The Constitutional Court found No. 198 / 2003 Coll.

In Article 1 of Act No. 416 / 2001 Coll., on the withdrawal of another salary for the second half of 2001 and setting the level of additional salaries for the first and second half of 2002 to representatives of the State Government and certain state bodies, judges, prosecutors, members of the Presidium of the Securities Commission, representatives of the Ombudsman and members of the Banking Board of the Czech National Bank, the date of the declaration of findings in the Collection of Laws shall be deleted.

On 8 April 2002, the President of the Chamber of the Municipal Court in Brno, on the Constitutional Court, under Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"), as amended by 31 May 2002, and § 64 (4) of the Law No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the costs of the Constitutional Court, under the Constitutional Court, since 1 January 2003, this provision is contained in § 64 (3) of the Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic," (hereinafter referred to as the Court of the Court of the Court of First and Second Judiciary of the Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Court of the City, ")," for the Court of Justice of the Second Half-Year 2001, "(hereinafter referred to the General Court of the Constitutional Court of Justice of the General Court of Justice of the Czech Republic,"). It stated that the Constitutional Court had reached the same conclusion in its decision of 15 September 1999, published under Act No. 233 / 1999 Coll. (sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 13 / 99, Collection of finds and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, Volume 15, p. 191, et seq.), which annulled the word "judges" in § 1 of Act No. 268 / 1998 Coll., on the withdrawal of another salary for the second half of 1998 to representatives of the State Government and of certain state bodies, judges, prosecutors and members of the Commission's securities presidium, and expressed the view that the withdrawal of another salary to judges was a threat to the principle of judicial independence. In his other findings of July 3, 2000, Collections and Resolutions of the Constitutional Court, Volume 19, p. 3 and p. 23 and p.), the Constitutional Court rejected the proposals for the annulment of Act No. 287 / 1997 Coll., in addition to the Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., on the salary and other requirements associated with the performance of the functions of representatives of state authority and of certain state bodies and judges, as amended by Act No. 138 / 1996 Coll., and the words "judges' in § 1 of Act No. 308 / 1999 Coll., on the withdrawal of a further salary for the second half of 1999 and for the second half of the year 2000.

In accordance with Article 69 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court at the invitation of the Constitutional Court, the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, Prof. Ing. Václav Klaus, CSc., and the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, doc.

The President of the Chamber of Deputies stated that, under Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., the additional salary belongs to the judge if, in the calendar half-year, he actually performed the duties of at least 90 calendar days and on condition - as regards the second half-year of the calendar year - that the duties of the judge would not end before 31 December, and argued that, from a formal point of view, Law No. 416 / 2001 Coll. had been effective before the two conditions for payment of the additional salary were fulfilled for the judges, namely the performance of the duties for 90 calendar days and the duration of the employment relationship of the judge on the last day of the calendar half-year, and therefore the appellant's claim that the applicant's claim for payment of the additional salary was unfounded. He opposed the appellant's view that the non-payment of one additional salary constituted an intervention in judicial independence, as this cash performance could hardly be seen as a material guarantee of judges. He recalled that it would not be moral and would be a denial of equality of citizens if one group of employees remunerated from state budget funds were to be granted one additional advantage (not to receive another salary) compared with other groups of employees or representatives whose additional salary was withdrawn in 2001 by the Government Regulations No. 453 / 2000 Coll., which amended the Government Regulations No. 251 / 1992 Coll., on the Staff Regulations No. 251 / 1992 Coll., on the Staff Regulations of Budget and Certain Other Organisations (as amended by the Staff Regulations No. 454 / 2000 Coll., which amended the Government Regulations No. 79 / 1994 Coll., on the Staff Regulations of the Armed Forces, and the Services, on the Staff of the Customs Administration, on certain other institutions and on the Labour Regulations), and No. 496 / 2000 Coll. It summarised that the legislature acted in accordance with the legal procedure when negotiating the law and in the belief that the law adopted was not contrary to the Constitution.

The President of the Senate stated that, after approval of the Government Bill by the Chamber of Deputies and its referral to the Senate, the Senate, despite the recommendation of its Constitutional Law Committee, which, by its resolution, recommended that the bill be returned to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments consisting of excluding judges from the scope of the law, expressed the will not to deal with the bill. He stated that additional salaries are still regulated by Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., whose upcoming comprehensive amendment has not yet been adopted, and the same is the fate of the bill on salaries and certain other formalities of judges and prosecutors. As regards the substance of the case, he referred to the Senate's observations in the proceedings registered at the Constitutional Court under the sp. zl. ÚS 13 / 99, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 18 / 99 and sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 16 / 2000.

In the opinion of the Senate on the proposal held at the Constitutional Court under sp. zn. In view of the date of approval of this Senate Bill by the Senate, it was proposed that the Act should take effect on the date of its publication, at such a date as to avoid doubts as to its possible retroactivity. The bill approved by the Chamber of Deputies was not passed on to the Senate until 30 October 1998, in the version proposed by the Senate, which expressed the will to no longer deal with the bill.

On the proposal for the repeal of Law No 287 / 1997 Coll. brought to the Constitutional Court by Pl. ÚS 18 / 99, the President of the Senate stated that a group of Members, which justified it by the fact that, when adopting stabilising and recovering economic measures of the Government, it was decided that employees in the budgetary and certain other organisations and bodies which are remunerated under Act No. 143 / 1992 Coll., on the salary and remuneration of civil servants, and on the amendment and amendment of Act No. 143 / 1992, Coll., on the salary and remuneration for the second half of 1997, and in other bodies, in the wording of the Act No. 201 / 1997 Coll., and therefore, the drafts were correct to make similar adequate arrangements to be made for the purposes of civil servants and amendments and amendments to the Act No. 143 / 1992, Coll. The objection of retroactive application of Act No 287 / 1997 Coll. is not justified. As regards the constitutional principle of judicial independence, the guarantees of compliance include the substantive provision of judges, which, however, is ensured mainly by means of a monthly salary, its amount and the conditions for granting it, and no restriction has affected such cash performance. The European Commission's evaluation report on the Czech Republic also stated that the salaries of judges were relatively high. A further salary is, according to the legal regulation of a one-off cash payment provided under the conditions laid down, once every six months, and on the basis of the actual conditions of entitlement, one of which is the duration of the judicial employment relationship on the last day of the semester, it appears that such cash performance can hardly be regarded as material collateral for judges whose reduction or withdrawal could jeopardise their independence. If this should be the case and it should be seen as a contradiction with the Constitution, it should also apply to the judges of the Constitutional Court when Articles 81 and 82 of the Constitution guaranteeing the independence of judges also apply to those judges as general provisions. However, the Senate fully respected the finding of the Constitutional Court and returned the bill to the Chamber of Deputies with an amendment excluding judges from the scope of the proposed regulation when discussing a new bill, according to which another salary was withdrawn for the second half of 1999 and the second half of 2000.

In the case of the motion to abolish the word "judges" in § 1 of the Act No. 308 / 1999 Coll., which was held at the Constitutional Court under sp. v. Pl. ÚS 16 / 2000, the President of the Senate stated that the Senate had returned the bill to the Chamber of Deputies with an amendment excluding judges from the scope of the Act. The Senate respected the decision taken by the Constitutional Court on the application for annulment of Act No. 268 / 1998 Coll. published under No. 233 / 1999 Coll.

The Constitutional Court followed this procedure under Section 68 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., as amended. In the absence of grounds for refusal or termination of proceedings, the Constitutional Court verified whether Law No 416 / 2001 Coll. had been adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down by competence and by the constitutional procedure. He found that the contested law had been properly debated and approved by the legislature, signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and declared in the Collection of Laws. Therefore, nothing prevented the contested provision of the Act from being assessed in terms of its compliance with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.

The Constitutional Court has dealt with this issue three times already.

On the proposal of the District Court for Prague 4 to abolish Act No. 268 / 1998 Coll., to withdraw another salary for the second half of 1998 to representatives of state power and certain state authorities, judges, prosecutors and members of the Presidium of the Securities Commission, the plenary of the Constitutional Court decided by the following decision of 15 September 1999, sp. zl. ÚS 13 / 99:

"In Article 1 of the Act No. 268 / 1998 Coll., on the withdrawal of an additional salary for the second half of 1998 to representatives of state power and certain state authorities, judges, prosecutors and members of the Securities Commission Presidium, the word" judges m2 'is deleted from the text "representatives of state power and certain state authorities, (1) judges, (2) prosecutors (3) and members of the Securities Commission Presidium (4). In its remainder, the proposal to repeal Act No. 268 / 1998 Coll. is rejected.' The find was declared under No 233 / 1999 Coll. The qualified majority of the plenary then stated that, although the contested law does not act retroactively, it does not infringe the prohibition of retroactivity and does not deprive the beneficiaries of the rights already acquired, its adoption in the case of judges has, however, infringed the constitutionally guaranteed principle of judicial independence based on a system of division of power as a basis for a democratic rule of law. In this respect, the Constitutional Court referred to the Constitution of the United States of America. It was said in the finding that the principle of judicial independence contained a number of aspects, some of which are of a material nature. The Constitutional Court also noted, inter alia, that its decision concerns only judges of general courts, that is to say, regional, regional and national courts and Supreme Administrative Court, and not judges of the Constitutional Court, who are classified by law No. 236 / 1995 Coll. in the category" representative 'and not in the category "judge', although they are holders of the jurisdiction and are also subject to Article 82 (1) of the Constitution on the independence of judges.

The motion of the Municipal Court in Brno, on the part of which the interveners of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., on the salary and other formalities relating to the performance of the function of representatives of the state authority and of certain state bodies and judges, as amended by Act No. 138 / 1996 Coll., (during the procedure, the petition was correctly specified on the application for annulment of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., in the version of Act No. 287 / 1997 Coll., and in the proposal of the District Court for Prague 2 was formulated even more precisely in order to make the text of the provision "Prepostists and judges of the other salary for the second half of 1997 does not apply '. The Constitutional Court rejected the finding of 3.7.2000 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 18 / 99. The same proposals were made by two judges of the District Court in Olomouc. Both these proposals were rejected by the resolutions of the Constitutional Court of 24.8.2000 sp. zn.

Proposals by the District Court for Prague 2 and the District Court of Plzeň-town were rejected as inadmissible by resolutions of the Constitutional Court of 25.4.2000 and 5.5.2000 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 13 / 2000 and sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 18 / 2000 (§ 35 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court). In the statement of reasons for its finding of 3 July 2000 (sp. zn. In particular, it is essential that other authorities of State power do not interfere in the salaries of judges, in whatever form, arbitrarily and repeatedly. The Constitutional Court, in line with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, focused on the question of whether the withdrawal of the so-called 14th salary to the judges of the general courts was provided for by law, if it aimed at a legitimate objective and if it was necessary in a democratic society. The Constitutional Court found that the legal form of intervention in the rights granted had been met and the law adopted had no retroactive effect, and noted that the legislative technique used in this case, namely the amendment of the original law, was more appropriate than the special and separate law, as was the case in other cases, but from a constitutional point of view, this difference is not important. As regards the question of legitimacy of the objective to which the removal of another salary to judges was directed, the Constitutional Court stated that it could not ignore the difficult social and economic reality in which the Czech Republic was located. On the basis of the fact that the judges of the general courts do not live in isolation and in a "legal and economic vacuum ', he held that the prior right of the judges to such material security, which cannot be changed in any legislative way and under any circumstances, cannot be seen as an immutable dogma, although the thesis declared in the earlier Constitutional Court decision (No 233 / 1999 Coll.), that the State is obliged to create the conditions for the independence of the courts and to stabilise their position in relation to the power of legislative and executive, is valid. In the present case, however, the legislator's involvement in material security concerned the whole public sphere, not just the courts, and the different assessment of this group, although specifically protected by the constitutional principle of independence, would hardly give it an acceptable advantage in that context.

The proposal by the District Court in Hradec Králové, on the other hand, as an intervener of the District Court of Plzeň, to remove another salary for the second half of 1999 and for the second half of 2000 from the representatives of the State authorities and certain state bodies, judges, prosecutors and members of the Presidium of the Securities Commission, this text, "Representatives of the State Government and of certain state bodies, judges, prosecutors and members of the Presidium of the Securities Commission for the second half of 1999, and for the second half of 2000, does not belong to the word" Judges', was deleted by a finding of 3 July 2000 sp. The same proposals were also made by the two judges of the District Court in Olomouc and the judges of the District Court in Ostrava, the Pilsen District Court and the City Court in Brno. The proposal of the Regional Court of Plzeň-town was rejected by the order of the Constitutional Court of 5.5.2000 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 18 / 2000 for an obstacle to a case initiated as inadmissible (§ 35 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court) and the other four motions were resolutions of the Constitutional Court of 24.8.2000 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 31 / 2000, 19.10.2000 sp. zn.

Following the examination of this proposal and the vote on it, it prevailed over the notion that the removal of additional salaries to judges devalued one of the fundamental democratic values of the judge's independence, and is an intervention in the inalienable right of judges to not cut their salaries as a guarantee of their independence and legal certainty, the view that was exercised in the finding published under No 321 / 2000 Coll., according to which a special assessment of only one group of state-paid persons - judges - even if protected by an increased degree of constitutional principle of independence - would hardly be acceptable when the legislature's practice generally concerned the material security of the public sphere as a whole. On the other hand, however, the Constitutional Court was of the opinion that the salary of judges should be a variable factor according to the immediate vision of one or the other government group. He therefore considered the solution found to be an exceptional act, which can only be accepted for serious reasons and only in the context of an overall appropriate adjustment of salaries across the whole sphere of state officials and employees. Only in this overall context could the impact of the State's financial difficulties also be recognised on the salaries of judges. It is in these circumstances that an exemption would infringe the constitutional principle of equality on the basis of which the entire area of civil servants and constitutional actors are subject to this legislation. The salaries of judges are governed by Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., according to which Paragraph 3 (2) of the Act, the salary shall be determined as the product of the salary base and the salary coefficient determined according to the responsibility and complexity of the duties performed. According to Article 3 (3), the salary base is the sum of the highest fee and the maximum amount of the personal surcharge provided for by the special regulation for ministerial staff. The level of the salary is therefore directly dependent on the level of the salaries of the employees of the public authorities and this interconnectivity of salaries, once adopted as a principle of remuneration for the employees of the State, should be respected both in the case of indexation of wage charges (e.g. an increase of 17% from 1.1.1999, which resulted in an increase in the salaries of all representatives of the State and civil servants, including judges) and in the reduction of certain material benefits. The Constitutional Court respected Parliament in its decision-making, which, by adopting Act No. 308 / 1999 Coll., used its legislative powers, and based on the possibilities of the state budget and the economic situation of the State, included judges in the austerity measures. He took the view that the non-payment of another salary could not jeopardise the independence of judges, particularly because it is neither surprising nor a deep intervention in their material security. Independence of judges is also characterised by a number of constitutional guarantees, such as appointment without a time limit or prohibition of transfer and appeal against its will. On the contrary, by overriding this completely partial change in the material security of judges over other attributes of judicial independence, citizens' confidence in independent justice could be reduced. Other salaries were also withdrawn from the judges by executive and legislative officials, the balance of the classical division of power was maintained and there was no rational reason to exclude the judges from this general intervention of the State when, by Decree No. 248 / 1998 Coll., amending Government Decree No. 253 / 1992 Coll., on the pay ratios of employees of the public authorities, certain other authorities and municipalities, as amended, and No 126 / 2000 Coll., amending Government Decree No. 253 / 1992 Coll., on the pay ratios of employees of the public authorities, certain other authorities and municipalities, as amended, had already been reduced by additional salary for employees of the public authorities, certain other authorities and municipalities.

1. The current motion for the annulment of the word "judges" in § 1 of Act No. 416 / 2001 Coll. was filed after the Municipal Court in Brno by the District Court for Prague 1, the District Court for Prague 2, the District Court for Prague 5 and the District Court for Praha- west, which have the status of interveners in this proceedings. These four proposals were rejected as inadmissible by the resolutions of the Constitutional Court of 13.8.2002, 26.8.2002, 6.2.2003 and 27.5.2003 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 13 / 02, Pl. ÚS 18 / 02, Pl. ÚS 3 / 03 and Pl. ÚS 11 / 03, since the Constitutional Court is already acting in the same proceedings, pursuant to § 43 (1) (e) and § 2 (b) of the Law on the Constitutional Court (§ 35 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court).

These courts, unlike the City Court in Brno, which in its proposal focused on intervening in judicial independence, also objected to a breach of the prohibition of retroactivity and the protection of acquired rights.

As regards the alleged retroactivity of Act No. 416 / 2001 Coll., which took effect on 28 November 2001, as already mentioned in the Act No. 233 / 1999 Coll., concerning Act No. 268 / 1998 Coll., from § 4 (2) of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., as amended by Act No. 138 / 1996 Coll., the legal conditions for the creation of the right to a further salary for the second half of 1998, both for a period of at least 90 calendar days in that term and the duration of the duties of the representative on 30 November 1998 and the duration of the employment relationship between the judge on 31 December 1998. The right to a further salary would therefore be created by the right of the person entitled only by the fulfilment of that condition, i.e. not earlier than 30 November 1998 in respect of the representatives, and on 31 December 1998 in respect of the judges, which, in consequence, means that the contested law, which does not link any legal effects with any legal fact that occurs before its effect, does not have retroactive effect, and since, on the date of its effectiveness, i.e. on 19 November 1998, no person has been able to have a subjective right to another salary, could not have intervened in so-called acquired law. The same was true for Act No. 287 / 1997 Coll., which took effect on 28 November 1997, and Act No. 308 / 1999 Coll. (as far as the judge is concerned), which took effect on 3 December 1999, and also for Act No. 416 / 2001 Coll., which took effect on 28 November 2001. Whereas, in terms of the temporal scope of Act Nos 287 / 1997 Coll., No 268 / 1998 Coll. and No 308 / 1999 Coll., which removed the names of persons, including judges, other salaries only for the second half of 1997 to 2000, the provision of Section 4 (2) (a) of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., as amended by Act No. 138 / 1996 Coll., which gave rise to another salary for the second half of 2001 in full, as already stated on 30 June 2002, plays the role of a representative of office until 30 November and of a term of employment of the Act No. 416 / 2001 Coll.

Law 416 / 2001 Coll. does not act retroactively and cannot be criticised for interference with so-called acquired rights. The Constitutional Court expressed its view on this question, for example, in its Opinion of 28 February 1996 in sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 9 / 95, published under No. 107 / 1996 Coll. and published also in Volume 5 of the Reports and Resolutions of the Constitutional Court on page 107 et seq., which rejected the proposals of the Group of Members for the annulment of Act No. 34 / 1995 Coll., supplementing Act No. 76 / 1959 Coll., on certain service affairs of soldiers, as amended, and Act No. 33 / 1995 Coll., amending and amending and supplementing the Act of the Czech National Council No. 186 / 1992 Coll., on the service ratio of members of the Czech Police of the Czech Republic, as amended regulations, and Act No. 100 / 1970 Coll. In their proposals, the appellants argued that the contested laws abolished acquired rights by withdrawing a certain group of citizens from their legally granted entitlement to a service allowance or service allowance. According to the Constitutional Court, when withdrawing or reducing these benefits, which will only come into effect after the new legislation has become effective, the protection of acquired rights cannot be relied on. If such rights were to be protected, that would mean that in the future their scope could never be narrowed, regardless of, for example, the economic situation of the state, etc.

The Constitutional Court persists in its Opinion and is based on it in this case as these benefits are by their nature comparable to another salary under Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll. (so-called "13. and 14. salary ').

2. The Constitutional Court also had to ask whether the conditions for staying on the legal position expressed in its last two findings concerning a similar problem were given.

First of all, if the Constitutional Court itself is not required as a constitutional body, that is to say a public authority, to commit an amicable nature, which is also subject to the prohibition itself, because the Constitutional Court, or he alone, is obliged to respect the framework of a constitutional state in which the exercise of amicably public authorities is strictly prohibited, it must feel bound by its own decisions, which can only overcome its case-law under certain conditions. This postulate can be characterised as an essential element of the democratic rule of law (Article 1 (1) in conjunction with Article 9 (2) of the Constitution).

The first option where the Constitutional Court can overcome its own case-law is to change the social and economic situation in the country or change their structure or change the cultural image of society. Another option is to change or shift the legal environment consisting of sub-constitutional legal standards which, in summary, affect the view of constitutional principles and principles without, however, avoiding them and, above all, do not restrict the principle of democratic legal status (Article 1 (1) of the Constitution). Another option for changing the case law of the Constitutional Court is to amend or supplement those legal standards and principles which constitute binding reference points for the Constitutional Court, i.e. those contained in the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, unless, of course, there are changes contrary to the limits laid down in Article 9 (2) of the Constitution, i.e., there are changes to the essential requirements of the democratic rule of law.

3. The Constitutional Court takes the view that the present case needs to be assessed in the light of the changes in the legal order which took place since the adoption of the Constitutional Court's finding, sp. zn. Although the Constitutional Court assessed the law issued in 2001, when assessing its constitutionality, it is bound by the maximum that the court, i.e. even the Constitutional Court, is in a decisive position at the time of the decision, in the present case the finding. At the same time, the procedure for checking standards represents both the facts and the legal situation in force at the date of the declaration of the finding.

Act No 420 / 2002 Coll., which shortens the period of time for officials of state power and certain state bodies, judges and prosecutors to receive a salary in the event of temporary incapacity to perform their duties, and which provides for certain measures in sickness insurance (care) and pension insurance which took effect on 1 January 2003, inter alia, the provisions of Paragraph 34 (4) of Law No 236 / 1995 Coll. is amended in such a way that a representative whose performance is governed by special legislation and by the Labour Code, and a judge recognised as temporarily incompetent to perform his duties, shall be paid for a maximum period of 20 working days in respect of the same incapacity or in respect of more temporary incapacity in respect of a single calendar year. For reasons and under the conditions laid down in the sentence, the other officials shall have their first salary for a maximum period of 30 calendar days.

Before the entry into force of Act No. 420 / 2002 Coll., i.e. until 31.12.2002, Paragraph 34 (3) of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., stated that the salary is due to both the representative and the judge without distinction for the period during which he temporarily did not perform his duties and for which he would otherwise have been entitled to sickness insurance benefits under the special regulations for 6 months.

By Law No 425 / 2002 laying down 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 fixing the amount of additional salaries for the first and second half of 2003, which took effect on 1 October 2002, it was laid down in Article 1 that a salary base of the amount of the salary and other allowances and expenses associated with the performance of the duties in 2003 for the appointed representatives should be used for those persons, and that a salary base of the amount reached on 31 December 2002 was used for the purpose of determining the remuneration and other allowances and expenses associated with the performance of the duties in 2003. As a result of the change in the rules governing the remuneration tariffs and the personal surcharge applied to ministerial staff with effect after 31 December 2002, the salary base shall not be increased in that year. Paragraph 2 of the Act contains a reduction in the additional salary due to the same persons under the special rules for 2003. Paragraph 3 excluded, for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2003, the application of § 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 authorities and judges, as amended by Act No. 309 / 2002 Coll.

It is clear from the explanatory notes on the proposals of the two above-mentioned laws that the appellant was pursued by an objective of "maintaining the comparable position of individual groups' of persons, i.e. civil servants, representatives of state power and judges, with the special position of judges as regards the level of remuneration, which appeared to be unfair and non-discriminatory.

4. In the view of the Constitutional Court, the proposed changes in the legal arrangements relating to the pay ratios of judges exceeded the constitutional limits for acceptance of the "exceptional" act which removed the further salary of judges, as defined by the Constitutional Court's finding in the case sp. zn.

If, under very exceptional circumstances, the principle of equality in the field of restrictions on the remuneration of civil servants, constitutional officials and judges is to be accentuated before the principle of comprehensively understood independence of judges, the two principles do not generally apply as once and for all and under all circumstances. On the contrary, the pay ratios of judges in a broad sense are to be stable, not a variable with which it calculates this or that of the government group, for example, because it appears that the fees of judges are too high compared to those of civil servants or to another professional group. In other words, if it is possible to accept the application of the principle of equality at the top of that sense as regards the exceptional economically justified reduction of all salaries, the equality of all top of those groups (even as a target category) as regards the final level of pay cannot be accepted. Efforts for such equality deviates from the category of constitutionality, a political objective that does not support the constitutionally understood principle of equality. This principle finds, in the material sense, its boundaries in a statement that "the same must not be treated inequally, but at the same time the same must not be treated differently." The principle of equality cannot be understood as a nivulation in the result, but must be interpreted as guaranteeing the same starting chances. However, the principle of equality thus interpreted clearly failed the legislator.

The Constitutional Court has assessed the contested part of the law from the points of view set out above and has concluded that it is contrary to Article 1 (1) in conjunction with Article 82 (1) of the Constitution, which implies the obligation of the State to provide judges with both material independence as a guarantee of impartial and fair decision-making on the rights of persons. In assessing the contested part of the law in the context of the new legislation mentioned above, the conflict with these constitutional provisions has led to a real threat to judicial independence, with all the negative consequences for the protection of the rights of private persons. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court concluded that the contested part of the Act is contrary to Article 1 (1) of the Charter, which sets out equality in rights, since it concluded that, in the present case, the legislature had adjusted equally the ratios of non-identical professional categories in order to approach the nivelisation of the result, and that the Constitutional Court found this objective illegitimate.

Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Constitutional Court's Board decided, pursuant to Paragraph 70 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, to abolish the word "judges' in § 1 of the Act No. 416 / 2001 Coll., to withdraw another salary for the second half of 2001 and to set the level of additional salaries for the first and second half of 2002, to representatives of the State Government and of certain state bodies, judges, prosecutors, members of the Securities Commission's Presidium, representatives of the Ombudsman and members of the Banking Board of the Czech National Bank, for a conflict with Article 1 (1) (1) of the Constitution and Article 1 (1) of the Charter, on the date of publication found in the ECR.

Pursuant to Article 14 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, the judges JUDr. Vojen Gûttler, JUDr. Miloš Holeček, JUDr. Pavel Varvařovský and JUDr. Miloslav Excellent took different views on the decision of the plenary.