectively bridge the space between the
old and new procedural rules by disciplinary proceedings with the bailiffs. To
no harm in their fundamental rights therefore does not occur and before the Supreme
the Administrative Court will become the same, therefore equal "cue" position.
31. On the basis of the considerations outlined the constitutional assessment of the case,
The Constitutional Court did not find any arguments that would justify compliance with the
the design, or the contested provisions did not conflict with the constitutional order
Of the Czech Republic. Therefore, the proposal to abolish the transitional provisions to the
First, article. (II) points 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of law No. 183/2009 Coll. dismissed pursuant to section
70 paragraph 1. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
