The Constitutional Court found No. 104 / 2010 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 2 March 2010 on the application for annulment of certain provisions of Part 30 of Act 261 / 2007 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets relating to the salaries of judges of district, county and supreme courts, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court
Valid
104
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
On 2 March 2010, the Constitutional Court decided on the plenary of the President of the Court of Pavel Rychett and Judges František Duchona, Vlasta Formánková, Már Güttler, Pavel Holländer, Ivana Jana, Vladimir Krorka, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jiří Muchy, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodma, Miloslav Excellent, Eliška Wagner and Michaela Židlická on the proposal of the Municipal Court in Brno, Roosevelt 16, Brno, for which Mgr. Michaela Silnická, President of the Chamber of the Municipal Court in Brno, on the abolition of the provisions of paragraph 1 (a) and (b) and 2 of Article XLVIII, on the extraordinary measures in determining the above, and some reimbursement of expenses of the representatives of the Czech Parliament of the Czech Parliament of the Czech Parliament, and of the Czech Parliament, and of the Czech Parliament, and of the Czech Republic.
as follows:
Motion denied.
Reasons
Recital of the proposal
1. The Constitutional Court received on 21 March 2008 a proposal from the Municipal Court in Brno to abolish the provisions of points 1 (a) and (b) and 2 of Article XLVIII, on an exceptional measure in determining the amount of the salary and certain reimbursement of the expenses of officials of the State and of certain state authorities and judges in the years 2008 to 2010, part of the 30th Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., on stabilising public budgets as regards judges of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court.
2. The appellant stated that an action is pending before him for an action against the Czech Republic - the Municipal Court of Brno for the payment of an amount of CZK 3,900 on account of the entitlement to the payment of a salary within the meaning of § 28 to 31 of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., on the salary and other formalities relating to the performance of the duties of representatives of the State and of certain state authorities and judges and Members of the European Parliament, as amended at the relevant time (hereinafter referred to as "the Law on the salary of the representatives of the State) and reimbursement of expenses within the meaning of § 32 (1) of that law, since he was not paid the full salary and reimbursement of expenses (hereinafter referred to as" the salary ') for the month of January 2008. The application of the provisions proposed for annulment (hereinafter referred to as "the provisions in question') provides that a salary base of the amount reached on 31 December 2007 shall be used for the calculation of the salary of judges between 1.1.2008 and 31.12.2010. Thus, with effect from 1 January 2008, there will be no increase in the salary of the judges, although it should have been in the light of the provisions of § 3 (2) and (3) of the Law on the salary of representatives of the State.
3. The appellant concluded that the provisions which apply the freezing of the salary of judges are contrary to Article 1 (1) in conjunction with Article 82 (1) or, where applicable, Article 2 (1) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic and Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, and therefore suspended the action and filed a motion for annulment with the Constitutional Court. The pay restrictions against judges were considered inadmissible interference with their judicial independence and pointed to the loss of guarantees of stability of their pay ratios. It stated that the legislature formally, on a one-off basis, regularly, on the basis of generally defined reasons, seeks to amend the pay rules in respect of the remuneration of judges - between 1997- 2001 by withdrawing another salary for the second half of the half-year (Act No. 287 / 1997 Coll., supplementing Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., on the salary and other formalities linked to the performance of the duties of representatives of the State Government and of certain state bodies and judges, as amended by Act No. 138 / 1996 Coll.; Act No. 268 / 1998 Coll., on the withdrawal of another salary for the second half of 1998 by representatives of the State Government and of certain state bodies, judges, prosecutors and members of the Commission Securities Commission Presidium; Act No. 308 / 1999 Coll., on the withdrawal of an additional salary for the second half of 1999 and for the second half of 2000 to representatives of state power and certain state bodies, judges, prosecutors and members of the Securities Commission Presidium; 30 January 2004, p.
4. According to the appellant, the salary restrictions involve a non-discriminatory non-constitutional intervention in the legitimate expectations of those who have been legally formulated for an indefinite period of time. In its legislative proposals, neither the legislator nor the legislator itself, despite the proclamation of pay restrictions in all areas of the administration, failed to respect the principle of proportionality. The appellant argued, referring to the available resources, that even though there was no formal increase in "table" salaries in the administration, at least 1.5% more funding was earmarked from the State budget for civil servants' salaries than in 2007, an increase of 4.1% was expected for 2008. In 2008, teachers of regional education, including private and ecclesiastical schools, whose salaries are also derived from the state budget, received a further increase of 1,5% in size; It follows that salary restrictions are far from affecting all employees paid from the State budget.
5. In support of his argument, the appellant cited the grounds for the finding of the Constitutional Court of 16.1.2007 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 55 / 05 (N 9 / 44 SbNU 103; 65 / 2007 Coll.) and referred to a number of legal opinions expressed in it as a general concern when assessing the recurring changes in the rules on the remuneration of judges, which, however, were completely denied by the adoption of the Law on the stabilisation of public budgets in the section establishing the further (long-term) restriction of the salaries of judges.
Observations of the parties
6. The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, in its observations on the proposal of 21 August 2007, signed by the President of the House, Ing. Miloslav Vlček, stated that the draft law on the stabilisation of public budgets was designated as House Press No 222 and was discussed by the Budget Committee on 27 June 2007 and 8 August 2007 and the Health Committee on 26 June 2007; in both committees, no amendment has been tabled, nor has it been proposed to 'cancel it'. The Social Policy Committee addressed the draft law on 28 June 2007 and voted on the proposal to reject the draft law as a whole. At the second reading of the Act, which took place on 14 and 15 August 2007, the original Article XLVIII of the Extraordinary measure in determining the amount of the salary and certain reimbursement of expenditure by representatives of the State and certain state authorities and judges between 2008 and 2010 was not submitted "no amendment or proposal to reject this Article '. The Chamber of Deputies stated that it approved the draft law on the stabilisation of public budgets on 21 August 2007 and that the law was signed by the relevant constitutional authorities following a properly implemented legislative process and declared in the Collection of Laws.
7. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, in its observations on the proposal of 13 August 2008, signed by the President of the Senate MUDr. Overmind Sobotkou, stated that the proposal was directed against several provisions of the law which the Constitutional Court had already dealt with in proceedings conducted under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24 / 07, Pl. ÚS 1 / 08 and Pl. ÚS 2 / 08, in which it adopted decisions published in the Collection of Laws under No 88 / 2008 Coll., No 251 / 2008 Coll. sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 1 / 08 of 20.5.2008 (N 91 / 49 SbNU 273); find sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 2 / 08 of 23.4.2008 (N 73 / 49 SbNU 85)]. To discuss the Act on the stabilisation of public budgets in the upper chamber of Parliament, the Senate stated everything relevant in its observations of November 2007 (proceedings under the sp. zn. The Senate pointed out that, from a formal point of view, the constitution of the arrangements proposed for the annulment of the Constitutional Court had already been dealt with in the proceedings under the sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 2 / 08, when part of the 30th Act on the stabilisation of public budgets was included in the statement of reasons for finding No 166 / 2008 Coll. under point 46, and the Constitutional Court rejected the proposal for the annulment of that provision by a decision.
Replication of the appellant and supplementing the argument of the proposal
8. In a reply of 21 October 2008 to the observations of the parties, the appellant did not agree with the view outlined by the Chamber of Parliament of the Czech Republic, according to which the case had already been decided and that the Constitutional Court should reject the proposal for this obstacle. Following the brief chronology of the procedure for the annulment of the Act on the stabilisation of public budgets on the proposal of a group of Members of the Chamber of Deputies and of a group of Senators of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, originally conducted under sp. zn. Pl. Pl. ÚS 2 / 08, the appellant pointed out that, by its proposal, he used the right to intervene in this proceedings (§ 35 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court). After not having been dealt with in the proceedings in Sp. zn. The appellant therefore considers that the procedure of the Constitutional Court suggests that the provisions in question have not yet been examined by the Constitutional Court and that the obstacle to the case judged is therefore not given in the present case.
9. The appellant added his previous argument in the proposal by stating that, despite the declarations by the legislature on salary restrictions in all areas of government, there was an increase in funding for teachers in 2008 and this trend is to continue in 2009. In addition, civil servants' salaries are expected to increase by 1.5% in 2009. These measures are considered by the appellant to be non-compliance with the principle of proportionality, thus not in any way calling into question the claims of other groups of persons paid from the State budget. In its submission of 5 January 2009, the appellant referred to the approved Act No. 475 / 2008 Coll., on the Czech State Budget for 2009, which (or amendments to it) shows that in 2009 there will be an increase in the salaries of virtually all groups of civil servants, with the exception of educational staff of regional education and constitutional officials, including judges, whose salary base for the years 2008 to 2010 is frozen.
10. The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic did not comment on the replica of the appellant and in addition to his proposal.
11. In its submission of 5 January 2009, the appellant drew attention to Act No. 475 / 2008 Coll., on the Czech State Budget for 2009 (as well as the content of Annex No. 2 to the Resolution of the Chamber of Deputies No. 965 of the 45th meeting of 10 December 2008), it follows that the amendments to the Act increased the salaries of virtually all groups of civil servants by a total of CZK 2.7 billion. The exception was the pedagogical staff of regional education, which, however, had repeated pay increases during 2008 and 2009, and constitutional officials, including judges, whose salary base for the years 2008-2010 was frozen. The appellant has repeatedly emphasised the non-compliance with the principle of proportionality and the denial of the legislature on pay restrictions in all areas of the administration. He reiterated that he did not challenge the claims of other groups of persons whose salary is paid from the state budget, but he did want to point to repeated non-compliance with the principle of proportionality of salary restrictions.
Information from the Ministry of Justice and observations of the applicant
12. The Ministry of Justice provided on 12. 3. 2009 for a request under Section 48 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act The Constitutional Court shall have the following information:
| Průměrný měsíční plat soudce (Kč) | 2007 | 2008 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| praxe 6 let | praxe 30 let | praxe 6 let | praxe 30 let | |
| OS | 57 307 | 88 608 | 57 580 | 88 997 |
| KS | 63 333 | 99 195 | 64 000 | 99 225 |
| VS | 110 939 | 111 136 | ||
| NS | 113 382 | 113 525 | ||
| NSS | 111 843 | 112 200 | ||
| Průměrný roční plat soudce (Kč) | 2007 | 2008 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| praxe 6 let | praxe 30 let | praxe 6 let | praxe 30 let | |
| OS | 687 684 | 1 063 296 | 690 690 | 1 067 964 |
| KS | 759 996 | 1 190 340 | 768 000 | 1 190 700 |
| VS | 1 331 268 | 1 333 632 | ||
| NS | 1 360 584 | 1 362 300 | ||
| NSS | 1 342 116 | 1 346 400 | ||
13. On the proposal of the appellant, Minister of Justice JUDr. Jiří Pospíšil stated that he did not favour the removal of salaries from judges or other formalities connected with the exercise of judicial functions, and that the state of limitation of the legal rights of judges and of the subsequent proceedings on their constitutionality was considered unacceptable, as there was an undesirable impression of ongoing competition between the powers of the judiciary and the powers of the legislature and executive on the level of remuneration for the performance of functions. It stated that the assessment of whether legislative power is entitled in relation to the development of the state of public budgets and the development of income relations by law for a certain period of time to increase the salary of a group of persons remunerated from public budgets was entirely a matter for the Constitutional Court; In his view, however, such a measure, which does not, moreover, concern only judges, does not interfere with the principle of judicial independence. The Minister of Justice does not consider that the degree of independence of the Judge, irrespective of any objective circumstances, is directly dependent on the level of substantive security and considers that material security is only one of the conditions of support creating an environment for the application of the principle of independence of the Judge in the performance of his duties, which is not an immediate link between and the substance of that principle. The level of physical security must necessarily reflect the real economic circumstances of the State in which the judiciary is carried out as a public service. Finally, the Minister of Justice pointed out that the transitional measure in relation to pay restrictions does not only concern judges, but also other entities to whom the salary is paid and other formalities related to the performance of the duties under Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll.
14. To the information of the Ministry of Justice, the appellant, in its submission of 8 April 2009, argued that the Ministry had confused the data on the judge's net and gross salary and added its own comparison of the data on the judge's actual gross salary with those given by the Ministry (in the annexed table marked in italics):
| měsíční plat soudce | praxe od počátku 6. roku | praxe od počátku 30. roku |
|---|---|---|
| okresní soud 2007 (dle navrhovatele) | 57.500,-Kč | 85.900,-Kč |
| okresní soud 2007 (dle MSp) | 57.307,-Kč | 88.608,-Kč |
| okresní soud 2008 (dle navrhovatele) | 57.500,- Kč | 85.900,-KČ |
| okresní soud 2008 (dle MSp) | 57.580,-Kč | 88.997,-Kč |
| roční plat soudce | praxe od počátku 6. roku | praxe od počátku 30. roku |
|---|---|---|
| okresní soud 2007 (dle navrhovatele) | 690.000,-Kč | 1.030.800,-Kč |
| okresní soud 2007 (dle MSp) | 687.684,-Kč | 1.063.296,-Kč |
| okresní soud 2008 (dle navrhovatele) | 690.000,-Kč | 1.030.800,-Kč |
| okresní soud 2008 (dle MSp) | 690.960,-Kč | 1.067.964,-Kč |
15. The appellant stated that the salary of the judge for 2007 will be calculated by determining the salary base according to Article 3 (3) of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., which, according to the Communication of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs No. 582 / 2006 Coll., on the declaration of the level of the salary base for determining the salary and certain reimbursement of expenditure pursuant to Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., on the salary and other formalities associated with the performance of the function of representatives of the State and of certain state bodies and judges and Members of the European Parliament, as amended, in 2007, is equal to CZK 56 847 per month, and thus the salary base is multiplied by a payment coefficient according to Article 28 of the Act cited; the resulting amount is the salary of the judge (the salary is rounded up to 100 CZK). For 2008, the level of the judge's salary base reached 31 December 2007, indicating that the salary base and thus the resulting judge's gross salary were identical in 2008 to 2007. Minor disproportion in the Department of Justice's data was apparently caused by numerous errors. At the end of its observations, the appellant argued that the indication of the net salary was misleading as it was a variable variable, the amount of the net salary is different for each taxpayer and depends, for example, on the amount of the so-called amounts deductible from the tax base, etc.
16. The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic did not comment on the information of the Ministry of Justice.
17. In its submission of 6 May 2009, the appellant pointed out that the Government of the Czech Republic had approved draft regulations of the Government amending Government Regulation No. 564 / 2006 Coll., on the pay ratios of employees in public services and administration, Government Decree No. 565 / 2006 Coll., on the pay ratios of professional soldiers, Government Decree No. 566 / 2006 Coll., on the reimbursement of personal benefits of spiritual churches and religious societies, and Government Decree No. 125 / 2009 Coll., establishing the scale of basic tariffs for members of the Security Corps for 2009. The volume of the increase in salaries of employees in public services and administration by 3.5% from 1 June 2009 represents CZK 2.4 billion, which is a sign to the appellant of repeated non-compliance with the principle of proportionality of salary restrictions.
18. In its submission of 24 July 2009, the appellant further drew attention to the preparation of a draft law amending certain laws in the context of an exceptional measure in determining the amount of the salary and the reimbursement of the expenses of representatives of the State and of certain state bodies, judges, Members of the European Parliament and of the prosecutors in 2011 and 2012. According to the draft section of the Act and its explanatory memorandum, the Act on the stabilisation of public budgets is to be amended in Part Thirty Article XLVIII and Part Thirty First Article LI with effect from the date of its publication; the change consists of a change in the number "2010 'to be replaced by" 2012'. Furthermore, with effect from 1 January 2013, the Act on the salary and other formalities relating to the performance of the duties of representatives of the State Government and of certain State institutions and judges and Members of the European Parliament is to be amended by replacing the word "three times" by "2.5 times" in Article 3 (3) of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., as amended by Act No. 309 / 2002 Coll. The explanatory memorandum states that there should be a defrosting of salaries in 2011 and a jump increase as a result of the renewal of the indexation mechanisms set up in 2002. In addition to the financial contribution, a slight clenching of scissors between salaries paid from the state budget and public resources can be described as a benefit and it is therefore proposed:
1) extend the freezing of salary bases until the end of 2012
2) determine on a permanent basis the level of the salary base as 2.5 times the average nominal monthly wage of individuals in the non-business sphere achieved according to published data of the Czech Statistical Office for the preceding calendar year from the first year after defrosting, i.e. already in 2013. The appellant stated that he was aware that, by referring to the intended amendment to the above laws, he argued that there would be facts of which it was not certain whether they would arise and which related to the future (and not to the proposal of the contested) legislation on the pay ratios of judges. However, it considers that from these legislative intentions there is a clear repeated tendency of executive power to intervene in the legislation on the pay ratios of judges against them, without respecting the decisions of the Constitutional Court dealing with this area. The appellant pointed out that the proposed amendment should not only extend the period of freezing of judges' salaries by another two years to (so far) a total period of 5 years, but should also take an unprecedented step in the real reduction of the judge's salary. The salary base is to fall from the coefficient "3" to the coefficient "2,5," which means its reduction by 16,66%. The appellant also stressed one of the objectives of the proposed amendments, which, according to the explanatory report, is the "clamping of scissors' between salaries paid by the State budget. It follows that, according to the promoter of the proposal, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, the salaries of judges appear to be too high compared to the other groups of persons whose income is covered by the state budget, which is an objective specifically against the conclusions expressed by the Constitutional Court in its Opinion of 16 January 2007 published in the Collection of Laws under No 65 / 2007 Coll. (sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 55 / 05 - see above), on which the appellant repointed.
19. On 24. 8. 2009, Minister of Justice JUDr. Daniela Kovářová supplemented the information of the Ministry of Justice about the judge's net monthly and annual salary in 2007 and 2008. It stated that the calculation was carried out in such a way that the salary base, which according to the Communication of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs No. 582 / 2006 Coll. for 2007 and 2008 is the same and is CZK 56 847, was multiplied by the corresponding salary factor according to the number of years counted for the judges as required by the Constitutional Court, i.e. from the beginning of the 6th year of the beginning of the beginning of the beginning of the 30th year of the period. A tax has been deducted from the gross salary thus determined.
20. In 2007 the tax amounted to CZK 61 212 plus 32% of the base (i.e. from a salary set by the base and coefficient) exceeding CZK 331 200. After deduction of this tax, a "model" judge's net salary was obtained in 2007.
21. In 2008, the tax was set as follows: The gross salary (as in 2007, the salary base and the coefficient) was added 34% of this gross salary (i.e. 25% for social security premiums and 9% for full health insurance, i.e. 34% for the employer) and the so-called super gross wage was obtained. A 15% tax was calculated on the super gross wage and its amount was deducted from the gross salary determined by the salary base and the relevant coefficient. The result was the net salary of the "model" judge in 2008.
22. In the attached tables, the Minister of Justice indicated, on the one hand, the monthly net salary and, on the other hand, the annual net salary for all categories of "model 'judges and referred to the observations of the previous Minister of Justice of 12 March 2009.
| Měsíční čistý plat modelového soudce (Kč) | 2007 | 2008 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| praxe 6 let | praxe 30 let | praxe 6 let | praxe 30 let | |
| OS | 42 773 | 62 100 | 45 874 | 68 584 |
| KS | 45 865 | 68 286 | 49 508 | 75 852 |
| VS | 48 957 | 74 857 | 53 141 | 83 573 |
| NS | 74 857 | 83 573 | ||
| NSS | 74 857 | 83 573 | ||
| Roční čistý plat modelového soudce (Kč) | 2007 | 2008 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| praxe 6 let | praxe 30 let | praxe 6 let | praxe 30 let | |
| OS | 513 279 | 745 211 | 550 496 | 823 015 |
| KS | 550 391 | 819 434 | 594 102 | 910 228 |
| VS | 587 494 | 898 292 | 637 698 | 1 002 886 |
| NS | 898 292 | 1 002 886 | ||
| NSS | 898 292 | 1 002 886 | ||
23. The Constitutional Court sent information to the Ministry of Justice on the overall average net annual salary of judges in 2007 and 2008, combined with the statement of the Ministers of Justice by JUDr. J. Pospíšil and JUDr. D. Kovářová, as well as the appellant's comments on the information of the Minister of Justice by JUDr. J. Přižená and the appellant's submission of 24 July 2009 to the Chamber of Deputies and Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic; the parties did not respond to that information within the time limit prescribed by the court.
24. On the summary of the Minister of Justice, JUDr. D. Kovářová commented by the applicant, who, in his submission of 22 September 2009, pointed out the inaccuracies in the calculation of the net wage, which he believed occurred in the absence of deduction of compulsory contributions, i.e. health and social insurance. The appellant recalculated the exact amount of the salary using the so-called wage calculator on www.mesec.cz and obtained the following results:
| měsíční plat soudce od počátku 30. roku praxe | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rok 2007 | rok 2008 | |||||
| soudce přidělen u soudu: | měsíční plat soudce (hrubý) | měsíční plat soudce (čistý) | měsíční čistý plat soudce dle MsP | měsíční plat soudce (hrubý) | měsíční plat soudce(čistý) | měsíční čistý plat soudce dle MsP |
| OS | 85.900 | 55.425 | 62.100 | 85.900 | 59.832 | 68.584 |
| KS | 95.000 | 60.832 | 68.286 | 95.000 | 65.950 | 75.852 |
| VS | 104.600 | 66.544 | 74.857 | 104.600 | 72.400 | 83.573 |
| NS | 104.600 | 66.544 | 74.857 | 104.600 | 72.400 | 83.573 |
| NSS | 104.600 | 66.544 | 74.857 | 104.600 | 72.400 | 83.573 |
| roční plat soudce od počátku 6. roku praxe | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rok 2007 | rok 2008 | |||||
| soudce přidělen u soudu: | roční plat soudce (hrubý) | roční plat soudce (čistý) | roční čistý plat soudce dle MsP | roční plat soudce (hrubý) | roční plat soudce (čistý) | roční čistý plat soudce dle MsP |
| OS | 690.000 | 462.180 | 513.279 | 690.000 | 488.724 | 550.496 |
| KS | 744.000 | 494.460 | 550.391 | 744.000 | 525.180 | 594.102 |
| VS | 799.200 | 527.400 | 587.494 | 799.200 | 562.140 | 637.698 |
| NS | 1.255.200 | 798.528 | neuveden | 1.255.200 | 1.025.700 | neuveden |
| NSS | 1.255.200 | 798.528 | neuveden | 1.255.200 | 1.025.700 | neuveden |
| roční plat soudce od počátku 30. roku praxe | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rok 2007 | rok 2008 | |||||
| soudce přidělen u soudu: | roční plat soudce (hrubý) | roční plat soudce (čistý) | roční čistý plat soudce dle MsP | roční plat soudce (hrubý) | roční plat soudce(čistý) | roční čistý plat soudce dle MsP |
| OS | 1.030.800 | 665100 | 745.211 | 1.030.800 | 717984 | 823.015 |
| KS | 1.140.000 | 729984 | 819.434 | 1.140.000 | 791400 | 910.228 |
| VS | 1.255.200 | 798528 | 898.292 | 1.255.200 | 868800 | 1.002.886 |
| NS | 1.255.200 | 798528 | 898.292 | 1.255.200 | 868800 | 1.002.886 |
| NSS | 1.255.200 | 798528 | 898.292 | 1.255.200 | 868800 | 1.002.886 |
25. The appellant stated that, in order to assess the constitutionality of the contested salary restriction, the net salary cannot be decisive, but only the gross salary can be the only comparable figure. This is because all contributions, including deductible items from the tax base, insurance etc., are variable and can be changed not only for each judge but also at different times, without these legislative changes occurring in relation to Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll. The appellant admitted that although there had been an increase in the judge's net salary compared to 2007 and 2008, it stressed that the increase had occurred on an unaltered (frozen) gross salary. The increase was due to a reduction in taxes and other levies, but this resulted in an increase in net wages or wages for all other groups of employees paid from public budgets. If the Constitutional Court had accepted the argument that the tax reduction had increased the salary, the appellant would have had to pay, on the contrary, that if the tax increase and thus the net salary had been reduced, it would have been an inadmissible reduction.
Abandonment of oral proceedings
26. According to the provisions of Paragraph 44 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act, the Constitutional Court may, with the consent of the parties, refrain from oral proceedings if it cannot be expected to further clarify the case. Both the appellant and the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic have given their assent to the abandonment of the oral proceedings of 16 February 2009 and 25 February 2009 under Paragraph 44 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court. The President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has not responded within the prescribed time limit to the appeal of whether he agrees to the abandonment of oral proceedings, thus expressing his agreement to the abandonment of oral proceedings under Paragraph 101 (4) of the Civil Code in conjunction with the provisions of Sections 44 (2) and 63 of the Constitutional Court Act in silence.
Conditions for the management and recap of the results of the current review of the Law on the Stabilisation of Public Budget
27. Based on the requested file of the Municipal Court in Brno sp. zn. 14 C 37 / 2008 The Constitutional Court has verified that the appellant is actively authorised to submit the application as the application relates to its decision-making activities. If the appellant concluded that the contested legal provisions were contrary to the constitutional order, it was not only his right but also his obligation to submit a proposal (cf. Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic).
28. If the appellant mentioned that the Constitutional Court had not dealt with it in the previous proceedings on applications for the annulment of the Law on the stabilisation of public budgets as an intervener, the Constitutional Court recalls its order of 15 January 2008, Pl. ÚS 24 / 07-158, which it ruled was not an intervener, since at the time of the submission of its application in November 2007 it was not a legitimate appellant within the meaning of Article 35 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
29. The Constitutional Court also notes that the examination of the application does not prevent the obstacle to the case being judged, as the provisions in question have not yet been examined in substance.
30. The Constitutional Court recalls that in the proceedings of a group of Members of the Chamber of Deputies led by sp. v. Pl. ÚS 24 / 07 the legislative procedure for the adoption of the Act on the Stabilisation of Public Budget as a whole and in substance the first part (amendment of the Act on Income Tax), the second part (amendment of the Act on Real Estate Tax), the sixth part (amendment of the Act on Income Tax), the seventh part (amendment of the Act on Income Tax and Taxes), the sixth part (amendment of the Act on Tax and Taxes), the ninth part (amendment of the Act on Income Tax Act No 545 / 2005 Coll.), the seventh part (amendment of Article XVII of the Act on Income Tax Tax), the tenth part (amendment of the Act on the Act on Income Tax Tax and Taxes) The proposal to abolish the law or parts of it was rejected by the finding; other proposals were excluded for separate discussion.
31. In proceedings under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 1 / 08 The Constitutional Court ruled on the excluded proposal for the cancellation of points 3 and 4 in Article XVII in Part Ten (amendment of the Act on Administrative Charges), Part Forty (amendment of the Act on Public Health Insurance), Part Forty (amendment of the Act on General Health Insurance), Part Forty (amendment of the Act on General Health Insurance in the Czech Republic), Part Forty (amendment of the Act on Department, Business, and Other Health Insurance), Part Forty (amendment of the Act on the jurisdiction of the Czech Republic in the field of prices), and Part Forty (amendment of the Law on Public Budget Stabilisation). The motion was rejected.
32. In proceedings under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 2 / 08 The Act on the Act on the Act on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the It follows from the grounds for the finding that, in relation to Part 30 of the Law on the stabilisation of public budgets, the Constitutional Court merely noted the changes made by the provisions of that Part (paragraph 46), but did not address their content assessment. The finding of the specific provisions of Act No. 54 / 1956 Coll., on the sickness insurance of employees, as amended, and the rest of the proposal was rejected.
Derogation of the contested provisions and their relationship to the Law on the salary of representatives of state authority
33. Part 30 of the Act on the stabilisation of public budgets brings about the amendment of the Salary Act and other formalities relating to the performance of the duties of representatives of the State and of certain state bodies and judges and Members of the European Parliament. The contested provisions of Article XLVIII shall read as follows:
Exceptional measures for determining the salary and certain reimbursement of expenditure of representatives of state power and of certain state bodies and judges from 2008 to 2010
1. For determining the salary and, where appropriate, certain reimbursement of expenditure,
(a) who is listed in § 1 of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., on the salary and other formalities relating to the performance of the duties of representatives of the State and of certain state bodies and judges and Members of the European Parliament, as amended,
(b) for which the special legislation provides that the salary is to be paid to someone referred to in (a), a salary base of 31 December 2007 shall be used between 2008 and 2010.
2. Paragraph 3 (3) of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., on the salary and other formalities connected with the performance of the duties of representatives of State authority and of certain state bodies and judges and Members of the European Parliament, as amended by Act No. 309 / 2002 Coll., shall not apply between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2010.
34. Under the provisions of Section 1 of the Law on the salary of representatives of state authorities, the salary and certain other formalities relating to the function of... (g) the judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court are regulated.
35. Paragraph 3 (3) of the same Act determines the salary base, which is three times the average nominal monthly wage of individuals in the non-business sphere obtained according to published data of the Czech Statistical Office for the preceding calendar year from 1 January to 31 December of the calendar year. The level of the salary base for the relevant calendar year is announced by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs in the Collection of Laws by communication.
Constitutional conformity of the legislative process
36. According to the provisions of Section 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., the Constitutional Court, in addition to assessing the compliance of the contested law with the constitutional laws, ascertains whether it was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution of the Czech Republic by the designated competence and by the constitutionally prescribed manner.
37. The Constitutional Court has already dealt with the constitutionality of the procedure for the adoption and publication of the Law on the stabilisation of public budgets in previous proceedings. The legislative procedure described the adoption of the Act on the stabilisation of public budgets in the sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24 / 07 (part VIII.) and also addressed it in the sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 1 / 08 (paragraph 83) and in the sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 2 / 08 (paragraphs 25 and 26). The assessment of the constitutional conformity of competence and the legislative process was carried out in the sp. zn. As a result of its evaluation, it was concluded that the Act on the stabilisation of public budgets was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution of the Czech Republic in a specified competence and constitutional manner.
38. In the present case, the appellant did not object to a defect in the legislative process or to a breach of the Constitution of the Czech Republic by the legislature, and therefore the Constitutional Court did not consider it necessary to examine this issue repeatedly in the light of the principles of procedural economics and to this extent refers to the findings and conclusions formulated in the above mentioned findings.
Evaluation of the Constitutional Court
The relevant case law of the Constitutional Court so far
39. The appellant concluded that the contested legal provisions, in short, constitute a (non-discriminatory) restriction on the salaries of judges, in accordance with Article 1 (1) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, according to which the Czech Republic is a sovereign, unified and democratic state based on respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, in conjunction with Article 82 (1) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, according to which judges are independent in the performance of their duties and their impartiality must not be jeopardised, where appropriate Article 2 (1) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, in which the principle of division of state power of law, executive and of justice is inalienable, imquantifiable and unbiased, and unbiased, and the provisions of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which the People are free and equal in the law and that fundamental rights and that fundamental rights and freedoms are inalienable.
40. In its decision-making practice, the Constitutional Court has repeatedly dealt with cases where the judges were once removed or one of the claim components of their remuneration was reduced without compensating for this reduction by increasing in another claim component. In the decision of 16.1.2007 sp. zn. The Constitutional Court summarised the reasons for the existing relevant case-law (1) (paragraphs 41 to 48), which was formulated by the basic generalising thesis for assessing the constitutionality of the pay restrictions against judges. These arguments, as well as the fundamental arguments underlying the Constitutional Court in dealing with the legislature's action in the area of material protection of judges, were summarised in paragraphs 49 to 51 of the finding.
41. In Case 55 / 05 Pl. In assessing whether or not this measure has been subject to pay restrictions, the Constitutional Court was the fundamental criterion for quantifying the material security of judges in the form of a sum of their revenue in a calendar year. The Court of First Instance identified as a regular monthly income the salary and a multipurpose flat-rate reimbursement of expenditure; the reimbursement of expenses does not have the character of remuneration for the performance of duties but, for its regularity, non-accounting and in cash form, the Constitutional Court considered it to be part of the regular income of judges for the purpose of quantifying the material collateral (cf. paragraph 54). Although the Constitutional Court concluded that "a further form of pay restriction is to be regarded as" a freeze of the legal growth of the income of judges or other constitutional actors, for example "a permanent" freeze of the salaries of some representatives of the State would undoubtedly be regarded as a step of constitutionally inadmissible "(paragraph 55), it also recalled that" the tenor of the existing precedents is the claim (principle) that the pay ratio of judges in the broad sense is to be stable, unless there are exceptional exceptional circumstances of the State, "it cannot, however," from the present case-law of the Constitutional Court of Justice, be a permanent and unquestionable right to the annual increase of judges' (paragraph 57). The Constitutional Court considered as an undisputed step in the remuneration of judges and other representatives of the State to be a given state of deduction of so-called additional salaries and their "dissolution 'into monthly salaries, without this measure having resulted in an annual decrease in the total income of the judge; as a significant element of the guarantee of adequate material security for judges in terms of the principle of division of state power into legislative, executive and judicial powers and the requirement of their mutual balance, he considered a direct link between the salary of the representatives of the legislature and executive on the one hand and the salary of the judges on the other. The Constitutional Court also expressed the belief that the construction of the Law on the salary of representatives of state power, which, with the help of a single salary base and the legal coefficients laid down by law, guarantees that, together with the increase in the salaries of legislative and executive officials, the legal salary of judges will automatically increase in the same proportion, constitutes an important, incorporated insurance policy, that the ratio in the material security of the representatives of individual powers will be maintained in the future (paragraph 59).
42. In that case, the Constitutional Court found and found that the income of the judge had not been reduced between 2001 and 2006. On the contrary, the judge's annual income increased, even in 2003 compared to 2002, even though the judge's income for 2003 was influenced by the Law on Exceptional Payment Measures for 20032). As a result of the adoption of the Act on Exceptional Payment Measures for 20043), although the "gross" income of the judge did not increase in 2004 compared to 2003, it was decisive that it did not fall (paragraph 56). Stopping the increase in the salaries of judges for only one year did not consider the Constitutional Court to be a wage restriction which would be contrary to the constitutional principles of the democratic rule of law, the division of state power and the independence of the judiciary, and therefore decided on the negative finding (4).
43. In 2008, 2009 and 2010, the contested provisions of the Law on the stabilisation of public budgets were to freeze the rate of increase in the salaries of the judges of the District, Regional and Supreme Courts and judges of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, which can be regarded as a salary restriction in accordance with the legal opinion set out in sp. zn. In assessing the constitutionality of this intervention, the Constitutional Court based itself on the fundamental generalisation of the arguments which resulted from its existing decision-making practice in assessing the action of the legislator in the area of material protection of judges and which it considers necessary to recall at this point:
The assessment of the constitutionality of salary restrictions against judges for a specific period of a particular year falls within the framework defined by the principle of judicial independence. The constitutional position of judges, on the one hand, and the representatives of the legislature and executive, in particular of the state administration, on the other hand, is different due to the principle of division of power and the principle of independence of judges, which implies a different layout for legislators to pay restrictions on judges compared to those of such restrictions in other areas of the public sphere. The interference in the material security of judges guaranteed by the law must not be an expression of the legislature's indiscretions, but must be justified, based on the principle of proportionality, by exceptional circumstances, such as the difficult financial situation of the State, and even if this condition is met, account must be taken of the differences in the function of judges and representatives of the legislative and executive powers, in particular of the state administration; Such intervention must not give cause for concern if the restriction of the dignity of judges does not affect, or if it is not an expression of the constitutionally unacceptable pressure of legislative and judicial power.
44. As regards the freezing of the legal rate of increase in the income of judges, the Constitutional Court supplemented these arguments, as already stated, in such a way that the short-term suspension of the increase in the salaries of judges does not constitute a salary restriction affecting constitutional principles under Articles 1 (1), 2 (1) and 82 (1) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic.
45. In the present case, the Constitutional Court is confronted with repeated freezing of the rate of increase in the pay of judges. It cannot be forgotten that, with effect from 1 January 2004, there was a change in the concept of a salary base from which the judge's salary depends, and therefore the Constitutional Court was concerned about whether this change could have had an impact on the assessment of the judge's pay ratios and their restriction by the exceptional measure under appeal.
46. In § 3 (3) of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., the salary base for the salaries of representatives of state authorities, including judges, was originally established as a summary of the highest fee and the maximum amount of the personal surcharge provided for by the special regulation for ministerial staff. In 1996, the salary base was CZK 31 200 and the basic salary of the judge was calculated as the product of the salary base and the corresponding salary coefficient, determined according to the responsibility and complexity of the duties performed and the length of the judicial practice. The mechanism for calculating the basic salary of a judge based on a salary base the same for all representatives of the State has not changed. Until the end of 2002, the salary base was increased repeatedly following the increase of the highest (12th) level of ministerial staff and was CZK 46440 as of 31 December 2002.
47. In 2003, the salary base was first frozen and remained at the level reached on 31 December 2002. This has been done by Act No 425 / 2002 Coll., which provides for exceptional measures for 2003 to determine the amount of the salary and certain reimbursement of expenses associated with the performance of the duties of representatives of the State and of certain state authorities, judges and prosecutors, and which determine the level of additional salaries for the first and second half of 2003. According to Article 1 of the Law, the change in the rules on the salary charges and the personal surcharge for ministerial staff since 1 January 2003 was a reason not to increase the salary base in 2003.
48. With effect from 1 January 2004, Act No. 309 / 2002 Coll., on the amendment of the laws relating to the adoption of the Law on the Service of Civil Servants in Administrative Offices and on the remuneration of such staff and other servants in Administrative Offices (Staff Act) amended the method of establishing a salary base for determining the level of the salary of judges (and other constitutional officials). [From the same date also took place by Government Decree No. 330 / 2003 Coll., on the pay ratios of employees in public services and administration, the introduction of a new pay system for public service employees and administrations (there was an extension of the original twelve grades to sixteen grades)] The salary of constitutional officials (and judges) was linked to the development of wages in the non-business sphere and it was newly established that the salary base was three times the average nominal monthly salary of individuals in the non-business sphere achieved by the Czech Statistical Office for the previous year. However, since the level of the salary base at the time was higher than three times (3,4 times), a mechanism for increasing the salary base was proposed. In the context of the reform of public budgets, the extension of the increase in the salaries of constitutional officials (and judges) was proposed and, in order to achieve the target situation more quickly, the salary base for 2004 was frozen by Act No 427 / 2003 Coll., which provides for exceptional measures for 2004 to determine the amount of the salary and certain reimbursement of expenses associated with the performance of the duties of representatives of the State and of certain state authorities, MEPs, judges and prosecutors, the amount of the additional salary of these persons for the first half of 2004 and amending certain related laws, as amended; The salary base therefore remained at the level of 2002. The freezing of the growth rate of the salary base in 2003 and 2004 was subject to a review by the Constitutional Court (sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 55 / 05) and the Constitutional Court sought to address them, although the reasons for the suspension of the rate of growth were different and the calculation of the level of the salary base was based on other criteria.
49. From the Communication of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs setting the salary base each year for determining the salary and certain reimbursement of expenses pursuant to Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., the Constitutional Court found that the salary base for representatives of state authority for 2005 was 50 400 Kč5), 53 283 Kč6 for 2006) and was set at 56 847 Kč7 for 2007).
50. The Act on the stabilisation of public budgets or exceptional measures subject to constitutional legal review took place in the years 2008-2010 to the level of the salary base reached on 31 December 2007, i.e. three times the average nominal monthly salary of individuals in the non-business sphere reached in 2005, i.e. 3 x 18 949 CZK, or 56 847 CZK.
51. It can therefore be concluded that the judge's gross annual salary calculated from the 2007 salary base did not increase or decrease in 2008. The Constitutional Court already found that, in the sp. zn. After the adoption of the new concept of calculation of a salary base linked to the average nominal wage of individuals in the non-business sphere (i.e. from 1.1.2004), the rate of growth of the salary base of judges (and other constitutional factors) was suspended for the first time as a result of a real excess of three times the average nominal wage in the non-business area, in the period under review, the rate of growth is suspended as a result of the reform of public budgets for three years, in a situation where the average nominal wage in the non-business sector, according to the CSU Communication in 2006 was CZK 19786 (the amount applicable to the calculation of the salary base in 2008), CZK 21 117 (applicable for the calculation of the salary base in 2009) and CZK 22 037 in 2008 (applicable for the 2010).
52. The Constitutional Court notes that, in view of the principle of the division of state power and the requirement of their mutual balance, the safeguards and guarantees designed by the Law on the salary of representatives of state power have been maintained and, for the purposes of the present case, it refers in detail to the finding of sp. zn. However, the exceptional measure challenged by the appellant cannot be assessed in isolation, but it is essential that, even in the light of the legal views expressed in the decision of the Court of First Instance, the actual impact on the judicial income situation be examined. It did not have the character of a permanent reduction in the material security of the judge, especially if the above-mentioned (for real judicial income positive) impact of tax reform is considered.
53. The Constitutional Court has not forgotten the appellant's argument on the preparation of future additional salary restrictions. At the time of the submission of the present proposal, Act No. 418 / 2009 Coll., amending, inter alia, Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., on the salary and other formalities relating to the performance of the duties of representatives of the State and of certain state bodies and judges and Members of the European Parliament, was adopted by making the salary of a Member, a representative, a judge and a Member of the European Parliament equal to 96% of the salary under that Act and under Article XLVIII of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. However, this change in the substantive security of judges with effect from 1 January 2010 cannot be relevant for the assessment of the constitutionality of the judicial pay arrangements in the years preceding, that is, the Constitutional Court's decision in the present case. Another upcoming amendment to Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., which should deal with the adjustment of the calculation of the salary base from 1 January 2011, is still at the stage of the preparations and it is not clear whether and in what form it will be submitted to the Parliament of the Czech Republic and with what result.
54. As the Constitutional Court has already explained, the legislature's intervention in the material security of judges guaranteed by the law must be assessed within the framework of the protected principle of their independence. While the independence of judges is conditional on their moral integrity and professional level, it is also linked to their adequate material collateral; the prohibition of arbitrary salary restrictions also allows the exclusion of different forms of pressure on their decision-making. The Constitutional Court believes that, in the present case, the temporary suspension of the guaranteed increase in the salaries of judges did not affect their level of material collateral so far achieved in a way that would raise doubts as to whether the legislature's arbitrary action aimed at limiting or losing its independence. The Constitutional Court thus distinguished the suspension of the increase in the salary of judges from the permanent withdrawal of the salary or part thereof, which already represents a real negative impact on the level of material collateral achieved by the judges; for the assessment of the constitutionality of pay restrictions of this nature, he already established in his case-law the fundamental generalising thesis [cf. sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 34 / 04 of 14.7.2005 (N 138 / 38 SbNU 31; 355 / 2005 Coll.)].
55. Summary and, in other words, the legislation under review did not constitute and does not constitute a constitutionally inadmissible withdrawal of the salary of judges, since the withdrawal and, in contrast to that, the freezing of the judge's gross income (only temporary) cannot be identified. This is all the more so because the level of material protection of judges has not remained - assessed in the regulatory complex - frozen during the period under examination. in fact, the revenue of the judges has been increased.
56. However, it also follows that the legislature's move, by which (would) not suspend the rate of increase in the salary of judges, but even a partial withdrawal of the level of material security already achieved, could hardly be addressed by the Constitutional Court in terms of democratic rule of law. In particular, this would be the case if such a fundamentally unacceptable restriction would prove to affect only or primarily the income ratios of the judges and not the income of other "servants' of the State. On that point, it is appropriate to expressly recall the conclusions of the Constitutional Court contained in its finding sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 34 / 048).
57. The Constitutional Court concluded that it did not find the grounds for repealing the provisions of points 1 (a) and (b) and 2 in Article XLVIII, on an exceptional measure in determining the amount of the salary and certain reimbursement of the expenses of representatives of the State and of certain state authorities and judges between 2008 and 2010, on the part of the 30th Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets, as regards the judges of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, and therefore rejected the proposal under Paragraph 70 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v. r.
Different opinions under Article 14 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, were taken by the judges Vlasta Formánková, Pavel Holländer, Vladimir Krka and Eliška Wagner to decide.
1) Findings sp. zn.
2) Paragraphs 1 (h) and 3 of Act No. 425 / 2002 Coll., which provide for exceptional measures for 2003 to determine the amount of the salary and certain reimbursement of expenses associated with the performance of the duties of representatives of the State and of certain state authorities, judges and prosecutors, and which determine the level of additional salaries for the first and second half of 2003
(3) Paragraphs 1 (i) and 3 and 4 of Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll., which provide for exceptional measures for the purposes of determining the amount of the salary and certain reimbursement of expenses associated with the performance of the duties of representatives of the State and of certain State bodies, Members of the European Parliament, Judges and prosecutors, the amount of additional salary of those persons for the first half of 2004, 2005 and 2006, and which provide for exceptional measures to determine the amount of the salary and some allowances of the expenses associated with the performance of the functions of representatives of the State and of certain state authorities, judges and public representatives, the amount of additional salaries of those persons for the first and second half of 2004, 2005 and 2006, and amending certain related laws)
4) The find sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 55 / 05 was published in the Collection of Laws under No. 65 / 2007 Coll.
5) Communication of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs No. 648 / 2004 Coll.
6) Communication from the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs No. 488 / 2005 Coll.
7) Communication from the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs No. 582 / 2006 Coll.
8) On the question of the constitutionality of the subsequent legal withdrawal of a part of the salary of judges entitled before the adoption of this measure, the following general considerations can be inferred: - the assessment of the constitutionality of the applicable restrictions on judges for a specific period of a particular year falls within the framework defined by the principle of judicial independence, - the constitutional position of judges, on the one hand, and representatives of the legislature, in particular the administration of the State, and, on the other hand, the principle of division of power and the principle of independence of the judiciary, which implies a difference in the discretion of the legislature, but which is based on the principle of proportionality, justified by exceptional circumstances, for example, such restrictions in other areas of the public sector, and for the fulfilment of that condition, the principle of the rule of law, and, the interference in the material security of the judiciary of the judiciary of the judiciary of the judiciary of the legislature; Such intervention must not give cause for concern if the restriction of the dignity of judges does not affect, or if it is not an expression of the constitutionally unacceptable pressure of legislative and judicial power. The principle of independent justice is one of the essential elements of the democratic rule of law (Article 9 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic). The requirement of independent justice stems from two sources: the neutrality of judges as a guarantee of fair, impartial and objective judicial proceedings and the safeguarding of the rights and freedoms of individuals by a judge separated from political power. The independence of judges is guaranteed by the guarantees of a special legal status (which must include inconsistencies, irrevocability, integrity), the guarantees of organisational and functional independence from the bodies representing legislative and, in particular, executive powers, and the separation of the judiciary from legislative and executive powers (in particular, the application of the principle of incompatibility). From the point of view of content, judicial independence is ensured only by the binding of judges by law, i.e. excluding any elements of subordination in judicial decision-making. The Constitutional Court dealt with the fundamental components of the principle of independence of the judiciary in a comprehensive manner in the decision of the Constitutional Court in the sp. zn. The legislature's own intervention in the area of material protection of judges, including in the framework of pay restrictions, must be placed under the framework protected by the principle of their independence for two reasons. The independence of judges is primarily conditional on their moral integrity and professional level, but is also linked to their adequate material collateral. The second reason for subjecting the prohibition of arbitrary interference in the material security of judges (pay restrictions) to the principle of their independence is to exclude the possibility, possibly oppression of legislative or executive decision-making powers. In other words, to exclude arbitrary interference in the material security of judges as a possible form of "penalisation" of judges by legislation and executive, and thus a form of pressure on their decisions.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No. 104 / 2010 Coll., on the application for annulment of certain provisions of Part 30 of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets relating to the salaries of judges of district, county and supreme courts, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | - |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 15.04.2010 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0