The Constitutional Court found No 166 / 2008 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 23 April 2008 on the application for annulment of certain parts of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
19.05.2008
166
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
Member of the Commission, p.
as follows:
I. On 30 June 2008, in Act No. 54 / 1956 Coll., on staff sickness insurance, as amended, the first sentence of Paragraph 15 (1) of the first sentence is deleted: "if the incapacity for work lasts more than 3 calendar days." In the first sentence of Paragraph 15 (3) of the same Law, the word "fourth 'is deleted. The second sentence of Paragraph 16 of the same Law is also deleted, as follows:" The sickness referred to in the first sentence shall be granted from the fourth calendar day of the quarantine. "
II. The remainder is rejected.
Reasons
Subject matter
1. By a proposal submitted to the Constitutional Court on 22 October 2007, a group of 67 Members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, represented by Mgr. Michal Hašek, proposed, pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") and Article 64 (1) (b) of the Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Law on the Constitutional Court"), the repeal of the entire Act No 261 / 2007 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets (hereinafter referred to as "the Law") or its individual provisions specified in the draft. In addition, this group of 67 applicants proposed, by the same proposal, the repeal of some of the draft more detailed provisions of the laws amended by Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll.
2. By order of the plenary of the Constitutional Court of 8 January 2008 No. Pl. ÚS 24 / 07-147, proposals for the abolition of those parts of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., concerning the content of the separate issue of the financing of health care from public health insurance (Pl. ÚS 1 / 08) and proposals for the abolition of the parts of the content of the separate social security issue (Pl. ÚS 2 / 08.)
3. Under the Pl. ÚS 24 / 07, the proceedings for the remainder of the proposals, which ended on 31 January 2008, remained a rejection of the Constitutional Court's finding (see below).
Participation and intervening
4. The applicant in this procedure is a group of 67 Members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, represented by Mgr. Michal Hašek. The Constitutional Court found that the application lodged fulfilled all legal procedural requirements. According to Article 69 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act, the parties to the proceedings are also 1. Chamber of Deputies and 2. Senate of Parliament of the Czech Republic.
5. By a proposal received by the Constitutional Court on 19 November 2007, it proposed the repeal of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., or its individual provisions, also a group of 43 Members, represented by Mr JUDr. Vojtěch Filip. This proposal was rejected by the Constitutional Court by order of 23 November 2007, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 28 / 07 pursuant to § 43 (2) (b) in conjunction with § 43 (1) (e) of the Law on the Constitutional Court because of an obstacle to litispendence. A group of 43 Members thus became a intervener in this proceedings under Paragraph 35 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court for a group of 67 Members.
6. Another proposal received by the Constitutional Court on 7 December 2007 proposed the abolition of the designated parts of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. also a group of 19 Senators of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, represented by the lawyer JUDr. Kateřina Šitáková. This proposal was rejected by the Constitutional Court by order of 12 December 2007, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 29 / 07, pursuant to § 43 (2) (b), in conjunction with § 43 (1) (e) of the Constitutional Court Act, on the ground of an obstacle to the earlier proceedings. This group of 19 senators then became a party to the proceedings under Paragraph 35 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act. The parties to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court have the same rights and obligations as its parties (Section 28 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act).
7. As regards the arguments put forward by the appellants and by the interveners in question in the constitutional procedure for the adoption and publication of Act No 261 / 2007 Coll. as a whole, it is not possible to refer to the conclusions of the sp. zn.
Arguments of a group of 67 Members of Parliament of the Czech Republic
8. A group of 67 Members of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, represented by Mgr. Michal Hašek (hereinafter also "the promoters"), proposed the annulment of the entire Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. on the grounds, inter alia, that he dealt with the already mentioned find sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24 / 07. In the event of failure to comply with this proposal, this group of appellants, alternatively, proposed the abolition of the parts of the 15th to twenty-second, twenty-fourth to thirty-ninth and forty-fourth laws, in particular because those parts of the content, teleologically or formally do not relate to tax changes, reductions and cancellations of certain taxes and the increase or introduction of other taxes. The adoption of those parts of the law should have been carried out in the form of a separate law. These are changes in social benefits and in social security procedural law. This extensive transformation of the entire social security system should have been carried out in a separate law or rather in more legislation. The right to social security is a different legal sector from financial law, and its interconnection in the same legal proposal makes sense, perhaps, only in the case of legislation on taxes on income and social security contributions (part twenty-third), the abolition of which is therefore not proposed. The inclusion of these parts in Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. therefore contradicts Articles 1, 2 (1), 6, 15 (1) and 89 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic.
9. Changes in labour law and remuneration in the public sphere (part 27 to 36) are also very little related to tax changes. This applies in particular to the remuneration of professional soldiers, members of the security corps, constitutional officials and representatives (counties, municipalities and cities of Prague). These changes also require, for reasons of predictability of law and democratic legitimacy, regulation in a special law.
10. Even less legitimate are the changes in the Labour Code which relate to the relationship between two private persons, i.e. the employer and the employee. In this respect, the addition of the content of the employment certificate pursuant to Section 313 of the Labour Code in Part 27 of Article XLI (7) is particularly excessive.
11. A number of the contested parts of this law have entered it through amendments. This is part twenty-second Article XXXV, points 1, 2 and 12, part twenty-fourth Article XXXVIII, points 1, 2, 3 and 5. For example, an attempt to replace the rules on the accounting of child care periods for the purposes of pension insurance [as a result of the finding of the Constitutional Court No. 405 / 2006 Coll. - Note: the finding sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 42 / 04, the Collection of Finances and the Order of the Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as "the Reports of the Judgments'), Volume 41, Found No. 112, is correct, but should not have been" attached 'to this new legislation to the law, which does not apply to the problems of counting periods for pension insurance purposes. The applicants referred in particular to the finding of the Constitutional Court sp. zn.
Arguments of the group 19 Senators of Parliament of the Czech Republic
12. This group of appellants stressed that its proposal did not call into question the content of the contested law with the constitutional order, but merely the way in which it was approved, which it considered to be unconstitutional. In this context, reference was made in particular to the findings of the sp. zn. The problem of this law is that it is a package of many amendments to laws in one law, thus reducing its clarity. At the second reading, Mr Topolánek and Prime Minister Mr Topolánek tabled a very comprehensive amendment, which brought in many parts of the said law undesirable "stickers." A group of 19 senators' deregulation proposal in its petition does not contain any of the parts of that law that are the subject of this procedure.
Arguments of a group of 43 Members of Parliament of the Czech Republic
13. The group's proposal of 43 Members also included (as in the case of the group's proposal of 69 Members) a request for the annulment of the entire Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. for constitutional defects of the legislative process. The argument of this group of applicants is largely the same as that of a group of 67 Members. They consider the law to be a set of partial adaptations, representing, on the one hand, amendments to several dozen laws, and, on the other hand, adjustments that would stand as separate laws. They consider the so-called "stickers" to be a change in legislation of almost all social systems, etc.
14. Petit's proposal of this group of promoters contains a proposal to repeal part of 16th Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., i.e. the part amending Act No. 111 / 2006 Coll., on aid in material distress. They do not agree with points 18 and 19, which are intended to ensure that, for persons receiving benefits of assistance in material distress who are not employed for more than 12 months, the amount of the benefit is based only on an existential minimum, and that no increase in the amount of subsistence will apply to them. At the same time, persons over 55 years of age, disabled persons and childcare persons under 12 years of age should be excluded from this tightening scheme. By point 24, the existing § 31 of Act No. 111 / 2006 Coll., narrowing the number of persons who have increased their livelihood by CZK 600 in a long-term stay in a state of material emergency, was then abolished.
15. According to the applicants, this is about the quality of the social safety network and the survival of disabled jobseekers. Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. brings fundamental systemic changes in this area only shortly after Act No. 111 / 2006 Coll., which consists in the fact that the employment authorities and entrusted municipal authorities have been deprived of their competence to decide on an increase in living amounts of CZK 600 per month for long-term unemployed at the stage of material emergency. Thus, the present regulation has been replaced by a taxitic designation of persons who, by law, are not able to achieve the above increase, thus putting the quality of life of the bodies concerned into the subjective decision-making process of officials. The applicants see a serious problem in that a group of people who will be obligated to increase their livelihood by CZK 600 is not complete because the law does not remember, for example, a group of jobseekers over 50 years of age. In addition to disabled citizens, they should have "50-year-olds" in a state of material emergency to automatically increase their livelihood.
16. As a principle contrary to the point of the social safety net and which implodes solidarity among people, the appellants consider the reregulation of Paragraph 39 (2) (a) of the Employment Act, which proposes to bind the granting of unemployment benefits under the sole responsibility of the employee to retain his employment relationship. This is a state intervention in the relationship between employer and employee. The law amends the conditions of unemployment insurance, the rate of insurance is maintained, but the extent of insurance benefits is limited only to cases of unemployment for organisational reasons or to cases of termination of employment by agreement or by normal termination by the employee. In the event of the immediate termination of employment by the employer due to a breach of employment, the principle of insurance should not apply for a period of six months, and the employee, even if he had paid the insurance in full, would not have received the benefit in the event of unemployment. The employer thus receives an important tool which fundamentally changes the ratio of labour market forces, reduces labour force and unilaterally supports employers.
17. This group of applicants also proposed to abolish part of the nineteenth amendment to Act No. 54 / 1956 Coll., on the sickness insurance of employees. The subject of the adjustment is the Act which was repealed by Act No. 187 / 2006 Coll., on sickness insurance, the effectiveness of which is however only effective from 1 January 2009. That part of the nineteenth (point 3 et seq.) brought a postponement of the provision of sick leave which will not be granted for the first three calendar days of temporary incapacity for work or ordered quarantine. This cannot be agreed with, because the sickness insurance scheme is based on an insurance policy designed to protect the insurance event, which is a disease in this case. This system was set better in the laws of the beginning of the last century. Paragraph 6 of Act No. 689 / 1920 Coll., amending certain provisions of the Act on the insurance of workers in the event of illness, provided that, if the illness lasts for more than three days and the sickness is unable to earn, it is entitled from the day of the illness to the said daily sickness insurance. The new regulation thus infringed the rights of insured persons, and the sickness insurance system merely subdues resources to cover the deficit of the state budget.
18. As regards point 10 of the same part, changing the calculation of the daily basis of assessment for the determination of sickness and assistance for the treatment of a member of the family, to point 14, reducing the percentage of aid for the treatment of a member of the family from 69% to 60%, i.e. to the level of sickness benefit up to 30 calendar days of incapacity, to point 17, blocking the indexation of the amounts laid down for the application of the reduction limits in the calculation of the daily basis of assessment from which the amount of the sickness benefit is fixed, and points 19 and 20 of that group of applicants indicated that this adjustment would mean a reduction in the level of security of workers who are subject to sickness benefits as a result of temporary incapacity. At the same time, the insurance principle of sickness insurance is weakening. The effects may be strongly reflected in the deterioration of the population's health by crossing and concealing diseases, including infectious ones.
19. This group of applicants also proposed the abolition of part twenty-first, amending Act No. 88 / 1968 Coll., on the extension of maternity leave, on maternity benefits and on allowances for children from sickness insurance, as amended, in paragraphs 4 to 6, which abolish the provision of monetary assistance in maternity to lonely women, and in paragraphs 7 to 9, cancelling the entitlement to maternity assistance for jobseekers. The serious impact of all these adjustments is that low-income population groups will be in a situation where they have limited access to public services and medical treatment, which will mainly concern families with more small children, where a woman will be on maternity leave. The new regulation thus relieves people who are obliged by the State to provide adequate material support because they themselves cannot. That denies respect for human rights, guaranteed in the preamble to the Constitution. The law also denied principles protecting the legitimate expectation of a claim, which has already been granted by a legal act and is sufficiently individualised under the law. In this context, the appellants referred to the findings sp. zn. In any change in regulation, the legislator must take into account the current legal situation and implement the changes only sensitively and to the extent necessary to achieve the regulatory objective.
20. According to that group of applicants, Article 14 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols 3, 5 and 8 (Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs Communication 209 / 1992 Coll.), has also been infringed, where it is expressly provided that the use of the rights and freedoms granted by this Convention must be ensured without discrimination based on any reason.
Observations of the parties
21. The Constitutional Court, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 42 (4) and 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, has sent the application in question for the annulment of the contested provisions to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
Statement by the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
22. The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, in its observations of 30 November 2007, signed by President Miloslav Vlček, reiterated the applicants' objections and opposed them. The statement does not contain any specific opinion on the issues which are the subject of the proceedings in this matter, and it is concluded that the Chamber of Deputies has acted in the belief that the law adopted is in line with the Constitution, the constitutional order and the rule of law.
Statement by the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
23. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, represented by the President of MUDr. The Senate. There was no "classic" debate under the Senate Rules of Procedure in its plenary session. Before the vote on the motion for the Senate not to deal with the bill, some Senate officials and club leaders took advantage of their right to the so-called priority award (Section 69 of the Senate Rules of Procedure). By adopting Resolution 192 of 19 September 2007, by majority approval of a proposal expressing the will not to deal with the bill, the Senate acted in the belief that this standard was in line with the Constitution and the Charter. Although the law... may at first glance resemble a set of unrelated partial regulations summarised only in one comprehensive law, "yet..." contains a bearing unifying idea... of stabilizing public budgets. "The analogous procedure is not new in the Czech legislative process, it was also followed for example in the establishment of regions (Act No. 132 / 2000 Coll., on the amendment and abolition of certain laws related to the Act on Regions, the Act on Municipality, the Act on District Offices and the Act on the City of Prague, as amended) or in the termination of the activities of District Offices, Act No. 320 / 2002 Coll., on the amendment and repeal of certain laws in connection with the cessation of the activities of District Offices, as amended). The Senate also accepted a complex of amendments (Members of Topolánek, Fatso and Rovan) adopted by the Chamber of Deputies by the Prime Minister. Finally, the Senate stated that it was up to the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of the adopted law and to make a final decision.
Replication of the applicants' observations
24. The appellants - a group of 67 Members - sent a dissent reply to the President of the Chamber of Deputies and the President of the Senate on 18 December 2007. It stated that Parliament's chambers, not its Presidents, were parties to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. They just represent the chamber on the outside and are not entitled to create its will independently. They can only communicate or express this will, created according to the rules laid down by the Constitution and the law. If the President of the Chamber of Parliament does not submit a draft statement as a party to the Chamber's approval, he may, by virtue of his duties, communicate only the factual and undisputed circumstances of the draft law.
Description of legislative procedure of adoption of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll.
25. From the observations of the two chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, the annexed annexes and documents available by electronic means in the digital library on the website of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic on www.psp.cz and www.senat.cz, the Constitutional Court found that the Government of the Czech Republic had submitted a government bill to the Chamber of Deputies on 24.5.2007 (Press 222 / 0). The bill was distributed to Members on 25 May 2007. The Organizing Committee of the Chamber of Deputies recommended that the bill be discussed on 24 May 2007. He appointed rapporteur Mgr. Bohuslav Sobotka and proposed to order three committees to discuss the proposal: the 1st Committee on Health, the 2nd Committee on Social Policy, the 3rd Budget Committee. The first reading took place on 6 and 7 June 2007 at the 15th meeting of the House. The bill was ordered to discuss the above mentioned committees (Resolution 335). The House Health Committee debated the draft law on 20 June 2007, and adopted no resolution. The Committee on Social Policy discussed the draft law on 2 July 2007 and recommended rejecting it in its resolution. The Committee on Budgets discussed the draft law on 8 August 2007 and recommended rejecting it in its resolution.
26. The second reading in the Chamber passed the bill in a general and detailed debate on 14 and 15 August 2007 at the 18th meeting. The amendments tabled were drafted as Press 222 / 3, which was circulated on 16 August 2007. The third reading in the House took place on 21 August 2007 at the 18th meeting. The bill was passed, out of the 200 Members present, 101 Members voted in favour, 99 votes against. On 31 August 2007, the Chamber of Deputies passed the Senate Bill as print 106 / 0. The Senate classified the press at its 8th meeting and discussed it on 19 September 2007. By order No 192 The Senate expressed its will not to deal with the bill. The Act was delivered to the President of the Republic on 25 September 2007, the President signed it on 5 October 2007 and the Act was published on 16 October 2007 in the Collection of Laws in the amount of 85 under the number 261 / 2007 Coll.
Oral proceedings before the Constitutional Court
27. In the oral hearing of the Constitutional Court, held on 23 April 2008, the representatives of the appellants essentially reiterated the arguments already set out in the applications for annulment of the contested legislation. The other parties briefly referred to their observations submitted to the Constitutional Court. The motion by JUDr. V. Filip to supplement the evidence by testifying to Mr Louis Hovorka on the circumstances of the pressure on Members when discussing the law in the Chamber of Deputies did not comply with the plenary of the Constitutional Court with reference to Article 26 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic.
Constitutional conformity of competence and legislative process
28. According to § 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll. In the context of the standard control procedure, the Constitutional Court examines the compliance of the law with the constitutional order from three fundamental points of view. The first is the competence of the body which issued the contested law, the second is the procedure which was issued by the law, and the third is its own content, i.e. its content compliance with the constitutional order. This therefore gives the logical sequence of the review. In assessing the constitutionality of the contested law, the Constitutional Court accepted the appellant's point of order, according to which the Presidents of Parliament are not entitled to create the chamber's will independently. In their observations from the position of a party to the proceedings, they shall be entitled, on behalf of the relevant chamber, to inform the Constitutional Court only of the factual and undisputed circumstances of the examination of the draft law. The assessment of the contested law and the controversy with the proposal to abolish it by the Constitutional Court above that limit is no longer an expression of the Chamber but a personal view of its President.
29. The subject of the review in the decision-making case is the constitutionality of the above mentioned parts of the Act on the stabilisation of public budgets No. 261 / 2007 Coll. The competition of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, which adopted this law, and the constitutionality of the procedure for the adoption of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. solved the finding sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24 / 07 of 31 January 2008 (see above).
30. The proposal to abolish the various parts of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., which is the subject of this procedure, is based primarily on objections affecting the alleged breach of the constitutionality of the adoption of the law as a whole. Here it is not possible to refer again to the conclusions of the finding sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24 / 07. The same can also be applied to procedural errors relating to the various parts of the Act on the stabilisation of public budgets, which are seen by the promoter and by the interveners in the absence of a close relationship between amendments to the subject of the proposed law and a breach of the legal framework for the submission of legislative technical proposals at third reading in its adoption.
The objection of inconsistency of the law
31. As stated in the find in sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24 / 07, Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets, in terms of legislative and technical law, is mixed. It contains, on the one hand, amendments to precisely identified laws (Parts 1 to 36, 38 to 44, 48 to 50), the original new legislation (Parts 37, 45, 46, 47) and, finally, repeal provisions (Parts 51) and Effective Provisions (Part 52). In other words, it is a law which is partly a 'collection novel' and partly a new legal regulation. As can be seen from the already mentioned finding of sp. zn. It is not, therefore, from the Parliament of the Czech Republic, an extreme systemic arbitrage that would constitute a derogatory ground for violating the principles of the material rule of law and parliamentary democracy in this part.
The objections to the absence of a close relationship between amendments to the subject matter of the law and the exceeding of the legal framework for the submission of legislative technical proposals in the third reading of the draft law
32. In relation to the following provisions of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., the appellants object to the absence of a close relationship between amendments containing the draft law itself in the above mentioned sections. These questions can also be considered as resolved by the finding of 31 January 2008, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24 / 07.
Content compliance of the contested legal provisions with the constitutional order
33. The Constitutional Court found in its settled case-law that the amendment to the law did not have a separate legislative existence, but became part of the amended law [the finding of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 5 / 96 (ECR 6, p. 98, cited under No 286 / 1996 Coll.), resolution of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 25 / 2000 (ECR 19, p. 27), the findings of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 21 / 01 (ECR 25, p. If, in the procedure for the control of standards, there are derogatory reasons for the absence of standard competence, or a breach of the constitutionally prescribed procedure for the adoption of the law, the constitutionality of the amendment itself is then assessed [see the findings sp. zn.
34. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly stressed that, when assessing the infringement of the law, or its individual provisions with the constitutional order, it is bound only by a petition and not by its reasoning [the finding of the sp. zn. If the appellant is opposed to the content of the non-compliance of the law with the constitutional order, it is not sufficient for the purposes of constitutional review only to indicate the law (or its individual provisions) proposed for annulment, but it is also necessary to state the reason for the unconstitutional objection. If the appellant does not bear the burden of claiming unconstitutionality in the standard control procedure, such a proposal cannot be regarded as contradictory with the provisions of Section 34 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court and therefore as ineligible for a meritorial hearing (see page (b) of ÚS 7 / 03 - see above). The consequences of that conclusion are those parts of the petition in which a group of 67 Members seeks the annulment of the part of the fifteenth to twenty-second, twenty-fourth to thirty-ninth and of the part of the forty-fourth act. In addition to procedural objections, no claims were raised against these parts of the law by this group of plaintiffs (i.e. a group of 67 Members).
35. Only a group of 43 Members of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (intervener) proposed in the petition the abolition of certain parts of the law and, in this respect, brought a number of arguments - see paragraph III / c above. This means that only those parts of the law that the Constitutional Court has proposed to abolish were those of this group of plaintiffs.
36. In the interest of an overview of the whole case, it can be concluded that the subject matter of the procedure as defined by the group proposal 67 Members to abolish the above mentioned parts of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. concerns the following areas which can be divided into 4 groups:
A. Changes in the conditions of entitlement and the amount of certain social security benefits
B. Related changes to the definition and addition of certain terms and categories
C. Competitive changes of competent authorities and changes in the procedures for social security benefits and sickness insurance
D. Related technical changes and adjustments
Changes in certain social security benefits, in the way they are determined and in the conditions governing entitlement to such benefits.
Law 261 / 2007 Coll. brought changes in the following areas:
37. In the field of State Social Aid Benefits (Amendment to Act No. 117 / 1995 Coll., on State Social Support, Article XXIII of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. - Part 15), the criteria for determining certain types of income have been changed, from which the so-called applicable income is determined for granting benefits granted according to the level of income; the allowance for school supplies has also been cancelled and the conditions of entitlement, the method for determining and reducing the child allowance, the social allowance, the parental allowance, the allowance for taking over the child into foster care, the childbirth and the funeral allowance (paragraphs 1-12, 14-19) have been amended.
38. For benefits of aid in material distress (amendment of Act No. 111 / 2006 Coll., on aid in material distress, Article XXV of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. - Part Sixteenth), the amount of living for persons who are not employed or otherwise engaged continuously for more than 12 months was newly determined by the amount of the existence minimum, with these persons not being subject to an increase in the amount of living under § 25 - 30 of Act No. 111 / 2006 Coll. This provision excludes persons who have reached the age of at least 55 years, persons with disabilities under Section 67 (2) (b) of the Employment Act or parents personally caring for a child under the age of 12 (paragraphs 18 and 19). By Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., Paragraph 31 of the Act on aid in material distress was repealed, which provided for the possibility of increasing the amount of livelihood in the long term in a state of material emergency. It was an amount of CZK 600 for a person who, according to the Office of Labour, is a person who requires increased care in the course of employment, after a year of continuous management in the register of applicants and after a year of current subsistence allowance (point 24). The new legislation also amended the conditions for entitlement to the housing supplement and the new specification of the justified housing costs (paragraphs 25 and 30).
39. In the field of the provision of social services (amendment of Act No. 108 / 2006 Coll., on Social Services, Article XXVIII of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. - Part Eighteenth), Title III was repealed, providing for an increase in the care allowance granted to persons dependent on the assistance of another natural person in order to ensure the necessary assistance by the Government (paragraph 1). The new regulation amended certain conditions for the payment of this contribution (point 4), changed for certain types of social services provided without payment, changed the amount of accommodation and subsistence payments in certain social services facilities (points 24, 27, 29 and 32), and repealed Title X, which provided for an assessment of the unjustifiable burden on the system in cases where a citizen of a Member State of the European Union (point 20) requested a contribution under the Social Services Act.
40. In the case of the provision of monetary assistance in maternity care (amendment of Act No. 88 / 1968 Coll., on the extension of maternity leave, on maternity benefits and on the allowance for children from sickness insurance, Article XXXIII of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. - Part Twenty-first), the provision of monetary assistance in maternity has been cancelled even after the exhaustion of the statutory period for lonely women (point 4). Furthermore, the provision of maternity aid to citizens who are registered as jobseekers was cancelled (point 7).
41. In the field of occupational sickness insurance (Act No. 54 / 1956 Coll., on occupational sickness insurance, Article XXIX of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. - Part Nineteen), there has been a change in the provision of sickness insurance, which according to the new legislation belongs to the employee if the incapacity of work lasts more than three days. Disability shall be granted only from the fourth calendar day of incapacity for work, as opposed to the previous legislation granting the provision of sick leave from the first calendar day of incapacity for work. The same arrangement concerns quarantine ordered under a special legislation (paragraphs 3 to 6). Act No 261 / 2007 Coll. has newly adjusted the amount of the sick allowance by establishing, in contrast to the original adjustment of the amount of the sick allowance, 69% of the daily assessment base per calendar day, with the first three days of incapacity for work or quarantine being 25% of the daily assessment basis, a different amount of sick leave, graduated according to the duration of the incapacity or quarantine. The amount of sick leave per calendar day is thus 60% of the daily assessment basis by 30 calendar days of incapacity or quarantine, 66% from 31 to 60 calendar days and 72% from 61 calendar days of incapacity or quarantine (point 7).
42. A further change concerns the adjustment of the amounts in the calculation of the daily assessment basis for the determination of sickness and aid for the treatment of a family member (point 10). There has also been a change in the provision of sickness benefit to old-age or full-time disabled pensioners, which under the new legislation is granted for 81 calendar days (instead of the original 84 calendar days - point 12). This sickness allowance is granted to old-age or full-time pensioners until the day on which they cease to work (point 13). Law 261 / 2007 Coll. reduced the amount of aid in the treatment of a family member to 60% of the daily assessment basis per calendar day (instead of the original 69% - point 14) and this aid does not fall from the so-called withdrawal period after the end of employment (point 18). In general, the new legislation shortened the withdrawal period from 42 to 7 days after the end of employment (paragraph 19).
43. This new health insurance scheme of employees is followed by analogous changes in health care in other legislation implemented by Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. These are changes in Act No. 32 / 1957 Coll., on sickness care in the armed forces (Article XXXI - Part Twenty) - i.e. the shortening of the withdrawal period, the shortening of the period of the provision of sick members of the Security Corps who are beneficiaries of an old-age or full disability pension, the adjustment of the amount of the sick allowance, the provision of a daily basis for compensation in pregnancy and maternity under the Law on maternity leave, the maternity benefits and the allowance for children from sickness insurance, (Article XXXIII - Part Twenty-first) - the establishment of a daily basis for compensation for sickness insurance benefits (care) in the period of temporary incapacity or quarantine (point 8).
44. In addition, the amendment of Act No. 187 / 2006 Coll., on sickness insurance (Article XXXIX - Part Twenty-fifth), in which there were the same changes in the amount of sickness and the reduction of the withdrawal period as in Act No. 54 / 1956 Coll. (point 3 and point 9). The Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. provided for a change in the amount of the relevant income for the purposes of sickness insurance from the original CZK 1,500 to CZK 2,000 (point 1), a change in the calculation of the total of the assessment bases for insurance premiums (point 4), a change in the daily assessment basis for the calculation of sickness and nursing care and cash assistance in maternity and compensation allowance in pregnancy (point 5) and a change in the amount of the treatment from 65% of the daily assessment base to 60% (point 13).
45. In the context of the changes in the sickness insurance system, there have also been changes in Act No. 262 / 2006 Coll., Labour Code, (Article XLI - Part 27) concerning the adjustment of the compensation for the salary or salary of the temporarily incapacitated employee or employee to whom quarantine was ordered, so that such compensation is not due for the first three days of temporary incapacity or quarantine (point 3). Compensation for loss of earnings during the period of incapacity for work prior to the occurrence of damage caused by an accident at work or occupational disease shall be payable to the staff member during the first three calendar days of incapacity for work (point 8). A compensation of 60% of the average earnings has been newly established, while for the purposes of compensation for the salary or salary, the average earnings recorded are adjusted in the same way as the daily assessment basis for calculating sickness benefit from sickness insurance is adjusted by multiplying the corresponding reduction limit established for sickness insurance purposes by 0,175 (point 4).
46. The related changes in salary or other remuneration are then implemented by Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. in the Act No. 221 / 1999 Coll., in the Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., in the Act No. 129 / 2000 Coll., in the Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., on the Service Relation of Members of the Security Corps, in Article XLIV - Part Twenty-ninth Staff, in the Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., in the Act No. 129 / 2000 Coll., on the Law of the Government of the Republic, and in the Act No. 131 / 2000 Coll. In determining the salary and certain reimbursement of expenditure with representatives of the State and of certain state authorities and judges, and in determining the salary of prosecutors, exceptional measures were added in the relevant laws, according to which the salary base reached on 31 December 2007 (2008-2010) was based (Article XLVIII - Part thirty and Article LI - Part thirty first).
47. Pursuant to Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. there was an amendment to Act No. 435 / 2004 Coll., on Employment (Art. LIX - Part Thirty-sixth). (a) with whom, during the last six months prior to inclusion in the register of jobseekers, an employment relationship has been terminated by the employer because of a breach of the obligation arising from the legislation relating to the work carried out by the employer (point 3). In addition, there was a reduction in the contribution to support the employment of disabled persons and a maximum amount (point 6).
48. Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. amended the change of the assessment bases for the payment of insurance premiums and the setting of the maximum assessment bases for the payment of insurance premiums (Amendment to Act No. 589 / 1992 Coll., on Social Insurance and Contribution to State Employment Policy, Article XXXVI of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. - Part Twenty-third).
49. The new regulation also abolished the contribution to the increased living costs provided under Decree No. 182 / 1991 Coll., implementing the Social Security Act and the Czech National Council Act on the competence of the institutions of the Czech Republic in social security, as amended, (Article LXI - Part Thirty-seventh).
50. There was also a modification of scholarships under Act No. 111 / 1998 Coll., on Higher Education and on the amendment and addition of other laws (Act on Higher Education). The amendment concerns the calculation of a scholarship awarded in the event of a difficult social situation to a student who is entitled to a child allowance (Article LXIII - Part thirty-ninth part).
51. On the basis of the amendment of Act No. 127 / 2005 Coll., on electronic communications and on the amendment of certain related laws (the Act on electronic communications), the obligation of entrepreneurs providing a publicly available telephone service was limited to allow the choice of prices or price plans which differ from the price plans under normal commercial conditions, to disabled persons, as well as to the former arrangements which also concern persons with low income and special social needs (Article LXX - Part 44).
Constitutional evaluation of changes included in Group A
52. Most of the amendments made by Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., concern rights belonging to social rights. Their concept is that they do not have an unconditional nature and can only be invoked within the limits of the laws [(Article 41 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter ')]. This provision gives the legislator the power to lay down specific conditions for the implementation of social rights. Legal implementation must not be contrary to constitutional principles, in other words, the laws in question must not deny or annul constitutional social rights. In implementing the constitutional arrangements laid down in the Charter, the legislator must comply with Article 4 (4) of the Charter, according to which when applying the provisions on the limits of fundamental rights and freedoms, their substance and meaning must be investigated. In the case of social rights, it can be concluded that their collective restriction is precisely that they are not directly enforceable under the Charter, unlike, for example, fundamental rights and freedoms. Their limitation lies precisely in the need for legal implementation, which is, however, also a condition for specific implementation of individual rights.
53. These facts relate to the specific character of social rights, which depend mainly on the economic situation of the State. The level of their provision reflects not only the economic and social development of the state, but also the relationship between the state and the citizen, based on mutual responsibility and recognition of the principle of solidarity. The extent to which the principle of responsibility and solidarity manifests itself in the rule of law of that State also determines the nature of that State (e.g. as a social state). The degree of recognition of the principle of solidarity depends on the level of ethical understanding of coexistence in society, its culture, but also the sense of an individual for justice and belonging to others and sharing their fate at a certain time and place. Solidarity can be seen from an individual's perspective as internal or external. Internal solidarity is due to the emotional proximity to others, is spontaneous, applies mainly in the family and other partner communities. As a rule, the State does not intervene in this relationship or in a very limited way (see family law relations governed by the Family Act). External solidarity lacks this emotional closeness, and the individual's consent to its application is therefore more reluctant. This is, for example, the solidarity of the rich with the poor, capable of being less able, healthy with the sick. The state is very active in this area. In spite of the principle of solidarity, redistribution is carried out, i.e. a movement that transfers resources from one to another - to those needed. Solidarity has its limits. It cannot take such a deviant form as to be felt by those affected by it as disproportionate, unparalleled, or even unfair, and to withdraw their silent consent. In the name of solidarity, the State can penalise only that part of the property capable of not destroying the activity of its performance and not beyond the constitutional limit of the protection of property.
54. Therefore, when implementing social rights, the State is required not only to recognise them, but also to have a specific activity that enables them to be implemented. The transactions provided under social rights come from the state budget and the responsibility for such transactions rests entirely with the State. If the State is and will be bound by social fulfilment, then it must also be able to establish specific conditions for such performance. The state cannot afford to become a debtor who will not be able to honour his obligations. However, these facts must not deny the very existence of a particular social law or, as a result, exclude its implementation. Within these limits, the legislator has a relatively wide opportunity to regulate the implementation of individual social rights, including the possibility of changing them.
55. In this spirit, the report on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (delivered at the 11th Joint Meeting of the House of People and the House of Nations on 8 January 1991) also speaks. It notes that: "While the rights and freedoms provided for in previous Titles are absolute and as such protected by the Constitution, the rights of this Title are largely relative, in the sense that their development - and this is particularly true of economic and social rights - depends on the state of the national economy and, in particular, on its tangible results. Therefore, while the concept of these rights respects the fundamental principles of their enforceability through judicial protection, in most cases social rights are not subject to constitutional law, the conditions on which ordinary law should be based. The regulation itself cannot be subject to changes according to economic and standard of living, so it would not be appropriate to bind ordinary legislators with constitutional barriers."
56. In any event, the specific character of social rights described above does not mean that the legislator would not be bound by them. The anchoring of their existence in the Charter means that a minimum standard of these social rights must be maintained in the course of legal regulation. Therefore, there must in no way be a de facto denial of which social law, since the principles laid down in the Charter must also be complied with. The degree of compliance with these rights must be assessed in each individual case by statutory regulation. The new legislation brought about by the contested law must be assessed from this point of view, namely in terms of the intensity with which it may have intervened in individual social rights guaranteed by constitutional order, and whether this intensity reaches an unconstitutional dimension.
57. The amendments made by Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., as described in the above mentioned area, relate in particular to the rights provided for in Title Four of the Charter under the heading "Economic, Social and Cultural Rights." Article 26 of the Charter concerns in particular paragraph 3, which states that "Everyone has the right to obtain the funds for his or her living needs through work. Citizens who are unable to exercise this right without their guilt shall be provided by the State to a reasonable extent; the conditions laid down by law. '; Article 29 of the Charter defines the right of women, adolescents and disabled persons to increased health protection at work and the right of these two categories of persons to special protection in working relations. Article 30 of the Charter provides for the right of citizens to have adequate physical security in old age and to be unfit for work and the right of everyone to receive such assistance in a material emergency as is necessary to ensure basic living conditions.
58. Article 32 of the Charter provides for the protection of parenthood and family, where other groups of changes fall. According to paragraph 1, the protection of parenthood and family is protected by law and the special protection of children and adolescents is guaranteed. According to paragraph 5, parents who care for children have the right to help the State. This Article, as referred to in Articles 26, 29 and 30 of the Charter, refers to the implementation of these provisions by law.
59. It can therefore be concluded from the point of view of specific constitutional regulations that the Charter has left the legislator not only to implement and determine the conditions of the above constitutional rights, but also to define the implementation of these rights in the constitutional text itself by means of the terms "adequate scope," "necessary to ensure the basic living conditions," "adequate material security," etc. Given that the Charter does not specify the content of these terms, it is clear that their definition, as well as other details, is left to the law.
60. The draft of a group of 43 Members of the Chamber of Deputies also falls within the areas covered by the articles cited above. In the view of the Constitutional Court, the arguments contained in this proposal are mainly of a social nature, not of a constitutional nature. It is clear that the Charter obliges the State, in the area of social rights, to act positively and to ensure the protection of those rights. The State's obligation to ensure that those rights are subject to a certain minimum social standard and not an adequate standard of living in accordance with their requirements, as sometimes mistaken and required by them.
61. As regards the proposal of a group of 43 Members to abolish the new regulation of Paragraph 39 (2) (a) of Act No. 435 / 2004 Coll., on employment, which "proposes to bind the award of unemployment benefits under the sole responsibility of the staff member to retain his employment relationship '(see the argument in paragraph 16 above), this change does not, in the view of the Constitutional Court, bring anything unconstitutional in itself. It only increases the responsibility of workers for their own actions in employment relations, because it" disadvantages "only those who:" broke the obligations arising from the legislation relating to their work in a particularly rough way. "This is a trend towards increasing labour discipline and for people to appreciate work. In addition, any unbundling of a working relationship for that reason can be examined by judicial procedure under the procedure provided for in § 72 of Act No. 262 / 2006 Coll. (Labour Code), thereby preventing any arbitrary action by an employer. The trend leading to increased responsibility for our own actions can only be welcomed.
62. A group of 43 Members also contains a request for the abolition of the nineteenth part (paragraph 3 et seq.), which has brought about major substantive changes in the postponement of the provision of sick leave, which will no longer be granted for the first three calendar days of temporary incapacity for work or ordered quarantine. The proposal argues that the sickness insurance scheme is based on an insurance policy designed to protect the insurance event, which is a disease in this case. This system was set better in the laws at the beginning of the last century. Paragraph 6 (2) of Act No. 689 / 1920 Coll., which amends certain provisions of the Act on the insurance of workers in the event of illness, stated that "if the illness lasts for more than three days and if the sick is unable to earn, it is entitled from the day of the sickness to the said sickness'. According to this group of applicants, the right of insured persons has been violated, and the sickness insurance system is thus substituting resources to cover the deficit of the state budget.
63. In the view of the Constitutional Court, the application in this section is justified because, firstly, the abolition of the provision of sick leave for three days of incapacity for work is contrary to Article 30 (1) of the Charter, namely the right to adequate physical security in the event of incapacity for work. The amendment of the provisions of Articles 15 (1) and (3) and 16 of Act No. 54 / 1956 Coll., on occupational sickness insurance, as amended, shall entitle all workers incapacity or quarantine to sickness benefits for the first three days of incapacity or quarantine. This is a somewhat convenient or arbitrary procedure by the State, which, due to an indefinite number of sick benefit offenders, affects all categories of staff on a flat-rate basis. As a result, the vast majority of employees remain incapacitated for the first three days of their incapacity for work without any means, while their insurance obligations remain intact. Of course, their obligation to pay so-called regulatory fees remained unaffected if they sought medical assistance. It is not acceptable for the State to simply require employees to fulfil their obligations (in the present case, the performance of insurance premiums), without paying attention to the protection of their interests if the event in question affects them in the form of incapacity for work. In doing so, there has been a violation of the rights of employees, which reaches the constitutional legal dimension. The sickness insurance system should not serve to cover the deficit of the state budget.
64. Since most common diseases are short-term, the result may be that employees will be drawing on their sick leave (to recover!), which is, however, in direct conflict with its purpose. As a rule, the next solution will be "disease crossing" without a doctor's visit and incapacity for work. This opens the door to the spread of certain diseases among co-workers, to possible greater health damage in the future and to the development of health complications due to the non-treatment of the original disease. This may also result in a non-negligible increase in treatment costs in the event of complications, which may then exceed the amount of sickness benefits which could or may be paid in the first three days.
65. The illness is similar to an insurance event and its existence must be demonstrated accordingly (by medical examination). Instead of a solution in the form of a consistent check on doctors and insured persons, the State transfers the consequences of its reluctance or inability to carry out this check to the shoulders of most honest employees. The same applies to the quarantine prescribed, which is an objective fact for workers, in most cases a disaster, imposed by an administrative decision. The decision on quarantine is a preventive measure on the basis of health legislation, subject to the relevant conditions.
66. On the basis of the above arguments, the Constitutional Court complied with the proposal of 43 Members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and decided to abolish: words, "if the incapacity for work lasts for more than 3 calendar days" in the first sentence of Paragraph 15 (1) of Act No. 54 / 1956 Coll., on occupational sickness insurance. In addition, he deleted the word "fourth" in the first sentence of Paragraph 15 (3) of the same Law and finally deleted the sentence of the second provision of Section 16 of the same Act, as amended by: "The sickness referred to in the first sentence shall be provided from the fourth calendar day of the quarantine." This legislation is contrary to Article 30 (1) of the Charter.
67. In this context, the Constitutional Court points out that the above change in the payment of sickness benefits interferes with a number of other laws listed in sections 27 to 35 of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. (starting with the Labour Code) governing the claims of the listed categories of employees. However, none of the applicants proposed their annulment. According to the established legal conclusion expressed in the finding in the sp. zn. It is therefore necessary to appeal to the legislature to remove, bound by the Constitutional Court's legal opinion in the above-mentioned direction, the inequality in the payment of sickness benefits. That is why the Constitutional Court postponed the enforceability of this finding until 30 June 2008.
68. When it comes to the argument of 'legitimate expectations', which is also contained in the proposal of 43 Members of the Chamber of Deputies, its application in the area of social rights is not entirely appropriate. As already discussed above, these rights are mainly dependent on the development of the economic and standard of living of the State. In relation to a state that falls into economic difficulties (see recently Russia, Argentina, or Mexico), everyone, albeit the most legitimate claim, becomes illusory, and everyone is damaged. This also relates to the question of 'rights already granted', which cannot be regarded as static in the case of social rights. This is also demonstrated by the modern history of the Czech Republic, when left-wing governments had a tendency to multiply various social benefits, while right-wing governments tend to do the opposite. However, it must always be within the above mentioned limits given by the Charter. In view of the overall compliance of the contested law with the constitutional rules, the Constitutional Court notes that, despite certain restrictions on social security, these restrictions do not reach such an intensity as would be contrary to the constitutional provisions contained in the Charter, let alone the implementation of the social rights in question.
Constitutional evaluation of changes included in Group B
69. Changes in terms and categories and their specifications related to the content changes referred to in point A may be included in another group of amendments made by Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll.. These changes reflect new legislation, reflect changes in the provision of benefits, specify the calculation of benefits and supplement or modify certain new categories of beneficiaries. These are changes that are logically related to the content changes in Group A above and therefore the same conclusions as those in Group A apply.
Constitutional evaluation of changes included in Group C
70. Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. further brings some competent and organisational changes related to changes in the social security and sickness insurance system and changes in the procedures for claims on benefits. It is mainly about adjusting and supplementing the operation or scope of some new social security institutions or facilities (e.g. changing the competences of the district social security administration under Act No. 582 / 1991 Coll., supplementing the offices of the relief authorities with material emergency assistance, or supplementing the post-care facilities of social services facilities), supplementing and adapting certain competences of the competent authorities, addressing the local competence issue, complementing the professional competence of the profession, and complementing the professional and volunteer staff of social services.
71. Law 261 / 2007 Coll. also brought some changes in the procedure on benefits, such as changes in the formalities in the application for certain benefits, in the conditions of written decisions, changes in time limits, the possibility of giving appeals in the procedure on benefits, a new regulation of the notification obligation, representation and control of the legal use of the corresponding benefits, including financial control of the subsidies used from the state budget to ensure the provision of social services and the issue of overpayments. The essence of these changes is once again based on the adjustments described in Group A and mainly concerns the area of social security procedural law. These adjustments are based on content changes in individual laws and do not contradict the constitutional principles governing the conditions for the decision-making of public authorities.
Constitutional evaluation of changes included in Group D
72. The last group of amendments introduced by Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., are related technical changes and adaptations in laws, such as new signs of legal provisions, related changes in the notes apparatus and new transitional provisions related to changes in the social benefits system and sickness insurance. According to the appellants, this is the legislature's arbitrage in the treatment and definition of legal terms, which creates a contradiction with the principle of the material rule of law because of uncertainty and ambiguity.
73. According to the conclusion of the Constitutional Court, these changes are of a technical nature and there is nothing in them that would make them more constitutional. In fact, it is not the role of the Constitutional Court to evaluate the technical changes and adjustments brought about by ordinary legislation. According to the settled case-law of the Constitutional Court, "the indeterminity of any provision of the law must be regarded as contradictory to the requirement of legal certainty and thus to the rule of law (Article 1 (1) of the Constitution), only if the intensity of that indeterminity excludes the possibility of determining its normative content by means of the usual interpretative procedure (decision No 1919 / 2003)." [the findings of the Court of First Instance No 4 / 95 (judgment No 23 / 02 (judgment No 33, judgment No 168 / 1995 Coll.), p. Such a situation has not occurred in this matter.
Conclusion
74. Finally, it should be noted that the legislation introduced by Act 261 / 2007 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets, is far from perfect. The dissatisfied reaction of the public, from which the applicants have essentially also come, is a natural reaction of the bodies to whom "something is being taken, changed, or made less clear." The basic idea justified by the law is to restore public budgets. This good idea was implemented only partially, in a way that did not receive broad public support. The law in question is based on a relatively wide and flat limitation of various social benefits in the parts covered by this procedure. Unfortunately, neither simplification of the system nor clarification of the system, nor simplification of the rules for granting benefits, nor consistent measures against their abuse, has brought into this for the majority of the population.
75. In addition, the state started saving from below, i.e. by limiting social benefits to a relatively wide range of subjects. It did not start with the creation of effective and effective control mechanisms that could bring savings by preventing or affecting the abuse of these benefits. For example, in the area of benefits provided in the disease, he did not end up with a malaise for which the Czech term "sick," that is, an expression that is unlikely to exist in another language. The assessment of whether someone is ill should, of course, not be in the hands of those who benefit from it. In health care establishments and in practice health insurance companies, effective control mechanisms have not been established to gradually eliminate these malfunctions.
76. The state did not begin its own analysis of whether the current "governance" is effective, effective and economical, whether there is a waste of public funds. If the state started, at least partially, at first by itself, it would convince to some extent a large proportion of the population of the necessity and effectiveness of changes, even in the area of social benefits, which is of course linked to the possibility of a state budget, as pointed out above.
77. So the state has again chosen the easiest path, but unfortunately only for itself, making the idea of reform somewhat untrustworthy. However, this reform effort can also be welcomed, and from this point of view it is also necessary to consider the adjustments brought about by the contested law. The role of the Constitutional Court is not to assess the correctness, practicality or sufficient social integrity of the reform procedures mentioned, but only to determine whether or not they are an adjustment of the unconstitutional process.
78. In addition to some dissatisfaction with the adjustments introduced by Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., the proposals did not contain any other relevant constitutional arguments (apart from the above mentioned proposal by a group of 43 Members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic), if we have no reservations about how the law was adopted. The scope for the deregation intervention of the Constitutional Court would only occur if it was found and demonstrated that the new legislation reduces the implementation of the constitutionally guaranteed standard of social benefits to the practical impossibility of their implementation, or even to their flat withdrawal. The motion by 67 Members did not bring such an argument, and it was not found in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court that the existing legislation constituted such a significant retreat from the commitments of the State, which it took over in particular in Articles 26 (3), 29, 30 and 32 of the Charter, the heading of which relates to this case. Although the decline in the various social benefits is unpleasant for a number of operators, it has not fallen below a level which makes it impossible for the operators concerned to be modest. It is up to the legislator to examine the question of the effectiveness, suitability and social justice of legislation in this area, whose activities the Constitutional Court cannot interfere with except in cases of inconstitutionality found. These are essentially political issues, where the whole area of so-called social rights is primarily involved.
79. Article 5 The Constitution is based on the political system of the Czech Republic based on the free and voluntary creation and free competition of political parties respecting fundamental democratic principles. Political decisions are based on the will of the majority expressed by free vote. The majority's decision-making takes care of the protection of minorities (Article 6 of the Constitution). The Constitutional Court therefore concludes that, if the appellants, as representatives of power, consider the legislation under appeal to be inappropriate or causing negative consequences, they may seek change in the context of political competition, not in the context of judicial control of constitutionality, which by its very nature must be limited to matters of a constitutional nature. If the Constitutional Court were to comply with the proposal and decide itself instead of legislator, it would not only violate the above-mentioned provisions of the Constitution, but would in particular make unnecessary competition between political parties. Above all, their task is to present the most appropriate ways of implementing the social rights enshrined in the title of the fourth Charter according to the mandate obtained from their constituents and on the basis of the political priorities set out therein. This, of course, always in terms of the possibilities of the state budget, supported by the results of the state's management, for which they also bear political responsibility, and within the limits set by the relevant Articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
80. For all the reasons set out above, the Constitutional Court complied with, pursuant to Paragraph 70 (1) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, only the application for annulment of the parts of Act No. 54 / 1956 Coll., on the sickness insurance of workers, namely the words, "if the incapacity of work lasts for more than 3 calendar days' in the first sentence of Paragraph 15 (1), further annulled the word" fourth 'in the first sentence of Paragraph 15 (3) of the Act and finally deleted the sentence of the second provision of Article 16 of the same Act, as follows: "Non-alcoholic according to the first sentence shall be granted from the fourth calendar day of the quarantine'. It did so with effect from 30 June 2008 for the reasons set out in point 67 above.
81. In the remainder, he rejected the proposal under Paragraph 70 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v. r.
Different opinions under Section 14 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, were taken by the Judges Jan Musil, Pavel Rychetský and Eliška Wagner to decide.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No 166 / 2008 Coll., on the application for annulment of certain parts of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 19.05.2008 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0