The Constitutional Court found No. 199 / 2015 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 30 June 2015 sp. zn.
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
14.08.2015
Zobrazeno prvních 200 z celkem 451 ustanovení tohoto předpisu.
Zobrazit celý předpis →
Pro stažení celého znění použijte tlačítko Stáhnout výše.
199
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
The Constitutional Court decided under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 21 / 14 on 30 June 2015 in plenary composed of the President of the Court of Pavel Rychetský and the Judges Jaroslav Fenyk, Jan Filip, Vlasty Formánková, Vladimir Krorka, Tomáš Licovník, Jan Musil, Vladimir Sládeček, Radovan Suchánek, Kateřina Šimáková, Vojtěho Šimíček, Milady Tomková (Judge of the Rapporteur), David Uhlíříř a Jiří Zemánek, on the proposal of the President of the Czech Republic for the annulment of Act No 234 / 2014 Coll. 16, § 17, § 22, § 2, § 78 (c), § 104 (3), § 145 (2), § 15 (2), § 15 (2), § 15 (2), § 15, § 15, § 15, § 15, § 16, § 16, § 4, § 17, § 4), § 17, § 4, § 4, § 17, § 17, § 4, §
as follows:
I. Paragraph 17 (3) of the fourth Act No. 234 / 2014 Coll., on the Civil Service, is deleted from the date of the publication of this finding in the Collection of Laws.
II. The remainder is rejected.
Reasons
Subject matter
1. On 7 November 2014, the Constitutional Court received a proposal from the President of the Republic for the annulment of Act No. 234 / 2014 Coll., on the Civil Service, possibly for the annulment of § 1 (2), § 5 (2), § 11 (3), § 14 (2), § 145 (3), § 165, 172, 173, 178, § 184 (2) and § 189 of that Law.
Arguments of the appellant
Arguments concerning the process of adopting the contested law
2. The proposal to repeal the Civil Service Act as a whole justifies the appellant's unconstitutional nature of the procedure adopted by the contested law. As the appellant recalls, originally a group of Members was submitted on 27 December 2013 a draft law amending Act No. 218 / 2002 Coll., on the Service of Government Employees in Administrative Offices and on the Remuneration of These Employees and Other Employees in Administrative Offices (Staff Act) (Press 71 / 0). This bill was then replaced in the form of a so-called comprehensive amendment by a completely new draft Civil Service Act, discussed by the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic for the first time on 16 July 2014 in the framework of the second reading, and after being returned from the third reading on 27 August 2014, the Chamber of Deputies was approved by the third reading on 10 September 2014. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic approved the bill on 1 October 2014. Thus, the original amendment to the then applicable Staff Act No. 218 / 2002 Coll., on the service of civil servants in administrative offices and on the remuneration of those staff and other servants in administrative offices (Staff Act), as amended, was replaced during the next legislative process in the Chamber of Deputies by the draft Civil Service Act, which also repealed the existing Staff Act.
3. In accordance with the described procedure, the appellants considered that the basic principles of legislative activity laid down by both the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) - Articles 41 (2) and 90 / 1995 Coll., on the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies), namely the provisions of § 63 (1) (5) (a). In exchange for the right of Members to submit a bill with the right of Members to submit an amendment, the Government has been excluded from the constitutional right to submit an opinion on the draft Civil Service Act, it has been excluded from discussing this bill in the Chamber of Deputies at first reading and the so-called comprehensive amendment lacks a reasoned report. According to the appellant, the purpose of the amendment is not to fundamentally change or extend the original proposal, as happened in the present case. Similar cases were repeatedly dealt with by the Constitutional Court and therefore the appellant merely refers to the findings of the Constitutional Court sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 77 / 06 of 15.2.2007 (N 30 / 44 CollU 349; 37 / 2007 Coll.), the finding of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 56 / 05 of 27.3.2008 (N 60 / 48 SbNU 873; 257 / 2008 Coll.), sp. zn.
4. The appellant further submits that it is not essential that the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies do not know the concept of a 'comprehensive amendment', nor that only half of the amendments to the original draft amendment to the Staff Act were taken into account in the Civil Service Act. On the contrary, the appellant considers that the so-called comprehensive amendment did not change the original proposal at all, but replaced it entirely with a new draft law. The appellant challenges this procedure, knowing that procedural aspects must also be assessed in relation to the principles of the material rule of law; In addition, it draws attention to other parts of this proposal and to the fact that the law will not be fully applied until 1 July 2015.
Arguments concerning the alleged unconstitutionality of individual provisions of the law
5. In the next part of the proposal, the appellant disputes the constitutionality of the provisions of the contested law as specified below.
Adjustment of the employment relationship of so-called other employees in administrative offices
6. The first group of objections concerns § 1 (2), § 11 (3), § 14 (2), § 15 (3), § 16, § 78 (c), § 85 (5), § 172, 173, 178, § 184 (2), § 189 of the Civil Service Act. According to the appellant, it is common and probably from a constitutional point of view an acceptable legislative technique if the law governing the employment conditions of civil servants in service offices refers to institutes in other laws, in this case in particular to the institutes in Act No. 262 / 2006 Coll., the Labour Code, as amended, in order to avoid copying those institutes in relation to civil servants in the Civil Service Act; This is the case, for example, in Sections 98 to 100, 102 to 104, § 109 (3), § 112 to 114, § 117 (3), § 118 to 124, 131. It is another matter, however, where the Civil Service Act regulates the cases of employees otherwise covered by the Labour Code; it is Articles 1 (2), 11 (3), 14 (2), 15 (3), 16, 78 (c), 85 (5), 172, 173, 178, 184 (2), 189. In the latter case, according to the appellant, it is an indirect amendment to the Labour Code [cf. sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 2 / 97 of 2.7.1997 (N 91 / 8 SbNU 325; 186 / 1997 Coll.)] which does not correspond to the fundamental principles of the rule of law, which include not only the principles of predictability and clarity of the law, but also its internal inconsistencies (cf.
7. The above claims are supplemented by the following arguments. According to Section 4 of the Labour Code, labour relations are governed by the Labour Code and, if they cannot apply this Act, they are governed by the Civil Code, not by the Civil Service Act. According to Article 1 (2) of the Civil Service Act, this Act further regulates the organisational matters of employees working in a fundamental employment relationship, but from a number of the above-mentioned provisions, except perhaps those relating to systemisation, it follows that they are the overall management of employment relationships. According to Article 2 (1) (c) of the Civil Service Act, this law does not apply to a Deputy Member of the Government, but contrary to this, the provision of § 173 which regulates the status of Deputy Member of the Government. It regulates its position by placing it outside the organisational structure of an administrative authority, or not conferring any decision-making powers on it, which, notwithstanding the above, leads the appellant to conclude that this provision does not fall under the Civil Service Act. The Deputy Member of the Government is to be in employment, so his type of work is to be negotiated in the employment contract according to the Labour Code, but here his work is defined directly in § 173 (1) of the Civil Service Act, in addition to the task defined in § 9 (8) of the Civil Service Act for the Deputy Director of the Section; This fact, according to the appellant, also leads, in the interests of the lawlessness of the law, to a proposal to abolish § 173 of the cited law.
8. Constitutional reservations against the other individual contested provisions of the Civil Service Act are formulated by the appellant as follows:
Arrangements for civil service branches by government regulation
9. According to Article 5 (2) of the Civil Service Act, the Government provides for the provision of services by regulation. In the appellant's view, that provision is contrary to Article 78 of the Constitution, according to which the Government is entitled to issue regulations for the implementation of the law and within its limits. The provisions do not lay down the limits within which the Government's regulations are to be moved and cannot possibly be inferred from the interpretation of the law. The law does not define the concept of "branch of service," as is apparent, for example, from § 24 or 30, it is essential from the point of view of the law. From a constitutional point of view, it is a breach of the division of power between legislative and executive powers and a breach of the principle of predictability of law and legal certainty. In this context, the appellant refers to a number of findings of the Constitutional Court, e.g. the findings of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 3 / 95 of 11.10.1995 (N 59 / 4 SbNU 91; 265 / 1995 Coll.), sp. zn. Pl. Pl. ÚS 17 / 95 of 25.10.1995 (N 67 / 4 SbNU 157; 271 / 1995 Sb.), sp. zn. Pl. It also refers to Article 5 of the repealed Staff Act, in which the limits were laid down in the opinion of the petitioner, since the branches of the service linked the activities resulting from the special laws.
Adjustment of obstacles in service by government regulations
10. Paragraph 104 (2) of the Civil Service Act specifies in which cases a salary is payable for obstacles to the service of a civil servant. Paragraph 104 (3) of the Act provides that the Government may provide for additional obstacles to the service (i.e. beyond the law) for which the civil servant is entitled to pay. That provision of paragraph 3 is clearly contrary to Article 78 of the Constitution.
Determination of the grade by the service authority for activities not included in the catalogue of administrative activities
11. Paragraph 145 (3) of the Civil Service Act provides that for the new post of a civil servant in which activities not listed in the catalogue of administrative activities, i.e. the Government Regulation pursuant to paragraph 2, the grade shall be determined by the service body with the agreement of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and the Ministry of Finance. That provision is contrary to the fundamental principles of the rule of law, creates legal uncertainty and creates, outside the regulatory arrangements contained in the Government's regulation, a margin for choice.
Forms of requirement to respect democratic principles of constitutional order for admission to service
12. Paragraph 22 of the Civil Service Act provides that only a person may be admitted to service who can be expected to respect the democratic principles of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and to perform the service properly. That provision is contrary to the fundamental principles of the rule of law by being based on subjective, inconclusive and unrestricted presumption. In this context, it refers to Paragraph 30 (1) of the Second Labour Act, which was, however, inappropriately reformulated into the Civil Service Act, but originally worded as follows: "A natural person cannot be appointed for the service according to the first sentence, for which it cannot be shown that he will respect the democratic principles of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and perform the service properly."
Approval of the systemisation of certain service offices
13. Paragraph 17 (3) of the Civil Service Act provides that the draft systemisation is to be submitted to the Government by the Minister of the Interior and to the Government for the following calendar year. In the fourth sentence, the Government cannot reduce the number of posts referred to in paragraph 1 (a) and (b), i.e. the number of civil servants' posts and the number of posts represented, and the amount of resources for civil servants' salaries, without the consent of the head of the Office for Radio and Television Broadcasting, the Czech Telecommunications Authority, the Office for Competition, the Office for the Protection of Personal Data, the Czech Statistical Office or the National Office for Nuclear Security.
14. The fourth sentence of Paragraph 17 (3) of the Civil Service Act contains a total of thirteen so-called other central government bodies, as defined in Section 2 (1) of Act No. 2 / 1969 Coll., on the establishment of ministries and other central government bodies of the Czech Republic, as amended, a list of seven central government bodies which equate the provisions in question to the government, if not above the government, even though under Article 67 (1) The Constitution is the executive government's supreme authority, and not another body, as otherwise provided for in Paragraph 17 (3) of the Fourth Civil Service Act.
Determination of other cases in which a person may be admitted to temporary employment
15. Paragraph 21 (1) and (2) of the Civil Service Act deals with cases where a civil servant performs his duties for an indefinite and fixed period. Paragraph 3 provides that other cases in which, taking into account the specific nature of the service, a fixed-term service may be recruited by the Government shall be laid down in a regulation. The term "specific nature of the service 'is indeterminate, and the provision of paragraph 3 is also contrary to Article 78 of the Constitution.
Other reservations concerning the contested law
16. In the last part of the proposal, the appellant gives an example of the shortcomings of the Civil Service Act, which, in his view, are "most likely not constitutional in themselves' but are submitted for any further assessment of the consequences of the procedure for the approval of the above law (Part II / a). These are the following arguments:
• In accordance with Article 31 (2) of the Civil Service Act, if a civil servant does not enter the service on the date specified in the decision to be recruited, without being prevented from doing so by a serious obstacle, or if he does not notify the service authority of the creation of this obstacle within 7 days, the service authority shall revoke the decision to be recruited. This provision is intrinsically contradictory, or incomprehensible, and, in marginal cases, inalienable. It is a question of whether a constitutional interpretation can be overcome that the word "a 'should have been used instead of the word" or'. '
• Under Paragraph 165 of the decision, the first action in the proceedings may be except for disciplinary liability or termination of service. The provision of the word "may be" without specifying the terms and conditions creates scope for legal uncertainty, as it allows, in cases not specified in advance, to exclude the procedure laid down in the administrative rules, in particular when determining the basis for the decision and its assessment.
• According to § 2 (1) (a) and (b), the Civil Service Act does not apply, among other things, to an employee who carries out other activities for a member of the government and to an employee who carries out activities for the Head of the Government of the Czech Republic ("the Government Office '). Without further definition of these activities, or their organisational integration, it may occur in literal interpretation that the law will not apply to anyone in a particular ministry or government office; The provision will therefore require a restrictive interpretation, but accompanied by subjective and not objective criteria.
• Under Section 5 (1) (g), the service includes the administration of the chapter of the State Budget to the organisational components of the State and legal persons, with the exception of the official office in which the service is performed, without taking into account that the administration of the chapter as a whole is usually concentrated in one branch of the Office; According to Article 5 (1) (p), the service also includes the award of public contracts, without taking into account that, under Article 2 (1) (b), the provision of public contracts does not include: (j) the Act does not apply, among other things, to auxiliary and service works, which are likely to be activities directly related to the management of the property, or to the management of the property, where the award of public contracts is quite common, despite the fact that "public procurement" is a process resulting from the award of public contracts in the meaning of the relevant law, with which Article 5 (1) (p) does not count.
• In Paragraph 10 (1) (b), there is no comment as to who is authorising a member of the government.
• Paragraph 13 (2) shows, and is reflected in other provisions of the Civil Service Act, that the Ministry of the Interior, the Director of the Civil Service Section and the Personnel Director of the Civil Service Section are separate bodies, in fact they are the authorities of the Ministry of the Interior, and can act only on behalf of that Ministry and not on behalf of their own.
• Paragraph 19 (3) provides that, in certain cases, the service body may, pending approval of the organisational structure of the service office or its amendments, provisionally act as if the proposed organisational structure or amendment had been approved, unless the proposed organisational structure or amendment had been approved, the amendments made provisionally shall be repealed from the outset and the service relationship shall be restored in the previous situation. Where the organisational structure or changes thereof which are provisionally linked to the fiction of approval are to be revoked from the outset in the event of their subsequent non-approval, legal uncertainty shall be created concerning, for example, the operations carried out until then, including the use of public funds associated with it.
• In Paragraph 30 (2), the list of terms of the decision does not mention the post of superior, there is no doubt that there is no legal obligation to pass a successful official examination, as otherwise it may result from § 35 (1) or § 191 (3).
• Paragraph 37 (1) does not mention cases where a particular branch of the service will not fall within the competence of any central administration.
• Paragraph 83 (1), second sentence, provides that the government may, in the context of the systemisation, determine the posts of the staff members at whom it is decided in the exercise of the rights and duties of the intermediary in the implementation of the subsidy policy. Act No. 218 / 2000 Coll., on budgetary rules and amending certain related laws (budgetary rules), as amended, which provides for the provision of subsidies, does not, however, know mediation in relation to them by the private law institute.
• Under Paragraph 117 (1) of the Civil Service Act, a service body may conclude an agreement with a civil servant from another place in which the conditions of service are agreed. In view of the concept of the law, the agreement in question will not be of a private law but of a public law nature and, in this respect, there is no provision for such an agreement or contract.
• In Paragraph 185 (2) (c), the words "and the salary provided for in Part Nine 'do not apply to the previous text and do not belong to that provision.
Observations of the parties and the intervener
17. The Constitutional Court, pursuant to Article 69 (1) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 18 / 2000 Coll., requested the observations of the parties to the proceedings of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
18. The Constitutional Court also sent the proposal of the President of the Republic to the Government (§ 69 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the Law on the Constitutional Court") and to the Ombudsman (§ 69 (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court).
19. By letter dated 21 November 2014, the Ombudsman informed the Constitutional Court that he would not use the right to intervene.
20. By order of 8 December 2014 No 1043, registered at the Constitutional Court on 11 December 2014, the Government intervened. In the same resolution, the Government imposes on the Minister for Human Rights, Equal Opportunities and Legislation to inform the Constitutional Court of this decision of the Government and to draw up, in cooperation with the Minister for the Interior, a statement by the Government on the proposal of the President of the Republic. Furthermore, the Government authorised the Minister of the Interior to represent the Government in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
Statement by the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
21. In its observations by the Chamber of Deputies, signed by President Jan Hamakk, which was delivered to the Constitutional Court on 10 December 2014, the legislative process is summarised in such a way that the proposal of a group of Members was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies on 23 December 2013 and circulated to Members as the House Press 71. The Government's opinion was distributed to Members on 9 January 2014 as press 71 / 1. The government expressed its opposition to the draft law with reference to legislative shortcomings and conflicts with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.
22. The first reading of the draft law was carried out on 22 January 2014, when the Chamber of Deputies adopted a resolution ordering the proposal to be discussed by the constitutional legal committee and the Committee on Public Administration and Regional Development and extended the deadline for the proposal to be discussed in committee for 90 days. The two committees discussed the draft law and on 27 June 2014 the Constitutional Legal Committee adopted a resolution recommending the Chamber of Deputies to approve the proposal as a comprehensive amendment. The Committee on Public Administration and Regional Development has not adopted a resolution.
23. At the second reading on 16 July 2014, the draft law went through both a general and a detailed debate. The motion to reject the bill has not been filed. 18 Members have spoken in a detailed debate with their amendments. All amendments were tabled to the comprehensive amendment contained in the resolution of the constitutionally legal committee. At the third reading on 30 July and 1 and 27 August 2014, the Chamber of Deputies decided to repeat the second reading of this draft law.
24. The bill was renegotiated by both committees, i.e. the constitutional legal committee and the Committee on Public Administration and Regional Development. At its 12th meeting on 27 August 2014, the Committee on Public Administration and Regional Development adopted a comprehensive amendment and recommended to the Chamber of Deputies the adoption of a draft law as amended by this comprehensive amendment. At its 16th meeting of 27 August 2014, the Constitutional Legal Committee annulled its resolution of 27 June 2014 and stated that it had discussed the comprehensive amendment tabled by Mr Jan Chvojka, notes it and recommends that the Chamber of Deputies take it as the basis for the hearing.
25. Repeated second reading of the draft law took place on 2 September 2014, when the draft law passed both general and detailed debate. In a detailed debate, there was no proposal to reject the bill and the amendments were tabled by Mr Jan Chvojka - a comprehensive amendment - and 14 other Members who tabled their amendments to the comprehensive amendment by Mr Jan Chvojka.
26. The third reading of the draft law took place on 10 September 2014, when the draft law, as amended, was approved by the number of 127 Members out of 172 who were present, with 12 voting against.
27. The Chamber of Deputies passed the Senate Bill on 12 September 2014, which it discussed and approved at its 25th meeting on 1 October 2014. The President of the Republic did not sign the bill, returned it to the Chamber of Deputies, which renegotiated it on 24 October 2014 and maintained its proposal. Of the 166 Members present, 123 Members voted in favour and against 12. Subsequently, the bill was delivered for signature to the Prime Minister on 30 October 2014. The Act was published in the Collection of Laws under No. 234 / 2014 Coll.
28. Finally, the Chamber of Deputies notes in its observations that the draft law was adopted in accordance with a constitutional procedure, that it was approved by both chambers of Parliament by the constitutional procedure, signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and duly declared. It is up to the Constitutional Court to examine the issue of the constitutionality of the law or its individual provisions and to decide on the application for annulment.
29. The undersigned President of the Chamber of Deputies Jan Hamáček further states that, although, according to the reasons for the finding, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24 / 07 of 31 January 2008 (N 26 / 48 SbNU 303; 88 / 2008 Coll.), the Chairmen of Parliament are not entitled to create the will of the Chamber of Commerce separately, in so far as they are entitled, on behalf of the Chamber of the Constitutional Court, to disclose only the factual and undisputable circumstances of the consideration of the draft law, he considers it necessary to express his opinion on the part of the proposal in which the President of the Republic indicates objections to the procedure for the adoption of the law in question. This statement has not been discussed and approved by the entire Chamber of Deputies and cannot therefore be considered as an expression of its opinion. The President of the Chamber of Deputies pointed out that the Constitutional Court has repeatedly addressed the issue of so-called complex amendments in its findings, concluding that it is one of the institutions of parliamentary practice which is within the limits of constitutional order. In this context, the Constitutional Court has not found a breach of the legislative process, of the relevant provisions of the Constitution or of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, of the rights of the Government or Members, etc. The Constitutional Court has not yet questioned this procedure even if it has come as an initiative by a committee of the Chamber of Deputies or Members. In the opinion of the Constitutional Court, a comprehensive amendment is still an amendment within the meaning of Section 63 (1) (5) (a) of the Chamber of Deputies' Rules of Procedure. In the case under consideration, the comprehensive amendment did not deviate by its object, content and fundamental purpose from the boundaries set out in the original parliamentary bill. Although there was a change in the form from the amendment on the proposal for a full text of the law, the full text of the law did not change, the subject matter and content of the comprehensive amendment were related to the subject matter and content of the original proposal, the purpose of the comprehensive amendment was closely related to the purpose of the original proposal and no other draft laws which were not related to the present amendment. For these reasons, the view suggested in the proposal by the President of the Republic that this could be the so-called appendage can be clearly rejected. It can also be rejected that the President of the Republic's objection that the Government could not exercise its rights sufficiently, since it was clear in the present case that the comprehensive amendment was initiated by the Government. At the same time, the government had sufficient time to comment on the proposal during its discussions in the Chamber of Deputies. In the light of the clarity of the legislation and the legal certainty of the addressees, the adoption of the full text of the Civil Service Act can be regarded as a more appropriate procedure than a procedure through an extensive amendment of many tens to hundreds of amendments. The legislation adopted must be clear, understandable and predictable; therefore, the adoption of a new law is far more clear and understandable to the addressees than the very extensive amendment of the existing law after individual amendments. On the basis of the above, the President of the Chamber of Deputies believes that the Chamber of Deputies has acted in accordance with the Constitution, the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies and the case-law of the Constitutional Court.
Statement by the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
30. In the opinion of the Senate signed by President Milan Štěm, which was delivered to the Constitutional Court on 28 November 2014, it is initially mentioned that the President of the Republic submitted a proposal to the Constitutional Court after the adoption of the draft law in accordance with Article 50 (1) On 8 October 2014, the Constitution returned the law to the Chamber of Deputies, with the President of the Republic stating his approach to this legislation already in his address in the Chamber of Deputies on 2 September 2014, in which he made a clear statement against the Institute of Political Undersecretary. The Chamber of Deputies, at its 19th meeting on 24 October 2014, remained on the law and the Civil Service Act was announced on 6 November 2014 in the amount of 99 Collection of Laws under No. 234 / 2014 Coll.
31. As regards the process of discussing the draft Civil Service Act under the conditions of the Senate, it is stated that, after its approval in the Chamber of Deputies, the bill was delivered to the Senate on 12 September 2014 and was discussed in the Senate as Senate Press 336 during its 9th term of office. The bill was ordered to be discussed in three committees, in a committee of constitutionally legal, which was a committee of guarantee, and in the Committee on Territorial Development, Public Administration and the Environment, and in the Committee on Health and Social Policy. The Constitutional Legal Committee discussed the draft law at its 37th meeting held on 24 September 2014 and in Resolution 180 recommended the Senate to approve the draft law as referred to by the Chamber of Deputies. The Committee on Territorial Development, Public Administration and the Environment discussed the draft law at its 30th meeting held on 30 September 2014 and in Resolution 114 recommended the Senate to approve the draft law under consideration as referred to by the Chamber of Deputies. The Committee on Health and Social Policy discussed the draft law at its 24th meeting held on 30 September 2014 and adopted a resolution in which it was intended not to deal with the draft law, given its scope. The Senate discussed the draft Civil Service Act at its 25th meeting on 1 October 2014. Following the speeches of the committee rapporteurs, a proposal was tabled that the Senate should not deal with the bill, indicating the circumstances under which the bill was discussed and approved in the Chamber of Deputies. This proposal (which was voted on after the break at the meeting of the ČSSD club) was not accepted when there were 71 senators and senators present on May 36 who voted in favour of the motion 28 and 32 senators and senators opposed. Subsequently, a general debate took place, with the following reservations on the draft law from some senators:
- reference was made to the opinion of the State Reconstruction sent to the Senators, which included an evaluation of how the bill approved by the Chamber of Deputies dealt with the requirements promoted by the State Reconstruction; in this sense, the bill was considered "insufficient in terms of creating conditions for the stable and professional functioning of the Czech government ';
- in some speeches, the alleged politicisation in connection with the removal from the draft law of the regulation concerning the Institute of the Directorate-General and the incorporation of the Institute of the so-called political deputies into the draft law;
- there have been substantive reservations about the specific provisions of the draft law in some speeches and amendments have been announced if the draft law reaches a detailed debate;
- the reservations concerning the non-standard legislative process were stated that they were indeed a non-standard process, but on the other hand it was pointed out under which circumstances the legislative process was "launched";
- on the subject of the so-called political deputies, it was pointed out that this institute is quite common in many Western countries and its function is based on the constitutional system.
32. Following a general debate, in which a motion to reject the draft law was also tabled, two committees first voted on the proposal to approve the draft law as referred to by the Chamber of Deputies, as recommended in their resolution by the two committees; in the vote with order number 6 out of 71 Senators and Senators present on May 36 voted in favour of this proposal 47 and 15 Senators and Senators opposed.
33. The President of the Senate summed up that, although reservations were made on the Senate bill when it was discussed, none of the relevant provisions were assessed in the sense that the President of the Republic's proposal was contrary to constitutional principles, whether from the point of view of the very legislative process in which the Civil Service Act was adopted or some of its provisions listed in the draft. When discussing the bill, it was known that the so-called comprehensive amendment was prepared within the government's remit (at the Office of the Government, then at the Ministry of the Interior) and was also discussed with representatives of trade unions and employers with the participation of the Prime Minister and other members of the Government, as shown in the record of the session of the 110th plenary meeting of the Council of Economic and Social Agreement of the Czech Republic. In the Senate, while recognising certain shortcomings in the draft law, the approach based on the need for its timely adoption prevailed, with some of the criticised adjustments being possible in the coming period.
Statement by the Government of the Czech Republic
34. On 9 January 2015, the Constitutional Court received the Government's observations sent by the Minister for Human Rights, Equal Opportunities and Legislation by Jiří Dienstbier.
35. The Government notes, first of all, that it considers its participation in the present proceedings to be necessary not only because of the need to refute the claims contained in the proposal of the President of the Republic, which it considers to be unfounded, but also considers to be an opportunity for the public defence of the need for the President of the Republic of the contested law, as well as the rationality and constitutional conformity of the adoption process. The Government recalls that the President of the Republic's contested law represents the fulfilment of 23 years of legitimate expectations of the citizens of the Czech Republic for the adoption and application in Article 79 (2) of the Constitution of the Predicted Act, which regulates the legal situation of civil servants in ministries and other administrative offices, while Law 218 / 2002 Coll. cannot, in the view of the Government, be considered to have fulfilled that legitimate expectation, since its effectiveness, originally planned since 1 January 2004, has been postponed five times, most recently by Law No 445 / 2011 Coll. The contested law is, according to the Government, also fulfilling the commitment of the Government to the citizens of the Czech Republic to adopt a functioning and quality law on civil service, the fulfilment of the commitment of the Czech Republic to the Partnership Agreement for the Programme period 2014- 2020, or the fulfilment of the ex ante conditionality for the drawing of European funds reserved for the Czech Republic for the years 2014 to 2020, the result of the intensive cooperation of the professional public, government and Parliament in the course of the legislative process, the result of a democratic discourse conducted across the political spectrum, namely the discourse in which all participants were given the opportunity to become fully acquainted and informed with the material, together with the conditions of the President of the Republic for the appointment of the Government (referring to the President of the Republic on 10 January 2014).
1. The objection to the inconstitutionality of the adoption procedure
36. The Government first commented on the alleged unconstitutional nature of the legislative process. It stated that the appellant's legal argument is based primarily on a general question of the constitutional conformity of the law-adoption procedure in the Chamber of Deputies in the sense of the alleged failure to comply with the constitutional rules of parliamentary law or to comply with the requirements of a constitutionally consistent legislative procedure. The specific objections of the appellant are then against: 1. the removal of the Government from the constitutional right to submit an opinion on the draft Civil Service Act; 2. the absence of a reasoned report on the draft law and, in particular, on the very scope of the comprehensive amendment tabled by the Constitutional Committee of the Chamber of Deputies on the proposal of Members of Roman Zlaák, Jerome Tejka and others on the issue of the Act amending Act No. 218 / 2002 Coll., on the service of civil servants in administrative offices and on the remuneration of those employees and other servants in administrative offices (Staff Act 71 / 8 (hereinafter referred to as "the first comprehensive amendment ').
37. The Government is starting to draw closer to its relationship with the text of the comprehensive amendment (first and second), because it is these proposals that have become the basis of the President of the Republic of the contested law. At the same time, the formal legal aspects of the application of the Institute of Comprehensive Amendment have also been the subject of a proposal to review the constitutionality of the law adoption process by the Constitutional Court.
38. The role of the government as initiator of the submission or legislative-technical processor of the text of the first comprehensive amendment is generally known. Despite the fact that, according to the Government, this is an obvious notoriety, the wording contained in the statement of reasons of the President of the Republic forces the Government to briefly describe its role in the legislative process resulting in the President of the Republic's contested law.
39. The Government recalls its programming statement of 14 February 2014, in which it undertook, inter alia, to adopt a functional and high-quality Civil Service Act, which must ensure full reliance on the administration, clearly define the criteria for the recruitment and remuneration of officials, lay down the conditions of career development and ensure a high level of education for officials.
40. By order of 8 January 2014, No 39 of the Government of Jiří Rusnok expressed its opposition to the content of the proposal of the Members of the Parliament of Roman Sklaák, Jerome Tejka and others to enact a law amending Act No. 218 / 2002 Coll., on the service of civil servants in administrative offices and on the remuneration of such staff and other servants in administrative offices (Staff Act) (House Press 71). This was mainly due to the conflict of a number of provisions of the proposal in question with both constitutional order and law in force.
41. In its resolution of 3 February 2014 No 85, the Government of Bohuslav Sobotka gave its consent to the withdrawal of a series of bills submitted to the Chamber of Deputies by the Government of George Rusnok. Among these proposals was the government proposal to amend the Staff Act and the accompanying Act to the Staff Act (House Press 96) and the related government bill to amend the Civil Service Act (House Press 97). The Government justified the withdrawal of those draft laws by the need "to subject the concept of a civil service to further professional and political discussion, the conclusions of which will be reflected in the parallel parliamentary amendment of the Civil Service Act, because of the rationalisation of the process of dealing with this regulation."
42. Following the Government Resolution No 85 / 2014, the Government discussed on 5 March 2014 the material "Information for the Government of the Czech Republic on the progress of the State Service Agenda '(No 195 / 14). This material included a description of the work on the preparation of a comprehensive amendment (i.e. information on the establishment and conduct of a Working Party on the Civil Service of the Council of Economic and Social Agreement consisting of the legislators of the Office of the Government, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Finance and the representatives of trade unions and employers, as well as information on the conduct of a political-expert group on the draft paragraph of a comprehensive amendment to the Staff Act composed of representatives of coalition parties, legislators, experts in the field of state service and non-state non-profit organisations).
43. The document in question also included the document "A substantive overview of the comprehensive amendment to House Press 71," which was also presented to Members, experts and also to the general public for discussion (the material was also published on the House of Deputies' website). This document contained the details necessary to ensure an effective, professional, public interest advocating and apolitical state service, but the 71 / 0 House Press either did not contain them or had to be redefined. In case of choice of different solutions, the material proposed a variant solution designed for professional and political discussion.
44. On 5 May 2014, the Government discussed the material "Timetable for the Implementation of the Amendment to the Staff Act" (No 430 / 14) and by Resolution No 325 required members of the Government, heads of central administration and heads of other administrative offices to cooperate in the implementation of the Timetable and to provide the Head of the Office of the Government and the Minister for Human Rights, Equal Opportunities and Legislation with cooperation in its implementation.
45. On 28 May 2014, by Resolution 406, the Government approved a mandate for the Minister for Human Rights, Equal Opportunities and Legislation to negotiate with the European Commission on the issue of the Staff Act.
46. At the same time, during 2014, the Government adopted a number of other resolutions concerning the implementation of the Staff Act (e.g. Government Resolution of 5 March 2014 No 147 on the transfer of personnel and educational activities in the State Administration from the Ministry of Interior to the Government Office; This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
47. The Government considers that the above-mentioned list of its official documents (and their content) is sufficient to refute any doubt about the breach of the division of power in the "exclusion of the Government from the constitutional right to submit an opinion on the draft Civil Service Act '. It is clear that the government has not been effectively shortened by its constitutional right to comment on the draft laws, since it has itself been actively involved in formulating its content and its legislative and technical processing (including its discussion with social partners and the professional public). Thus, the comprehensive amendment was tabled with its knowledge and publicly declared support - a breach of the division of power and of the" right to good lawmaking' (as defined by the Constitutional Court in the decision of Pol.
48. The above, namely the active involvement of the government in the preparation and formulation of the text of the law, is not only valid for the first comprehensive amendment (Parliament's press 71 / 8), but also for the so-called second comprehensive amendment (Parliament's prints 71 / 10 and 71 / 11), which was submitted by the Committee on Public Administration and Regional Development, or by Mr Jan Chvojka, as a result of the political negotiations of the parties to the Government Coalition and the opposition, but also with the knowledge and publicly declared support of the Government, as well as for the proposal of the Members of Roman Greenhouse, Jaroslav Faltýnek and Jiří Junk on the amendment of the laws relating to the adoption of the Civil Service Act (Parliament's Press 242).
49. If the President of the Republic further contends that "the so-called comprehensive amendment lacks a reasoned report ', the Government considers this objection irrelevant both from a factual and constitutional point of view. The first comprehensive amendment was accompanied by a explanatory memorandum. This was prepared by an expert team set up by the Government (see above) and physically made available not only to Members, but also to the general public (www.statnisluz.cz). In the light of the fact that those websites no longer contain such documents, the Government attached to its observations to the Constitutional Court attaches a copy of that document of 29 May 2014, including the justification for each proposed provision.
50. In view of the foregoing statement of the existence of the explanatory memorandum, the Government merely recalls that the Constitutional Court has repeatedly addressed the question of the consequences of the lack of justification of a comprehensive amendment in the past, considering that the absence of a justification of the proposal in itself does not lead to the inconstitutionality of the Act under examination and approved [see, for example, the finding of the sp. zn.
17 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 / 2011 /
52. The Government recalls that the conclusions of the Constitutional Court on the question of constitutional conformity of the use of the Institute of Comprehensive Amendment are summarised in points 39 and 40 of the preamble to the finding of the Pol.
53. In the light of the above described role of the Government in the legislative process and the conclusions resulting from the relevant case-law of the Constitutional Court, the Government considers the Derogation proposal of the President of the Republic to be unfounded, or considers the justification of this part of the proposal to be a manifestation of overstretched theoretical formalism, the acceptance of which by the Constitutional Court would, in the present case, constitute a practical interference with the legislature's autonomy, and thus a breach of the division of power between legislative and judicial powers. It is difficult to imagine the defensibility of the law's derogation justified only on the grounds that the implementation of a comprehensive regulation modification in the form of amendments is constitutionally conformal, but the implementation by substance of the same modification in the form of a new text (instead of the form of amendments and while maintaining the same material normative content) no longer.
54. In spite of the above, the Government considers it appropriate to inform the Constitutional Court of the reasons which led it and the legislature to reach a rational consensus on the use of the Institute of Comprehensive Amendment or the type of Comprehensive Amendment, the substance of which is to replace the entire text of the draft law with a complete text.
55. The Government does not in any way hide that, in the initial phase of the legislative process, the question of whether, in the context of the content of the proposal of the President of the Republic, the matter of whether to present (within the meaning of Article 41 (2) of the Constitution) a bill of law identical to the text of the first comprehensive amendment (thereby eliminating all theoretical doubts about the constitutional conformity of the legislative procedure), or whether to use the Institute of Comprehensive Amendment, through which the text of the original draft law - that is, the proposal of Members of Roman Glasses, Jeroným Tejka and others on the issue of the Act amending Act 218 / 2002 Coll., on the service of civil servants and on the remuneration of those employees and other servants in the administrative offices (the Civil Act), is completely eliminated.
56. In addition to the above conclusions resulting from the case-law of the Constitutional Court, the key role of choice between the two options was to take account, in particular, of the factual situation summarised in the introductory part of the Government's observations or its time dimension. Thus, the first constitutionally based legitimate expectation of the adoption of a functioning and quality law on civil service, the second commitment by the Government to meet this requirement so that such a law takes effect on 1 January 2015, the third question of the legisklement of the law, the fourth question of creating the preconditions for the implementation of the necessary preparatory steps to apply the law in practice before its planned effectiveness, the fifth question of drawing up and issuing the necessary implementing laws and regulations and, last but not least, the 6th question of ex ante conditionality for drawing up European funds, which are reserved for the Czech Republic for years 2014 to 2020.
57. The government is therefore convinced that the procedure chosen (putting the parliamentary legislative initiative before the legislative initiative of the government) was rational, legitimate, constitutionally conformal and did not in any way undermine the balance of power.
58. On the question of constitutional conformity of a type of comprehensive amendment, which is essential to replace the whole text of the proposed bill with a new text, the Government states that, when preparing the texts of the two amendments, it paid utmost attention to the fulfilment of all the courts of the constitutionally consistent legislative process, not only on a formal but in particular material basis. In particular, the Government took care, in particular, to ensure that the first comprehensive amendment relates to the subject matter of the proposal of Members of the Parliament, of Roman Gláák, Jerome Tejka and others for the issue of the Act amending Act No. 218 / 2002 Coll., on the service of civil servants in administrative offices and on the remuneration of such employees and other servants in administrative offices (Staff Act); 2. The fundamental purpose of the comprehensive amendment was closely related to the fundamental purpose of the present law, or to be identical (the regulation of the most problematic points of Act No. 218 / 2002 Coll. in order to create a functional and modern model of the state service and put it into practice, more than 12 years after the adoption of the original law, was feasible); 3. The comprehensive amendment in its substance was based both on the original parliamentary proposal and partly on the original government proposal in the House of Press 97 (the so-called amendment tabled by the Rusnok Government), which, although taken back by the current government, did so in order not to discuss two Parliament prints at the same time with the same objective, which would make the legislative process considerably more unclear; 4. The comprehensive amendment responded to the complaints raised by the Government in its opinion on the original parliamentary proposal (so that it could not be possible to consider, in theory, circumvention of the government or breach of the principle of division of power); These criticisms concerned, inter alia, that the original proposal did not respond to the substantial changes that had occurred since 2002 in the legal order and that it did not contain the so-called Amendment Act (i.e. that it did not change other related laws, although it would be objectively necessary); 5. The chosen procedure (comprehensive amendment) did not shorten Members' right to get to know the content of the proposal in detail, subject it to the parliamentary discourse and, if necessary, to submit their own amendments to it. On the issue of compliance with the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, a defined timeframe and procedural framework for discussing both complex amendments (in which the protection of constitutional guarantees of the real functioning of Parliament is envisaged), the Government only notes that all deadlines and procedural procedures have been complied with and refers to the President of the Chamber of Deputies for more detailed information.
59. The Government does not conceal that its original intention was to prepare a "standard" comprehensive amendment (that is, a proposal that would change, delete or extend the original amendment by means of amendments). However, only during the legislative-technical work to prepare such a proposal did it prove that such a "standard" comprehensive amendment would be quite opaque for the final addressees of the standard and would in fact represent, in its scope, a completely new text of the draft law, except that it would be divided into several hundred amendments.
60. In view of the above, as well as the fact that the lack of clarity of the proposal would certainly result in a limitation of the real possibility for legislators to discuss such a proposal in a qualified manner (which would be contrary to the principle of parliamentary democracy itself), the Government decided, after consultation with the parliamentary parties, that the first comprehensive amendment would not be processed (and presented) in the form of amendments, but in the form of a comprehensive text, that is to say, de facto 'full text', since the scope of the amendments was considerable (although it was often just a necessary formal refinement) and that all these amendments would not only lead to less clarity of the text but also to increase the risk of formal defects during the legislative process.
61. The Government considers that, during the parliamentary procedure, it has proved to be a beneficial procedure and, as has already been stated above, it is constitutionally feasible to consider the defensibility of the law's derogation justified only on the grounds that the implementation of a comprehensive regulation modification by means of amendments is constitutionally conformable, but the implementation by substance of the same modification by means of a new text (instead of a form of amendments) no longer.
62. In the light of the above, the Government considers that the proposal by the President of the Republic to repeal the law as a whole, as formulated in the first variant of the petition, should be rejected as unfounded.
63. In the event that the Constitutional Court does not agree with the Government's argument and accedes to the derogation of the law, the Government publicly declares its readiness to re-submit the same legislation to the legislative process, while at the same time reminiscent of the conclusion resulting from the finding of the sp. zn. In such a case, the formal and procedural aspects of the review shall, in view of the principle of proportionality, give way to the requirements of the material rule of law, legal certainty and effective protection of constitutionality. ';
64. The Government also briefly notes on the thesis in the proposal by the President of the Republic that "the law will be applied in full only from 1 July 2015 '. The Government draws attention to the fact that the Act was largely effective on 1 January 2015, while some of its provisions had previously been effective on the date of the publication of the Act, since, even before the full application of the Act, some fundamental steps had to be taken towards its subsequent smooth application (the abolition of the General Directorate of State Service of the Government, which has been formally in place since 2002; the establishment of a post as Deputy Minister of the Interior of the Civil Service and the Organising Department, titled State Service Section of the Ministry of Interior as compensation for the repealed institutes of the Director-General of the Civil Service and the Directorate-General of the Civil Service;" roll-over' means the current senior administrative offices in employment to the posts of senior service offices in service; the establishment of official posts of state secretaries in ministries and government offices).
2. The objections concerning the various provisions of the law
The alleged unconstitutionality of the partial regulation of the employment relationship of so-called other employees in administrative offices
65. To the objection that the contested provisions of § 1 (2), § 11 (3), § 14 (2), § 15 (3), § 16, § 78 (c), § 85 (5), § 172, 173, 178, § 184 (2), § 189 of the Civil Service Act are an unconstitutional amendment to the Labour Code, the Government states that the President of the Republic confused the indirect amendment of the Labour Code which did not take place with the speciality of the relevant provisions of the Civil Service Act relating to employees in the employment relationship with the Labour Code, which was chosen in relation to "other" employees "in administrative offices. This is the lex specialis derogat legi generali method, which is quite common and admissible [cf. Act No. 312 / 2002 Coll., on officials of local authorities and on the amendment of certain laws, as amended, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as" Act on officials of local authorities'), or Act No. 563 / 2004 Coll., on teachers and on the amendment of certain laws, as amended, which also contain special provisions on the Labour Code and which no one has ever referred to as indirect amendments to the Labour Code]. In general, special provisions apply in cases where there is general legislation which cannot, however, be complex enough to regulate the area fully. The Labour Code is thus generally applied when regulating the legal ratios of these employees in employment, unless otherwise provided by the Civil Service Act.
66. Nor can the government agree with the President of the Republic's claim that employment relations can only be regulated by the Labour Code with the subsidiarity of the Civil Code. In the adoption of this thesis, all the legislation governing the legal conditions of certain groups of employees, such as the Law on the Officials of the Territorial Government, Act No. 553 / 1991 Coll., on the Municipal Police, as amended, Act No. 6 / 2002 Coll., on the Judicial, Judicial and Civil Administration of the Courts, and on the Amendment of Certain Other Laws (Law on Courts and Judgments), as amended, Act No. 65 / 1965 Coll., Act on the Law on the Judicial, Law on Judiciary and Others, Act No. 283 / 1993 Coll., Act on the Law on Public Prosecutor, Act No. 2 / 1969 Coll. The Government also notes that the legislation may contain both standards of public and private law [a typical example is the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Charter)].
The alleged unconstitutional nature of the state service sector
67. The President of the Republic objects to the unconstitutionality of Section 5 (2) of the Civil Service Act for the lack of regulation of the civil service fields and the potential "complementary" nature of the Government's regulation on civil service branches instead of the constitutionally conformal "implementation" character.
68. First of all, it should be noted that the alleged unconstitutionality would concern not the Civil Service Act, but the Government Decree issued on the basis of the authorisation in that Act. A violation of the Constitution would be the issue of a government order that "complements" the law.
69. In addition, the Government considers it necessary to point out that the appellant does not appreciate the importance of § 1 (1) (a) of the cited Act defining the personal scope of the Act on civil servants engaged in administration in administrative offices, in conjunction with § 5 (1) of the cited Act listing activities which are a service which complements that personal scope. It is precisely these two provisions that create the legal framework of the civil service sectors (the public administration carried out by the administrative authorities within the meaning of the Civil Service Act is defined by specific laws determining the scope of these administrative offices and the public administration carried out by civil servants within the meaning of the Civil Service Act is a subset thereof, as the public administration is also involved in the exercise of the public administration by, for example, persons in the service relationship under Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps, as amended, or by soldiers in the service relationship under Act No. 221 / 1999 Coll., on professional soldiers, as amended by the Government Regulation. The Act therefore defined a legal framework for the fields of public service, leaving the implementing legislation to be applied by reason of a more flexible response to possible changes in the competence of the service authorities. However, a government regulation on branches of services may be issued only within the limits of the list of activities contained in Section 5 (1) of the Act cited and, of course, within the limits of the laws governing the administrative authorities in the field of public administration (e.g. in the case of the preparation and implementation of administrative acts, there are dozens of laws from different branches of government from the environment to transport to social security), since the administrative authorities may, under Article 79 (1) of the Constitution, be established only by law and only within those legal limits, the government regulation may be issued. It cannot therefore be accepted that the limits for issuing a government regulation cannot be interpreted. The systematic interpretation can undoubtedly be inferred, whereas the mere isolated grammatical interpretation of Section 5 (2) of the Act cited itself is, of course, not.
70. Paragraph 5 of the original Staff Act, which is argued by the President of the Republic, is merely an explicit declaration (not a rule) of what is defined in the original Staff Act using the same legislative structure as the Civil Service Act used to define the areas of civil service.
The alleged unconstitutionality of determining further obstacles in the service of the Government
71. The contested Section 104 (2) of the Civil Service Act states that the scope of the obstacles to the service is laid down in the contested provision by reference to the relevant provisions of the Labour Code and Decree No. 590 / 2006 Coll., establishing the scope and scope of other important personal obstacles at work. In view of the fact that the rights and obligations of civil servants and workers in employment are different and may result in different barriers to service, the Government is empowered to extend the scope of the obstacles to service beyond the scope of the regulation of the Labour Code and its implementing rules. It is therefore in principle a similar arrangement to that laid down in Section 199 (2) of the Labour Code, according to which the Government provides for a range of other important personal obstacles to work than those set out in Section 191 of the Labour Code for which the employer provides work leave, compensation for wages or salaries.
72. Article 78 The Government is entitled to issue regulations for the implementation of the Act and within its limits. According to the case-law of the Constitutional Court, the Government must stay within the limits of the law which is either expressly defined or resulting from the meaning and purpose of the law (the findings of the sp. zn. In view of the fact that the Civil Service Act in § 104 (3) empowers the Government to issue a regulation and to lay down further obstacles to the service for which the civil servant is entitled to pay, the Regulation moves within the limits of the law, and thus the Government does not find its contradiction with the Constitution, including in the light of a similar regulation in the Labour Code which was not contested in this respect, even by the President of the Republic.
Alleged unconstitutionality of the establishment of a grade by the service authority for activities not included in the catalogue of administrative activities
73. The contested provision of § 145 (3) of the Civil Service Act according to the Government is based essentially literally on the regulation contained in § 136 (3) of the Staff Act No. 218 / 2002 Coll., which was replaced by the Civil Service Act, i.e. until recently a valid part of the legal order of the Czech Republic. The purpose of the provision is to bridge the period during which the service office must immediately start to carry out an activity which is not included in the catalogue of administrative activities (issued by the Government Regulation) until the relevant amendment of the Government Regulation, which will add that activity to the catalogue of administrative activities, has been implemented. Thus, a public servant who will carry out this new activity must be paid for it, the establishment of a grade should be in line with the principle that the staff member has the right to a fair remuneration for the work (Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms), i.e. that for the same work or work of the same value, the same salary is payable to all employees with the same employer. Even in other aspects, the establishment of a grade may not be subject to the approval of the competent administrative authorities. It should be borne in mind that the determination of the grade is an exercise of the public administration powers carried out in the form of an administrative act, which means the application of the provisions of the Civil Service Act on the Management of Services under Section 159 (1) (d) of this Act with subsidiary application of Act No. 500 / 2004 Coll., the Administrative Code, as amended. Thus, the rule of law creates sufficient "mandinels' which exclude the insecurity and libel raised by the appellant. That provision is therefore, in the Government's view, fully in line with the constitutional order.
The alleged unconstitutional requirement to respect the democratic principles of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic for admission to service
74. The contested provision of Section 22 of the Civil Service Act providing for the requirement to respect the democratic principles of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic for admission to service, the Government states that, in accordance with Section 159 (1) (a) of the Civil Service Act, admission to service is subject to a procedure in the matters of the service, i.e. it is governed by the Administrative Code (Section 160 of the Civil Service Act). In the course of the procedure, the fundamental principles of the activity of the administrative authorities and other rules of procedure in the matters of the service must therefore be respected, the decision must be justified and it must be subject to judicial review on the basis of Article 36 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Act No. 150 / 2002 Coll., the Administrative Rules of Procedure, as amended, which also applies to the above-mentioned presumption of admission to service. This is not a subjective or inconclusive assessment as the President of the Republic objects.
75. The contested provision is, according to the Government, a reflection of the finding of the Constitutional Court sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 9 / 01 of 5.12.2001 (N 192 / 24 SbNU 419; 35 / 2002 Coll.), which, in the context of the assessment of the constitutionality of Act No. 451 / 1991 Coll., establishing certain other conditions for the exercise of certain functions in the state bodies and organisations of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, as amended, stated that the legislature should regulate the conditions of access to public functions in the whole range and anchor in the norm with such general effect personal assumptions directly in relation to a democratic society. The Constitutional Court also referred to the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Vogt v Germany, 26.9.1995, 17851 / 91 and Pellegrin v France, 8.12.1999, 28541 / 95). In its opinion, the Government subsequently summarises the considerations of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court concerning the necessity of the loyalty of civil servants or public service employees to the State and constitutional principles.
The alleged unconstitutionality of different procedures for approving the systemisation of certain service offices
76. The contested provision of Paragraph 17 (3) of the Civil Service Act is an exception to the so-called regulators resulting from the specific position of these authorities (the requirement for the independence of these authorities enshrined in European Union regulations). The provision constitutes a guarantee for their independent and impartial decision-making, based on the fact that the government cannot, without the consent of the head of the competent authority (that is to say, the guarantor of the independent position of the Office), limit the staffing substrate of the Office and the funds to salaries and thereby effectively regulate (limit) the Office's activities. If this exemption had not been mentioned in the Civil Service Act, the determination of the systemisation would be completely outside the real decision-making power of the head of the Office, even though it is fully responsible for the proper exercise of its powers. The adjustment of the status of the so-called regulators of the parties to the systemisation in the Civil Service Act is also in line with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (e.g. in Case C-518 / 07 The Court of Justice of the European Union found that the supervisory authorities in the performance of their tasks must have the scope and conditions to act objectively and impartially and must be protected to that end from any external influence, including direct or indirect State influence, and not just from the influence of the organisations they supervise).
The alleged unconstitutionality of determining other cases in which, in view of the specific nature of the service, a person may be admitted to temporary employment
77. In the contested provision, Paragraph 21 (3) of the Civil Service Act, the concept of "specific nature of the service 'is undoubtedly an indefinite legal term. However, the legislature did not leave its definition to the discretion of the various service authorities, as is customary for indeterminate legal terms, but entrusted its definition to the implementing legislation in the light of legal certainty. It has deliberately created space for the Government to evaluate itself in which other cases, except those referred to in Paragraph 21 (2) of the Act cited (under this provision, a person who has not yet successfully passed an official examination is admitted to the service and, in the case of the replacement of a temporarily absent staff member), a person may be admitted to temporary service in order to respond more flexibly to any developments in the concept.
78. The Government may issue regulations on its own initiative without legal authorisation as Article 78 of the Constitution is empowered to do so. However, it can only issue it for the implementation of the law and within its limits. However, by applying an indefinite legal concept in the empowerment provision of the law, the Government does not consider that a government regulation will be issued by a praeter legem.
79. In the light of all the above arguments, the Government proposes, in conclusion, that the Constitutional Court reject the proposal of the President of the Republic to repeal Act No 234 / 2014 Coll., on the Civil Service, or its individual provisions.
Replication of the applicant
80. The observations of the parties and the intervener were sent to the appellant and to a possible reply. The appellant made use of the replica's right, making particular comments on the Government's position.
Reply to Parliament's observations
81. On the observations made by the Chamber of Deputies or its President, the appellant refers to his opinion below on the Government's observations, which is more extensive than that of the Chamber of Deputies. For the sake of completeness, it adds that the proposal put forward by the Constitutional Court does not even suggest that this would be a "attachment 'in the present case, as otherwise could result from the President of the Chamber of Deputies's observations.
82. As in relation to the Chamber of Deputies's observations, reference is made to the opinion below on the Government's observations on when the so-called comprehensive amendment is constitutionally acceptable and when it is no longer, and to the degree of co-operation of power with Members in completing the bill. At the same time, attention is drawn to the reference contained in the President of the Senate's statement that reservations were made in the general debate, although the final approval of the Senate law did not affect that the law was actually adopted in the non-standard legislative process.
Reply to the Government's observations
83. As regards the observations made by the Government, the appellant states that the Government has not negotiated and approved the opinion of the Government sent to the Constitutional Court. From a material point of view, there is a doubt as to whether this is really the opinion of the Government, or whether it is the opinion of the Minister for Human Rights, equal opportunities and legislation, taken, where appropriate, in cooperation with the Minister for the Interior. However, the appellant adds that it does not use the case as a procedural objection, as it assumes that it is more relevant whether and to what extent the arguments set out in the observations are relevant, but draws attention to it as it falls within the overall context of procedural errors.
84. As regards the alleged involvement of the Government in the preparation of a comprehensive amendment, the appellant states that it would be strange if the executive were not at all interested in the parliamentary bill which relates directly to it and if it did not use its experts to help Members with legislative drafting. Neither the officials nor the members of the government represent the government as defined by it and the way in which it is dealt with by the Constitution. From this point of view, the argument put forward in the Government's observations, expressed as the views and activities of the Government, is misleading.
The procedure for the adoption of the contested law
85. In its reply, the appellant insists that the procedure under which the contested law was adopted is contrary to the fundamental principles of the legislative process enshrined in the Constitution. In the present case, there was a situation where the existing law was replaced by a conceptually completely new legal regulation, with this new regulation being submitted in the form of a so-called comprehensive amendment only in the second reading of the draft law. Thus, the standard legislative procedure was not followed, when the draft law of such a fundamental nature as the Civil Service Act, i.e. the basic code of service of civil servants, is presented as a government bill and is therefore accompanied by a explanatory memorandum, is subject to comment, is discussed by the Government and its legislative bodies, all of which before Parliament accedes to the draft law. However, the contested law was discussed on the basis of a parliamentary bill, on which the government initially adopted a negative opinion, in which it pointed out, inter alia, the conflict of the draft with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. It was only during the re-reading of the draft law that a comprehensive amendment was tabled, in which the contested law was subsequently approved. In view of these considerations, the appellant is thus convinced that the proper legislative procedure guaranteed by the Constitution and the relevant subsequent legislation has been infringed in the present case, which has also led, inter alia, to the shortcomings of the law referred to by the appellant in its proposal. Their occurrence can be attributed precisely to the absence of, for example, a comment procedure.
86. The appellant does not agree with the view of the Government that the Government has submitted its opinion on the draft Civil Service Act and has participated in the drafting of the draft. The fact is that the Government which, pursuant to Article 76 (1) of the Constitution, decides in the College has not, within the meaning of Article 44 (1) of the Constitution, expressed its views on the first or second, final, comprehensive amendment. If the Government refers in its observations to a number of materials which it discussed, then, apart from those which relate indirectly to future legislation, only the material discussed at the meeting of the Government on 5 March 2014, which had an informative nature, contained a substantive overview of the comprehensive amendment to the House of Press 71 and, however, concerned the first comprehensive amendment, which was still envisaged by the Directorate-General for the Civil Service, the material discussed by the Government at its meeting on 5 May 2014, and which contained a timetable for the implementation of the amendment to the Staff Act, in which the Government had included a mandate for the Council Minister of Interior and Social Services, and a political expert group composed of representatives of coalition parties, legislators and civil servants, or material which the Government had been discussed at its meeting on 27 August 2014, which it contained a mandate for the Minister of State Service. The share of officials of selected departments in the preparation of the parliamentary bill cannot undoubtedly be mixed up with the constitutional right of the government to comment on a draft law which is not submitted by the government; officials are not the government.
87. The materials referred to by the Government in its observations are thus clearly not to be understood in the sense of the Government's observations under Article 44 (1) of the Constitution. However, this institute (that is to say, an expression within the meaning of Article 44 (1) of the Constitution) is of fundamental importance in the legislative process, as it is one of the preconditions for proper consideration and consideration of the draft law by Parliament. The right of the Government to comment on the draft law also corresponds to the right of other parties to the legislative process to know the view of the Government on the draft law under consideration. Together with the explanatory memorandum, the Government's expression within the meaning of Article 44 (1) of the Constitution thus contributes to the proper examination of the draft law, which confronts various aspects of opinion and where Members and Senators vote on the basis of such a confrontation with the awareness of the views of all parties. This is aimed at maintaining openness, the public and the control of the legislative process, which is an essential part of the democratic principles on which the democratic rule of law is based. In the present case, however, the Government's observations, as well as the relevant explanatory memorandum, are not absent.
88. As regards the Government's argument concerning the absence of a reasoned report, the appellants consider that they are misleading. The government-mentioned explanatory memorandum was probably not submitted to Members in the form of the House Press for the first comprehensive amendment, it was placed on a website where it is no longer available and it was not submitted at all to the second comprehensive amendment. There is no doubt that the absence of a reasoned report on a comprehensive amendment does not in itself lead to the inconstitutionality of the law, but this issue must be assessed in a broader context, as the appellant has already said.
89. In its reply, the appellant further notes that the vast majority of the findings of the Constitutional Court referred to by the Government do not concern the problem in question, and the rest of the findings of the Constitutional Court do not in any way contradict the conclusions of the findings of the Constitutional Court referred to in the proposal of the President of the Republic, which clearly and unambiguously define the difference between the application of the legislative initiative in the form of a draft law and an amendment. On the basis of these proposed findings, it can be concluded that the second comprehensive amendment exceeded the original proposal when it amended a completely new concept of the Civil Service Act and thus exceeded the scope and content of the original draft law. Thus, the comprehensive amendment in question did not fulfil the emblem of the amendment, since it did not show an accesority character in relation to the original draft law, but it did, on the contrary, deviate significantly from it or replace it fully. The Government's conclusion that the so-called "close relationship 'rule has been implemented in the present case must therefore be rejected in the light of the above and, on the contrary, that the comprehensive amendment in question constitutes a new legislative initiative. By approving the bill as amended by the second comprehensive amendment, it was thus to circumvent the Institute of Legislative Initiative and to violate the division of power as one of the principles of democratic rule of law. To consider that, in drawing up a comprehensive amendment in the form of amendment points to the original amendment to Act No. 218 / 2002 Coll., when the text of Act No. 218 / 2002 Coll., which would be identical to the text of the Civil Service Act and would thus achieve constitutional conformity, the appellant notes for completeness that this consideration is clearly contrary to § 63 (1) (5) (a) of the Act on the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, which allows to amend only some of its parts of the original proposal.
90. In order to express the Government that, if the Constitutional Court abolishes the Civil Service Act, the Government submits the same legislation, the appellant does not take the view and leaves the opinion of the Constitutional Court entirely to the Constitutional Court.
91. The explanatory memorandum, the Government's position on the bill and the first reading are in themselves only partial phenomena of the legislative process. The whole legislative process is linked to rules that are formal but not self-effective; their purpose is to act to create a quality legal order of a democratic rule of law. There is a real risk that if it is admitted that the official negotiation of an entirely new draft comprehensive law can only begin at the level of second reading, as was the case here, it may have negative and unforeseeable consequences for the whole rule of law.
92. The appellant's reference to the full applicability of the law as from 1 July 2015 then, in a reply, the appellant disseminates in such a way that it was based on the findings of the Constitutional Court that it was not always necessary to repeal the law, otherwise accepted for non-compliance with all procedural procedures if this were to undermine citizens' legitimate trust in law. Such a situation could arise if tens of thousands of employees start applying for admission after 1 July 2015 and are to be admitted to service by the end of 2015.
The subarrangements for the employment relationship of so-called other employees in administrative offices
93. The appellant reiterates the reservation against the relationship between the Civil Service Act and the Labour Code, with the fact that the Civil Service Act establishes a two-way relationship with the Labour Code, in a way that puts workers in a position that is not properly linked to the rule of law and thus creates a lack of clarity of legislation. In administrative or service offices, the employees to whom the Labour Code applies will be employed in addition to civil servants. However, the Civil Service Act also provides for them, but without any link to the Labour Code.
94. The appellant mentions several examples of inconsistency between the two regulations. In relation to Paragraph 178 of the Civil Service Act, according to which a service body may, in certain circumstances, fill a fixed-term employment post under employment law, the appellant contests the establishment of an inequality between civil servants and employees. On the one hand, in order to carry out the same work, civil servants, unlike employees, had to fulfil certain conditions and, on the other hand, in the sense that, with the exception of the salary, employees would find themselves in an unequal legal position with civil servants engaged in the same work in a service relationship.
95. The laws referred to in the Government's opinion all explicitly or silently foresee the subsidiary application of the Labour Code without amending it directly. These are laws which, inter alia, regulate the conditions and manner in which certain specialised activities are carried out and which, in the rest, are covered by the Labour Code and can be compared to that part of the Civil Service Act concerning civil servants. However, none of the laws to which the Government refers solves the employment relationships of other employees, as the Civil Service Act otherwise does, although undoubtedly these other employees, other than those engaged in the statutory specialised activity, are both for the local authorities, for the school legal entities, for the courts, for the prosecutors and for the Probation and Mediation Services; from this point of view, the argument of the Government is wrong with that of the appellant.
96. As regards the Government's disagreement with the appellant's assertion that labour relations can only be regulated by the Labour Code with subsidiarity of the Civil Code, the appellant reiterates Article 4 of the Labour Code, the provision of which reads: "Labour relations are governed by this law; if it is not possible to apply this law, it shall be governed by the Civil Code, always in accordance with the fundamental principles of employment relations. 'In addition, the appellant adds that the purpose of the laws referred to by the Government in the opinion is to adjust, in the public interest, the assumptions for the exercise of certain activities, or the functions and manner in which those activities and functions are carried out, the labour legislation contained in the Labour Code to those laws, with derogations which are provided for in them in accordance with their purpose, is a continuous follow-up. However, this does not apply in the appellant's view to the relationship between the legislation on employees in the Civil Service Act and the Labour Code.
Authorisation for a government regulation setting out the fields of services
97. The appellant for the argument of the Government that the alleged unconstitutionality could only apply to the Government's regulation, not to the law itself, states that it is not rational to wait for the Government's order to be annulled by the Constitutional Court for its inconstitutionality and, at the same time, to revoke the mandate to issue it.
98. The argument of the Government that the legal framework for the issuing of a government regulation pursuant to § 5 (2) of the Civil Service Act can be inferred from § 1 (1) (a) in conjunction with § 5 (1) of the Act cited appears to be useful. The Institute of Services is to be essential for the definition of civil servants within the meaning of the Civil Service Act and for their distinction from other employees in administrative offices, but the law does not define this concept, at least through its essential characteristics to be reported. These basic conceptual characteristics, within the meaning of the above, which would constitute the legal limits for a government regulation issued pursuant to § 5 (2) of the Act cited, and therefore the basis for the systematic organisation of the administration, which is multifaceted, consisting of a large number of different types of activities, cannot be seen in the provision of § 5 (1) of that Act. The appellant therefore considers that, by laying down the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Civil Service Act, the delegation of an amendment to a matter to be regulated by the law has been made to a power of executive power, thereby resigning the legislator's legislative obligation, thereby undermining the principle of division of power. As a result of this procedure, there is also a risk of a subjective approach which can be exposed to various influences.
In order to authorise the Government to establish a range of obstacles in the service
99. In the view of the appellant, the argument of the Government by reference to similar arrangements contained in Paragraph 199 (2) of the Labour Code is misleading. The authority for the Government to determine the range of obstacles referred to in § 199 (2) of the Labour Code follows at least Article 199 (1), while the authority in § 104 (3) of the Civil Service Act does not follow anything and does not contain any legal limits. This is not to say that Paragraph 199 (2) of the Labour Code is constitutionally completely conformal. The criterion of the meaning and purpose of the law in the present case appears to be unusable.
For determining the grade of the service body for an activity not listed in the catalogue of administrative activities
100. According to the appellant, it is clear from the Government's observations that if a post not covered by the relevant government regulation is needed by a catalogue of administrative activities, the Government's regulation must be amended. Thus, a solution is offered to speed up the legislative process in such cases, before dealing with this matter for a transitional period outside government regulations by a procedure which is contrary to the fundamental principles of the rule of law. The actual application of procedural rules in those situations the government refers to will not eliminate legal uncertainty in the procedure outside the government's regulations; procedural rules cannot replace the lack of substantive regulation.
The requirement to respect the democratic principles of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic for admission to service
101. The appellant states that this is not a matter of the loyalty of civil servants, as could result from the Government's observations, but of the totally inappropriate rewording of Paragraph 30 (1) of the last original Staff Act ("No one can be appointed to service... by a person... who cannot be proven to comply with democratic principles..."). Paragraph 22 of the Civil Service Act reads: "Only a person who can be expected to respect democratic principles in service may be admitted to service... '.
102. The original law of service required a "conclusive assumption" that a person would not respect the democratic principles of constitutional order and perform the service properly. By deleting the fact that Article 22 of the Civil Service Act omitted the evidence and, moreover, changed the negative wording of the sentence by replacing the word "cannot" to the positive wording, it has significantly relativised the content of the whole provision. According to the current wording of the provision cited, the fulfilment of the basic condition for admission to service is, in fact, left to the discretion of the responsible person or authority, in no way defining the principles or limits to which such consideration should be governed. The procedural rules referred to by the Government in its observations cannot be understood as the material definition of the framework in which it is possible to move when assessing the fulfilment of that precondition and cannot be replaced by that material framework. The fulfilment of the condition in question is left to subjective and unlimited presumption, which, according to the appellant, is contrary to the fundamental principles of the rule of law, in particular the principle of legal certainty and the predictability of administrative decisions, since, as the appellant has also pointed out, it creates a margin for choice in decisions which may infringe the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens of the Czech Republic, in particular the right to equal treatment or a constitutionally established prohibition of discrimination, since that provision may become a tool for manipulating the results of the selection procedure for the vacancy.
To approve the systemisation of certain service offices
103. The appellant submits that the expression of the government in which the legislation is advocated, on the basis of which seven out of the 13 so-called other central government bodies will effectively have veto over the government in terms of systemisation and the volume of salary funds, raises doubts in a number of directions. The government also includes the Czech Statistical Office, or the so-called regulators confused with the supervisory authorities, which gives the impression that only these seven authorities must have the space and conditions to act objectively and impartially, and fails to see that, ultimately, the systemisation and volume of salary funds in individual chapters is not a matter for the government, but for the House of Deputies, which approves the state budget in a detailed structure, and that they are subordinate to the government and the government is responsible for them. According to the appellant, it lacks logic, and it sounds strange to the government that the government might threaten their activities through the budget.
104. It is not known that any of these authorities would be threatened in their activities, which must be governed by laws. If, in the future, this should be otherwise, the matter can be dealt with by other legal instruments than the fourth sentence of Paragraph 17 (3) of the Civil Service Act.
In order to determine other cases in which a person may be admitted to temporary employment
105. In its reply, the appellant states that his claim in the proposal that the concept of "specific nature of the service" was indeterminate was incorporated into the proposal in the event that the participant argued that the limits for government regulations were set by that term. Otherwise, the provisions of Section 21 of the Civil Service Act are, according to the appellant, entirely contrary to Article 78 of the Constitution.
Abandonment of oral proceedings
106. The Constitutional Court did not expect further clarification of the case from the oral hearing, therefore it waived the first sentence of Paragraph 44 of the Constitutional Court Act.
Formal preconditions for discussion of the proposal and the constitutionality of the procedure for the adoption of the contested law
107. The application was submitted by an authorised authority [§ 64 (1) (a) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court] and fulfils all formal requirements.
108. At the outset, the Constitutional Court considers it necessary to address the appellants' doubts contained in the reply as to whether the Government's position is indeed the Government's position, or merely "the personal opinion of the Minister for Human Rights, Equal Opportunities and Legislation, if necessary in cooperation with the Minister for the Interior '. At its meeting held on 8 December 2014, the Government discussed the material entitled" The Statement of the Government of the Czech Republic on the proposal of the President of the Republic to repeal Act No. 234 / 2014 Coll., on the Civil Service, or its individual provisions, under the Pl. ÚS 21 / 14, "and adopted a resolution to the Constitutional Court approving, inter alia, the Government's accession to that proceedings, requiring the Minister for Human Rights, Equal Opportunities and Legislation to draw up, in cooperation with the Minister of the Interior, the Government's opinion on the proposal by the President of the Republic and to send this statement to the Constitutional Court. In this respect, the Constitutional Court respects the autonomy of the Government and the manner in which it processes its opinion in relation to a specific procedure before the Constitutional Court. In contrast to the situation mentioned in the decision of the Chamber of Deputies, Púl ÚS 24 / 07, which the President of the Chamber of Deputies Jan Hamáček points out in his observations, according to which the President of the Chamber of Deputies cannot, without further ado, constitute the will of the Chamber of Commerce for the purposes of the observations to the Constitutional Court, the power of a particular Minister to process the Government's observations was based by a one-off mandate by the Government, i.e. by a resolution of the Government in relation to a specific pending proceedings before the Constitutional Court. If the Government did not reserve the right of the final approval of that opinion when delegating a specific Minister, it was an autonomous political decision that the Constitutional Court respected.
109. In the legal review procedure, the Constitutional Court always examines, within the meaning of Section 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., whether the contested regulation was adopted within the limits of the Constitution established competence and in a constitutional manner. In the first part of the petition, the appellant proposes the annulment of the contested law as a whole because of the alleged unconstitutional way of adopting the law.
Progress of the legislative process
110. The Constitutional Court, on the basis of publicly available press releases from the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, as well as the stenorecords of their actions (all available at www.pspp.cz, www.senat.cz), found the following:
111. On 23 December 2013, a proposal was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies by Members of Roman Glass, Jerome Tejka and others for the issue of the Act amending Act No. 218 / 2002 Coll., on the Service of Government Employees in Administrative Offices and on the Remuneration of These Employees and Other Employees in Administrative Offices (Service Act), containing 104 amendments. The proposal has been circulated to Members as Parliament Press 71. In its opinion, the Government disagreed with the draft law (press 71 / 1). The President of the Chamber of Deputies has appointed Mr Jan Chivík as rapporteur.
112. The Chamber of Deputies, on 22 January 2014, at its 5th session, ordered at first reading the draft law to be discussed by the Constitutional Legal Committee and the Committee on Public Administration and Regional Development and extended the deadline for the committee proposal by 30 days (i.e. to 90 days).
113. On 27 June 2014, the Constitutional Legal Committee adopted Resolution No 52 recommending the Chamber of Deputies to approve the proposal as amended by the Comprehensive Amendment to the Constitutional Law Committee (Press 71 / 8). At its meeting on 27 June 2014, the Committee on Public Administration and Regional Development did not adopt a resolution.
114. The second reading took place on 16 July 2014 at the 12th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies. 18 Members have spoken in a detailed debate with their amendments, with amendments being tabled to a comprehensive amendment of a constitutional legal committee (all amendments included in press 71 / 9). At the end of the third reading on 27 August 2014, the Chamber of Deputies decided to repeat the second reading (vote 107, resolution 393).
115. The draft law was renegotiated by the Constitutional Legal Committee and adopted a resolution on 27 August 2014 (Press 71 / 11) in which, inter alia:
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No. 199 / 2015 Coll., on the application for annulment of Act No. 234 / 2014 Coll., on the Civil Service, or its individual provisions |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 14.08.2015 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0