The Constitutional Court found No. 101 / 2024 Coll.
Findings of the Constitutional Court sp. zn.
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
23.04.2024
101
FIND
The Constitutional Court
of 13 March 2024
sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 27 / 23 on the proposal for annulment of § 2958 sentence of Second Act No. 89 / 2012 Coll., Civil Code
On behalf of the Republic
On 13 March 2024, the Constitutional Court ruled under point Pl. ÚS 27 / 23 in plenary composed of the President of the Court of Josef Boxy and the judges and judges of Lucie Dolanská Bányai, Josef Fiala, Milan Hulmák, Jaromír Jirsa, Veronica Christian, Zdeněk Kühn, Tomáš Lichčník, Kateřina Ronovské (Judge of the Rapporteur), Jan Svatona, Pavel Šámal, Vojtětěr Šimíček, David Uhlíř, Jan Winter and Daniela Zeman, on the motion of the District Court in Vyškov for the annulment of the second paragraph 2958 of Act No. 89 / 2012 Coll., Civil Code, with the Parliament of the Czech Republic, acting by the Chamber of the Parliament, as a party to the Court of Justice, represented by the Minister of Justice, and the Public Defender of Law,
as follows:
Motion denied.
Reasons
Definition of the case
1. By a proposal pursuant to Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") and Article 64 (3) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the Law on the Constitutional Court"), which was notified to the Constitutional Court on 18.4.2023, the District Court of Vyškov (hereinafter referred to as "the District Court" or "the applicant") seeks the annulment of the sentence of the second Section 2958 of Act No. 89 / 2012 Coll., Civil Code.
2. The District Court has stated that it is filing an application for annulment of the contested provision in connection with proceedings brought under sp. zn. 6 C 337 / 2022 in which the applicant seeks the defendant to pay the sum of CZK 117 344 in compensation for the non-property damage to health. The appellant stated that, in this procedure, it must apply Article 2958 of the Civil Code in its decision making, the second sentence of which he considers to be contradictory to the constitutional order.
3. The appellant therefore contests only part of § 2958 of the Civil Code, which the Constitutional Court cites for its completeness, the second sentence being highlighted:
In the event of an injury, the pest shall atone for the damage caused by the cash compensation, balancing fully enduring pain and other immaterial damage; If health damage creates an obstacle to a better future for the injured, it will be replaced by both a pest and a burden on social application. If the amount of the refund cannot be determined in this way, it shall be determined in accordance with the principles of decency. '
Arguments of the appellant
4. The appellant considers that, if the court provides for compensation under the contested provision, i.e. the principles of decency, it has two options. It will either follow the subjective perception of the victim, and then the compensation provided will be random and unpredictable, or it will approach them objectively. Since the Decree of the Ministry of Health No. 440 / 2001 Coll., on the compensation of pain and the inconvenience of social application, as amended by Decree No. 50 / 2003 Coll., (hereinafter "Decree No. 440 / 2001 Coll. '), the general courts are now" acting in an objective manner' under the "Methodology for the Replacement of Unproperty Damage to Health (the pain and difficulty of social application under Section 2958 of the Civil Code '(hereinafter" Methodika').
5. The appellant sees the contradiction between the contested provision and the constitutional order in two levels. In relation to the second sentence of Paragraph 2958 of the Civil Code, it states that, since the contested provision is not in itself predictable, it is contradictory with the principle of predictability of law, legal certainty and predictability of judicial decision-making, namely the principle of the rule of law [to which it referred to the finding of sp. zn. I. ÚS 420 / 09 of 3.6.2009 (N 131 / 53 of SbNU 647); All decisions referred to by the Constitutional Court are available at https: / / nalus.ujud.cz].
6. This is linked to the second plane of the objected unconstitutionality, namely the completion of the just mentioned constitutional deficiency by the Methodology. In the appellant's view, the legislator was also aware, on the basis of the explanatory memorandum to the contested provision, that the courts could not rule on compensation for damage without an implementing regulation or other underlying material on the basis of which "quantification 'of the non-property interest would be carried out in a foreseeable manner. The deliberately created" vacuum "served to enable the" interested parties "group to create a Methodology as the" centre of application "of Section 2958 of the Civil Code. However, the methodology is a commercial product, created without authorisation or public control, which has" self-contained bypassed the legislator. "
7. The appellant recalled that the Methodology is not a legislation adopted by a transparent procedural procedure. It is binding on the hierarchical structure of the system of general courts, in which it has sometimes been enforced in non-standard ways (including publications in the Collection of Judgments and Opinions under No 63 / 2014 and sp. zn. Cpjn 14 / 2014 and on the Supreme Court website). Although Methodice is commonly referred to as the "Methodice of the Supreme Court," it is an improper, unfounded indication that Methodika is shielded by the authority of the Supreme Court as its alleged author. However, the Supreme Court Civil and Commercial College merely "took note of it." The methodology itself contains other misleading information. It exists in multiple forms - in the version placed on the Supreme Court website, where untransparent updates are projected, unauthorized, and in the version "collectible," which remains constant and is also accessible from the Supreme Court website. The Supreme Court does not take into account the existence of two versions of the Methodology or of the errors contained therein (cf.
8. I case-law of the Constitutional Court (registration of sp. zn. I. ÚS 1010 / 22 of 8.3.2023) It considers the methodology as a "stepping stone" for the considerations of the general courts, thereby strengthening its de facto commitment, despite the shortcomings mentioned above. Since the case-law of the General Courts is largely based on the Methodology, it is not possible to resolve the anti-constitutional situation by adopting a unifying position of the Supreme Court, since it would once again be a mediocre reflection of the Methodology judgment.
Observations of the parties and interveners
9. The proposal was sent pursuant to Article 69 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court to the two chambers of Parliament, which are entitled to act on its behalf [Paragraph 9 of Act No. 300 / 2017 Coll., on the principles of conduct and contact between the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate and on the amendment of Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll., on the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, as amended, (Liaison Act)]. At the same time, pursuant to Article 69 (2) and (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, it was also sent to the Government and the Ombudsman, i.e. to the bodies entitled to intervene as interveners.
10. The President of the Chamber of Deputies, Margaret Pekarova Adamová, summed up the course of the legislative process and stated that the law was passed by the necessary majority of Members of the Chamber of Deputies, signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and duly declared. The legislature acted in the belief that the law adopted was in line with the Constitution and other legislation.
11. In the opinion of President Milošl, the Senate described the legislative procedure and discussion of the draft Civil Code in this Chamber of Parliament. It stated that, except for exceptions, specific subjects or separate areas of adjustment were not discussed in the discussion. The question of compensation was therefore not discussed. He concluded that the bill was adopted by the Senate within the limits of the Constitution's established competence and in a constitutional manner.
12. The Government entered the proceedings as an intervener and proposed the rejection of the application. In its view, the decision as to how the principles of decency will be taken into account in a particular case belongs to the courts. The current legislation has deliberately diverted from the earlier concept as it is intended to provide full compensation for the damage suffered, taking into account all relevant circumstances of a particular case. The government has admitted that there is a certain degree of unpredictability that is necessarily due to the requirement of individualisation, because even the same type of health damage can cause quite different consequences for two persons in a different position. However, it is only for this reason that Article 2958 of the Civil Code does not conflict with the principles of legal certainty and predictability of law and judicial decision-making. Moreover, the practice of the Court was not left without any "stepping stone." It may be based on decisions taken as earlier rules and on the Methodology as a guideline for judicial practice. Its existence and circumstances of origin cannot render the contested provision unconstitutional. It also questioned the appellant's claim that the General Courts, in fact, are forced by the Supreme Court to comply with Methodice. The determination of the objectivization of non-property damage by implementing legislation, as enforced by the appellant, would restore the issue of the integrity of the executive to judicial decision-making as the effectiveness of Decree No. 440 / 2001 Coll.
13. The Ombudsman entered the proceedings in the capacity of intervener and supported the application for annulment of that provision. In his view, the assessment of non-property injury solely according to the principles of decency does not comply with the requirements of the rule of law, namely the requirement of legal certainty and predictability of law. The contested provision is too general and vague, it does not contain any criteria for determining compensation for non-property damage nor does it foresee the existence of another (implementing) legislation. The need for more detailed compensation arrangements is evidenced by the existence of the Methodology. With its consequences, the contested provision contradicts the principle of protection of the weaker party, which is an integral part of the Civil Code. The methodology causes the trivial position of the damaged and, on the contrary, strengthens the position of pests considerably. The methodology is as a "parafiscal document" unchangeable and irrevocable by standard legal means and cannot be subjected to a constitutional test. It misleads both legal laymen and legal professionals and public authorities and allows for the non-transparent and uncontrolled involvement of private entities in the sphere to be regulated by the State. The newly created expert sector does not correspond to any of the expertise that doctors can acquire within existing health fields. In other details, he referred to his report on the investigation in point 6709 / 2019 / GTC of 22.2.2021.
14. The appellant responded by reply to the Government's observations. He stated that the government's assertion of interpretation of the principles of decency by the courts, according to the circumstances of individual cases, did not support reality. The assumption that full compensation for damages will be granted to the injured has not been implemented in practice, as the volume of compensation paid according to the Czech Insurers' Office is falling despite the growth of the "value of the point" in updated versions of Methodika. It is also clear from the case-law mentioned in the reply that, instead of the declared more complete compensation, the injured party is granted a significantly lower amount than that which they would have had under Decree No 440 / 2001 Coll. The appellant further reiterated a number of objections as to why it considers the existence and application of the Methodology to be incompatible with the constitutional order.
Management conditions
15. The proposal fulfils all the statutory requirements and is admissible under Section 66 of the Constitutional Court Act. In the context of the examination of the conditions of the procedure, the Constitutional Court was further obliged to examine whether the application had been lodged by a legitimate appellant. Under Article 95 (2) of the Constitution, Article 64 (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the active legitimacy of the Court of First Instance for the application to review the constitutionality of the specific provisions of the Law is given only if it concludes that the law (or part thereof) to be applied in the resolution of the case is contrary to the constitutional order.
16. The Constitutional Court, in its decision-making practice, takes the view that the proceedings initiated pursuant to Article 95 (2) The Constitution is not an abstract review of constitutionality, but it is conducted in a narrow framework of judicial decision-making of a particular case [see for example the find sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 34 / 10 of 24.7.2012 (N 130 / 66 CollNU 19; 284 / 2012 Coll.), paragraph 32. Therefore, the active legitimacy of the court to file an application for annulment or its provision depends on the subject matter of the proceedings and the legal qualification of the case. The Court of First Instance may make an application for annulment of only such a law (or its sub-provisions) as it is to apply directly (immediately) in order to resolve the pending proceedings. The condition of direct (immediate) use is fulfilled if the application of the law (or its individual provision) is necessary, necessary, not only hypothetical or given by a wider context of the case [see for example Resolution sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 39 / 2000 of 23.10.2000 (U 39 / 20 of SbNU 353) or the finding of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 20 / 05 of 28.2.2006 (N 47 / 40 of SbNU 389; 252 / 2006 Coll.)].
17. The Constitutional Court has verified from the submitted file of the District Court the facts which the applicant of the piece indicated in the application in favour of his active legitimacy, namely that he is to decide on compensation on the basis of an action for payment of CZK 117 344. It follows from the case file of the District Court that he is ruling on an action by an plaintiff who has acted as a criminal offence against the defendant. He was found by criminal courts to be guilty of the offence of assault and disorderly conduct which he should have committed for the effectiveness of the Civil Code. In criminal proceedings, the court ruled on the defendant's obligation to pay compensation for damage in the context of the adhesion proceedings, but in the rest of the claim requested, the defendant (the plaintiff in the proceedings before the district court) referred to civil proceedings. According to the action (as amended), the claimant claims compensation in part in the form of a painful, partly psychological suffering caused by injury and the treatment of injuries.
18. These findings are sufficient to conclude that the appellant must apply Article 2958 of the Civil Code directly to the decision of the case, giving his active legitimacy to submit a proposal to review the constitutionality of his second sentence.
Further proceedings before the Constitutional Court
19. Resolutions of 11.10.2023 and 22.11.2023 The Constitutional Court ruled on the objections of bias raised by the appellant that Judge Kateřina Ronovská and Judge Pavel Šámal were not excluded from hearing and deciding the case. The appellant subsequently repeatedly objected to bias against Judge Pavel Shamal. 13 March 2024 The Constitutional Court considered the second objection of bias and decided by order that Judge Pavel Šámal was not excluded from hearing and deciding the case.
20. The Constitutional Court decided on a motion without a regulation of oral proceedings because it did not carry out the taking of evidence within the meaning of § 44 of the First Law on the Constitutional Court and further clarification of the case could not be expected from the hearing.
Own assessment of the case
Review of the procedure for the adoption of the contested provision
21. The Constitutional Court, before considering the constitutionality of the contested provision from a factual point of view, assessed, in accordance with Article 68 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No 48 / 2002 Coll., whether the contested provision was adopted within the limits of the Constitution of the established competence and in a constitutional manner. The appellant, the other party and the interveners did not state any shortcomings in the legislative procedure and did not raise any doubts about the constitutionality of the contested provision in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
The scope of the review activity of the Constitutional Court in this case
22. The Constitutional Court is bound by the verdict of the decision requested in the petition [see for example the findings sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 38 / 23 of 6.12.2023 (12 / 2024 Coll.), paragraph 49, or sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 9 / 07 of 1.7.2010 (N 132 / 58 SbNU 3; 242 / 2010 Coll.), paragraph 16]. Thus, in the case of a specific check of constitutionality, it cannot decide on the unconstitutional nature of another part of the law which was not contested by the proposal and abolish it for a conflict with the constitutional order.
23. However, this restriction - as far as the decision of the Constitutional Court is concerned - does not prevent the Constitutional Court from examining the contested sentence of the second Section 2958 of the Civil Code, not in isolation, but in a logical and significant whole, which together with the sentence of the first Section 2958 of the Civil Code. Another procedure would not be possible with regard to the concept of compensation for non-property damage to health and the construction of Article 2958 of the Civil Code.
24. The language statement of Article 2958 of the Civil Code admits the interpretation that the first sentence contains a primary rule for the atonement of non-property damage to health (provision of cash compensation fully compensating for suffering and other non-property damage) and a second sentence (decision-making according to the principles of decency) to the secondary rule. However, the Constitutional Court recalls that the language interpretation is only an initial approximation to the importance of the standard [see, for example, the find sp. zn. It therefore does not consider that the first sentence and the second sentence of § 2958 of the Civil Code can be separated in the manner described above, although this would allow language interpretation. The two sentences of § 2958 of the Civil Code must be interpreted according to their meaning and purpose as one significant whole [concurrently Doležal, T., Melzer, F. § 2958 (Compensation for injury and death) in Melzer, F., Megl, P. et al. Civil code - big comment. Volume IX, § 2894-3081. Issue 1. Praha: Leges, 2018, p. 998, paragraph 30. Only in this way can the interpretation establish the importance of the rule of law contained in the contested provision and subject it to constitutional review. That basis is based on a substantive review of the contested provision which follows.
25. Moreover, the fact that the Methodology in its preamble states that its application involves "fulfilling the principles of decency within the meaning of § 2958 o. z. '(see paragraph IV of the preamble of the Methodology, cited in the version published on the website of the Supreme Court), and that the Supreme Court also in its case-law links the Methodology with the (appellant contested) second sentence (see resolution sp. zn. 8 Tdo 190 / 2017 of 20.9.2017, published under No 39 / 2018 of the Reports of Judgments and Opinions, paragraph 33; judgment sp. zn. 25 Cdo 2207 / 2020, paragraph 14; or judgment sp.
A substantive review - general constitutional bases
26. Every legislation must express respect for the general principles of law (principles), such as trust in law, legal certainty and the predictability of legal acts that structure or are deductible from the rule of law of a democratic rule of law. The legal standards must also be subject to content requirements, since in a material legal state based on the idea of justice, the fundamental rights of the corrections of both the content of the legal standards and their interpretation and applications [FTC 2166 / 10 of 22.2.2011 (N 21 / 60 of the SbNU 215), the conclusions of which were also taken over by the Constitutional Court in the finding of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 29 / 11 of 21.2.2012 (N 34 / 64 of the SbNU 361; 147 / 2012 Coll.), paragraph 31. At the same time, however, the Constitutional Court has repeatedly warned against excessive adherence to the requirements of precision and sufficient specificity of the wording of the legislation. On the contrary, a certain degree of uncertainty is a necessary characteristic of each legal standard [the findings sp. zn.
27. Also, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the "ECHR '), in general, when interpreting the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as" the Convention'), requires that the law (in the broader concept of law - law - law) be formulated with sufficient precision to enable its addressees to anticipate, to the extent appropriate, the consequences of a particular hearing, if necessary, to be consulted (see, for example, judgment of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR Vavříček and Others against the Czech Republic of 8.4.2021, complaint No 47621 / 13 and Others, paragraph 266). However, some degree of uncertainty in the formulation of legislation is acceptable. The ESLP admits that absolute accuracy in the formulation of legislation and efforts to achieve it can lead to excessive rigidity. In this way, many legal provisions are formulated in a way that is more or less vague and whose intextations and applications are a matter of practice (e.g. ECHR Klaus Müller v Germany, 19.11.2020, complaint No 24173 / 18, paragraph 50).
28. Not all the rules of conduct and legal concepts are appropriate or can be precisely formulated. On the contrary, certain areas of legislation for their nature require the establishment of a legal framework rather than the purpose to be achieved, as well as the principles and objectives which the courts and public authorities then put into life of the application activities (see, more closely, the finding of the Pol. ÚS 98 / 20, paragraph 34).
29. The reasons for the unconstitutional nature of the provisions of the law are not, in principle, any difficulties in its interpretation [cf. sp. zn. If the provision does not provide a clear language response to certain situations, it does not in itself mean its unconstitutionality, but with the help of other interpretative methods, the meaning and purpose of the interpreted legal provision must be sought. The requirement for a degree of certainty of legislation varies in different areas of law. The highest is in criminal law (the principle of nulla poena sine estécerta), but in the field of private law, a much more general regulation is acceptable (and often necessary), particularly with regard to 'diversity' in the field of private life.
A substantive review - the application of constitutional grounds to the present case
30. The contested provision provides for compensation of non-property damage to health, i.e. compensation for damage to the natural right of a person who enjoys special protection, including protection of constitutional law. The Constitutional Court is aware that life and health are among the most important rights protected goods. This is also in line with the legislator's (legally-political) decision to provide these goods with the widest and most effective protection.
31. Article 7 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that the integrity of the person and his privacy is guaranteed. This protects the physical and mental integrity of a person whose basic part is individual health. Influence in health is the cause of injury, the cause or worsening of the disease (including diseases or mental disorders), as well as the mere cause of pain. The right to the protection of physical and mental integrity implies the principle of full compensation for property and non-property damage to those who have suffered injury, sometimes also referred to as the principle of full compensation (I. ÚS 2410 / 23 of 20.12.2023, paragraph 32 et seq.). This underlines, inter alia, that such compensation should not be reduced in principle and that the compensation should be granted at a socially accepted level (although these mandinels are very broad and allow considerable scope for consideration by the court). The Constitutional Court has repeatedly applied to the obligation of the pest to provide the injured party with full compensation for any damage suffered [see, for example, the finds sp. zn. IV. ÚS 444 / 11 of 5.12.2012 (N 200 / 67 CollNU 573), point 17, sp. zn. I. ÚS 2930 / 13 of 11.11.2014 (N 205 / 75 SbNU 297), point 42, or sp. zn. I. ÚS 2370 / 22 of 21.2.2023, point 18]. It also pointed out that the physical and mental integrity of the individual is also protected by Article 8 of the Convention protecting private life, which also includes the physical and mental integrity of the individual in the concept of the ESLP (see, for example, Case No 27821 / 16, paragraph 54). In addition to the negative commitments (protection against State interference), Article 8 of the Convention also requires the adoption of positive measures to protect protected values in horizontal relations. Such measures are also civil means of compensation for damage in the event of intervention in the sphere protected by Article 8 of the Convention (cf. Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR Söderman v Sweden of 12 November 2013, complaint No 5786 / 08).
32. The current and effective civil code is based on the concept of compensating the injured person for both property and property damage, including mental distress (Section 2956 of the Civil Code). Thus, there was a substantial conceptual change compared to the legislation effective by the end of 2013, when it was determining the so-called aetiological approach, based on the classification of pain conditions according to the involvement of individual organs or parts of the body and expressing pain as physical and mental distress (see closer Doležal, T., Melzer, F., in Melzer, F., Megl, P. and Col.). Civil Code - large comment, cited again, p. 1009; Similarly, Case C-1361 / 2021, paragraph 13. Since the entry into force of the Civil Code, the determination of the amount of compensation in relation to the reduction of social application has been reassessed according to the way in which the damage to health occurs in (future) human life (damaged in a particular case).
33. Until the entry into force of the Civil Code (until the end of 2013), the amount of compensation was determined on the basis of § 444 paragraphs 1 and 2 of Act No. 40 / 1964 Coll., Civil Code, as amended, and its statutory implementing regulation - Decree No. 440 / 2001 Coll. This concept has repeatedly been criticised by the Constitutional Court and the legal doctrine. Therefore, Decree No 440 / 2001 Coll. was repealed in the context of the rectification (see paragraph 237 of the Civil Code Section 3080) and (in the event of a dispute) is now left to the court's discretion to determine the fair amount of satisfaction for pain, reduction of social application and other non-property damage.
34. This new concept is not revolutionary; it has established existing judicial practice. The General Courts of various instances have often deviated from the amounts of the compensation provided for in Decree No 440 / 2001 Coll. on the basis of Article 95 (1) of the Constitution, or have benefited from Article 7 (3) of the Decree, which allows a reasonable increase in the amount of the compensation provided for in "particularly exceptional cases of exceptional consideration '. Such a procedure was repeatedly found by the Constitutional Court to be constitutional in cases where, pursuant to the implementing regulation, the amount of compensation was not proportionate to the injury suffered [the findings of the sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 50 / 05 of 16.10.2007 (N 161 / 47 of the SbNU 133; 2 / 2008 Coll.), paragraph 14 et seq., or sp. zn. IV of ÚS 3122 / 15 of 2.2.2016 (N 23 / 80 of the SbNU 275)].
35. The purpose and purpose of Article 2958 of the Civil Code is to provide the injured person with compensation (satisfaction) for all the suffering and suffering he had to endure as a result of the assault. Therefore, when hurt by money, the pain, the difficulty in social application and other non-property damage are compensated.
36. Thus, the purpose of the second sentence of Article 2958 of the Civil Code is not to lay down the "secondary rule" to be followed in compensation for injury. A procedure taking into account the principles of decency - proportionality or justice in a particular case, or a fair assessment, in which all individual circumstances are taken into account, including how injury is reflected in the life of the injured person - is and must be an integral part of any replacement of injury to the health. Therefore, the requirement of a decent refund in the case of compensation for the reduction of social application (permanent consequences) is not compatible with the abovementioned aetiological approach.
37. The Constitutional Court does not doubt that decency includes, in particular, the requirement of consideration against the injured party, tolerance to his suffering, and also an accent on the amount of compensation corresponding to the specific circumstances of the case [concurrently Bezouška, P. § 2958 (Compensation for non-property injury in the event of injury) in Hulmák, M. et al. Civil Code VI, Obligation Law. Special section (§ 2055-3014). Issue 1. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2014, p. 1709-1710, paragraphs 29- 30]. The principles of decency are therefore an integral part of the determination of the amount of compensation under Section 2958 of the Civil Code (as a whole); they represent an inescapable "primary rule." The compensation provided under Article 2958 of the Civil Code must be full and fair, and must therefore respect the principles of distributive and corrective justice, including the principles of decency as justice in the context of the assessment of a particular case (closer to Doležal, T., Melzer, F., Melzer, F., Megl, P. and Col. Civil Code - large comment, requoted, p. 998).
38. Therefore, a stand-alone emphasis on the principles of decency in the second sentence of Article 2958 of the Civil Code should be seen, above all, as a reminder that, when determining the specific amount of compensation for non-property damage, the courts should always bear in mind - even when applying objective criteria - the individual circumstances. Paragraph 2958 of the Civil Code would always have to be interpreted in the spirit of the principles of decency, even without the explicit normative reference in its second sentence.
39. It is clear from the above that it is precisely and only with the application of the principles of decency that, when dealing with a particular matter by the General Court, a constitutional conformity assessment of the level of compensation for damage which respects the fundamental rights of the injured party can be achieved. As it is also a derivative of other, more general legal principles (in particular the adequacy and fairness of judicial decisions), even if the contested provision was annulled, the general courts would have to be respected.
40. Therefore, the appellant's view that the contested provision is inappropriately vague and leads to unpredictability of law and judicial decision-making to an extent contrary to the principles of the democratic rule of law (that is to say, contrary to Article 1 (1) of the Constitution). On the contrary. Although the wording of the "principle of decency 'in the sentence of Section 2958 of the Civil Code sets out the legal principle described above relatively uncertain, it cannot be interpreted in such a way that it could not be interpreted - i.e. using the usual interpretative procedures [see, for example, the find sp. zn.
41. As regards the determination of the specific amount of compensation for non-material harm to health, taking into account the principles of decency, it cannot be ignored that the court never moves in an interpretative vacuum in which the judges of the various courts of general court might be projecting their subjective, dramatically different ideas of a fair level of compensation to the amount of compensation granted. Judicial decision-making is limited in the instruments of interpretation and application of legal standards, inter alia, by the need to take account of the requirement to ensure the predictability of judicial decision-making (Section 13 of the Civil Code and the constitutional principles of predictability of law and legal certainty), which requires a balanced (or permanent) interpretation of judicial practice.
42. It is clear from the above that the principle of full compensation and proportionality, as other principles of constitutional order, led the legislator to adopt an adjustment which deliberately left wide consideration to courts deciding on - in the light of the particular circumstances of the case - the level of compensation for injury to health and thus did so by highlighting the legal principles of decency in the contested provision. The result reached by the legislator is not indeterminate to an extent even contrary to the rule of law.
43. The related legal rules also lay down only general rules for determining the level of compensation for health damage, which are often more concise than the "Czech" solution. It is possible to refer, for example, to § 1325 of the Austrian Civil Code ABGB (and related to the established case-law of the Austrian Supreme Court, see, for example, Decision No OGH 2 Ob 94 / 09a of 15.10.2009, which states that, as regards the amount of compensation for the pain and the difficulty of social application, it is not calculated according to rigid rules but must be assessed according to the overall impact of the specific circumstances of the individual case and on this basis an assessment). The current and effective § 253 (2) of the German Civil Code (until 2002 § 847 BGB) uses the German word billige Entschädigung, which can be seen as justice, skill and decency (i.e. equivalent to the Czech legislator used by the "principles of decency").
44. Moreover, the appellant implicitly admitted that the problem does not see it directly in the legal obligation to take into account the principles of decency. In the proposal he included his idea of the constitutional text of the Civil Code 2958, in which he added to the principles of decency in the sentence of the second sentence legal authorisation for the issue of an implementing decree setting the minimum amount of compensation. From this point of view, therefore, it finds not what is in the law to be unconstitutional, but rather what is not, namely the requirement to issue an implementing regulation.
45. In addition, the Constitutional Court states, first of all, that it fulfils the constitutional role of the so-called negative legislator, to which it is not intended to comment on what should be in the law, but does not, if the absence of legal regulation itself does not reach a plane contrary to the constitutional order [cf. It follows from the above that this is not the case. On the contrary, the adoption by the appellant of the proposed solution would deny the principles on which effective compensation is based and which fulfil the constitutional grounds for compensation for injury. The abandonment of the "point 'system has transferred responsibility to the judge in order to grant, in the light of the individual circumstances of the case, a decent and full compensation for the damage suffered. On the contrary, the proposed" return to the Point Order' would inadvertently shift the centre of gravity of decisions on the level of compensation back to executive power, whose consideration would be to decide on the value of the "i 'point assessment' of the various interests. The amount of compensation is to be decided by an independent court on the basis of a free assessment of the evidence. The Constitutional Court finds no reason to change its earlier conclusions in which it was critical for the mechanical assessment of the amount of compensation for health damage, which was encouraged by the" point 'of Decree No. 440 / 2001 Coll. (see previously referred to find sp. zn.
46. Moreover, even the earlier comments made by the Constitutional Court on the prevailing interpretation of Article 2958 of the Civil Code taking into account the Methodology were in exactly the opposite direction to the appellant's arguments. The Constitutional Court has previously held that "from the point of view of the protection of constitutionality, both a problematic and limited point assessment may be in accordance with the Supreme Court methodology, since it is not possible to rule on the attitution of damage on the basis of certain tabular foreseen points, but only on the basis of evidence and having due regard to the circumstances of a particular case, which, moreover, has been made clear by the legislator with effect from 1 January 2014" (Opinion sp. zn. IV. ÚS 3122 / 15, paragraph 24). That is why the Constitutional Court criticised the fact that the departure from the declared support and general non-binding methodology towards its increasingly rigid application was also criticised by the Constitutional Court (a comprehensive finding of sp. zn. I. ÚS 1010 / 22). Such a procedure is contradictory to the purpose and purpose of the legal adjustment for the compensation for non-property damage [cf. sp. zn. IV. ÚS 2706 / 19 of 21.4.2020 (N 72 / 99 CollNU 392), paragraph 24]. In other words, the Constitutional Court stresses the need to individualise the compensation for damage before seeking to unify it (cf. Adequate finding, sp. zn. II. ÚS 2925 / 20, paragraph 58, to compensate for accidents at work under the "Point Order '). It is this approach that corresponds (the legislator intended) to the relative uncertainty of the legal regulation, which provides sufficient flexibility to assess each case according to its individual circumstances in the context of judicial discretion.
47. Thus, the Constitutional Court did not find the contested provision of the Civil Code to be contradictory to the principles of the rule of law in its formal dimension and, as such, had to be annulled.
48. The second level of the appellant's argument relates to Methodice and the factual and legal problems associated with it.
49. It is clear that, in view of the requirement of legal certainty, the amount of compensation for the non-material injury to health cannot be determined entirely unpredictably or without limits. Both the judicial practice and the professional public were aware of this during the period of discussion on the change in the concept of determining the amount of compensation for non-material harm to their health, long before the Civil Code became effective. For reasons of efforts to strengthen legal certainty and predictability of law in the period just before and after the entry into force of the Civil Code and other related legislation in 2014, it was therefore accepted (in line with the assumption in the explanatory memorandum to the Civil Code that judicial practice would establish its own principles of compensation) to create a non-binding Methodology. It has become an aid and support for (potential) injured and their legal representatives, as well as for the courts, when determining the amount of compensation for non-property damage to health. However, the relevance of the Methodology was not limited to legal proceedings. It also gave some guidance to those who, for various reasons (for example, fear of further deepening the trauma) seek compensation by way of out-of-court proceedings, but also for insurance companies which could in its spirit set up adequate insurance schemes to deal with harmful events. In this way, legal practice has helped to adopt a change of concept and to objectify the injury suffered without obligation, including quantification of the amount of compensation [see, mutatis mutandis, the finding in section I. ÚS 1010 / 22, in particular in Part VI (c) thereof, on the content of the Methodology and in point 44]. At the same time, the Methodology represents the desired departure from the flat-rate view of Decree No. 440 / 2001 Coll., which ignored the impact on the future life of man (damaged) and by establishing the fixed "value of the point" no longer reflected economic reality.
50. However, it is clear from the case-law of the Constitutional Court that, in view of the meaning and purpose of § 2958 of the Civil Code as well as the nature of the Methodology, the methodology must be understood as not binding, but merely a supporting basis for determining the amount of compensation for non-material damage for the suffering pain and difficulties in social application (see, for example, the appellant mentioned in sp. zn. I. ÚS 1010 / 22 or sp. zn. IV ÚS 3122 / 15, paragraph 24). The determination of the amount of the refund must not be mechanically replicated by the calculation according to the Methodology (see for example the find sp. zn. I. ÚS 2221 / 22 of 2.5.2023, paragraph 29). It is not a "veiled" binding implementing regulation on the sentence of Section 2958 of the Civil Code and the courts cannot treat it as a binding legislation. The General Courts are not obliged to apply the Methodology faithfully, but to ensure the predictability of their own decisions on compensation for injury in accordance with the principle of full compensation for injury and the principles of decency. It is these principles that the general courts are required to reflect in their decisions, which the Supreme Court leads them to, inter alia, in the judgment in Case C-207 / 2020.
51. At present, the practical importance of the Methodology itself is falling partially, since, during the 10-year application, "the decision-making practice of both the Supreme Court and the General Courts' has" been put into practice 'by the fact that its criteria have been sought (see the judgment of the Supreme Court in sp. v. 25 Cdo 1361 / 2021, resolution of sp. v. 25 Cdo 2245 / 2017 of 1 November 2017, published under No 7 / 2019 of the Reports of Judicial Decisions and Opinions, and judgment of sp. 25 Cdo 2635 / 2018 of 2.5.2019, published under No 12 / 2020 of the Reports of Judicial Decisions and Opinions). General courts should be able to ensure that the principles of legal certainty and the predictability of law are met by standard instruments, including the instruments of the Supreme Court for the unification of case-law (cf.
52. The appellant invited the Constitutional Court to assess a number of practical problems related to the application of the Methodology in practice, but also the circumstances of the creation of the Methodology in 2013 or of the practice of the Ministry of Justice in adapting the expert sectors. However, in the light of the foregoing, the Constitutional Court recalls that only the contested part of the law could be the subject of its review, only in the light of the reference framework for the review of constitutionality, which is primarily constitutional order. If the law is not interpreted in accordance with the constitutional order, this is not the reason for its annulment, but its constitutionally conformal interpretation [so-called principle of priority of constitutional conformal interpretation prior to the derogation, see for example the findings sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 41 / 02 of 28.1.2004 (N 10 / 32 of SbNU 61; 98 / 2004 Coll.) or sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 49 / 10 of 28.1.2014 (N 10 / 72 of SbNU 111; 44 / 2014 Coll.), paragraph 70.
53. The Constitutional Court expressed its views on the requirements of the constitutionally conformal interpretation of Article 2958 of the Civil Code taking into account the Methodika. However, the very existence of the Methodology as a non-binding tool for the application practice relating to the specific provision of the law and its alleged defect (procedure of some judges of the Supreme Court, procedure of the Ministry of Justice, etc.) could not justify the intervention of the Constitutional Court in the form of the annulment of the contested provision of the law. Therefore, the Constitutional Court did not address the methodology in more detail by the appellant's alleged shortcomings. Even if some of the appellants' reservations were justified (to which the Constitutional Court does not comment), this could not lead to the annulment of the contested provision.
Conclusion
54. The Constitutional Court did not find the contested sentence, second paragraph 2958 of the Civil Code, contradictory to the constitutional order, in particular the principles of the rule of law in its formal dimension (principles of predictability of law and legal certainty). The principles of decency constitute an essential requirement for any assessment of compensation for injury. It is a generally worded and materially broad (indefinite) legal concept. Its purpose is to give the courts room for a reasonable and fair assessment of the matter in the context of its individual circumstances for which they are then responsible.
55. As previously found in sp. zn. I. ÚS 1010 / 22 (its point 56) The Constitutional Court recalls that the general courts, when working with the Methodology - as an interpretative aid - must reflect its non-binding nature and its content limits into their considerations. The decision must always lead to a fair determination of the level of compensation for injury in accordance with the principle of full compensation and the principles of decency. It is therefore clear that the solution to the problems that may arise in the application of Article 2958 of the Civil Code is not to abolish its sentence of the second, but to the appropriate, consistently constitutionally conformal and application of this provision.
56. For those reasons, the Constitutional Court rejected the application under Paragraph 70 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act as unfounded.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No. 101 / 2024 Coll., sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 27 / 23 on the application for annulment of § 2958 of the Second Act No. 89 / 2012 Coll., Civil Code |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 23.04.2024 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0