The Constitutional Court found No 219 / 2014 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 9 September 2014 sp. zn.
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
20.10.2014
219
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
On 9 September 2014, the Constitutional Court decided under sp. zn.
as follows:
I. Paragraph 140 (4) (f) of Act No. 435 / 2004 Coll., on Employment, as amended by Act No. 367 / 2011 Coll. and Act No. 1 / 2012 Coll., in the words "at least CZK 250 000," namely before its amendment by Act No. 136 / 2014 Coll., is contrary to Articles 1, 4 (4), 11 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
II. Paragraph 140 (4) (f) of Act No. 435 / 2004 Coll., on Employment, as amended by Act No. 367 / 2011 Coll. and Act No. 1 / 2012 Coll., in words, "but at least CZK 250 000" is deleted from the date of publication of the finding in the Collection of Laws.
Reasons
1. The Municipal Court in Prague, with a proposal of 4 November 2013, received by the Constitutional Court on 7 November 2013, pursuant to Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic and Article 64 (3) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, ("the Law on the Constitutional Court") requested the annulment of part of the provisions of § 140 (4) (f) of Act No. 435 / 2004 Coll., on Employment, as amended, as amended, and Act No. 367 / 2011 Coll.
2. As regards the facts of the case, the appellant stated that, under the contested provision, a fine of CZK 300 000 for KUBE-PLUS, v. o. was imposed on the Regional Labour Inspectorate for the South Moravian Region and Zlinsky Region of 27 February 2013 under Section 10 (Note: correctly § 140) (1) (c) of the Employment Act, which the company should have committed by allowing the performance of the illegal work, since on 19 September 2012 it allowed two Ukrainian nationals to perform ancillary construction work on the basis of a written contract of employment, but contrary to the authorisation granted, namely the place of employment mentioned in that permit.
3. KUBE-PLUS, v. o., lodged an appeal against this decision, which was decided by decision of the State Office of Labour Inspection of 1 July 2013 No 1728 / 1.30 / 13 / 14.3, so that the appeal was rejected and the primordial decision was confirmed. KUBE-PLUS, v. o. s., brought an action against this decision before the Municipal Court in Prague on 5 September 2013. The proceedings for this action are pending in this court under sp. zn. 10 Ad 20 / 2013, but the court concluded that the legal provision in question was contrary to the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and therefore suspended the procedure and submitted this application to the Constitutional Court for annulment.
4. Paragraph 140 (4) (f) of the Employment Act, as amended by Act No. 367 / 2011 Coll. and Act No. 1 / 2012 Coll., under which a fine was imposed in the present case, reads as follows:
"A fine of up to CZK 10 000 000 shall be imposed for an administrative offence, if it is an administrative offence under paragraph 1 (c) and (e), but at least CZK 250 000. '
5. In the preamble, the appellant stated in particular that the text had become part of the law on employment, following the amendment of the Employment Act by Act No. 367 / 2011 Coll., with the contested text entering the legislative process on the basis of an amendment in the Chamber of Deputies. Consequently, the explanatory memorandum to Act No. 367 / 2011 Coll. does not speak of the reasons for introducing the lower limit of the fine. However, since the introduction of the lower limit was also linked to an increase in the upper limit for the imposition of a fine, the appellant considers that the reason for the introduction of the lower limit of the fine was the legislator's conviction of the inadequacy of the sanctions imposed so far.
6. The Municipal Court in Prague in the preliminary assessment of the case was based on the conclusions expressed in the finding of the Constitutional Court of 13. 8. 2002 in the case sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 3 / 02 (N 105 / 27 SbNU 177; 405 / 2002 Coll.) on the application of the Regional Court in Hradec Králové to abolish the words "from 500 000 CZK" in § 106 (3) of Act No. 50 / 1976 Coll., on zoning and construction (construction law), as amended.
7. The Constitutional Court stated in the cited finding that the imposition of a minimum fine in law essentially pursues a legitimate objective, since in a far more clear way than would be the case only when setting the upper limit of the rate, it makes it possible to distinguish the seriousness or danger of those types of infringements. However, the further impact of this step is that it limits the scope for the administrative discretion of the competent authorities, which has its positive consequences, for example, by unifying, to some extent, the amount of penalties imposed, or by limiting, the scope for arbitrary or corrupt actions affected by administrative action. It may thus appear to be a means of protecting against possible discrimination, but on the other hand, the gravity of the infringement is more or less flat-rate, leading to a restriction on the possibility of an administrative authority to take into account the specific circumstances of the case, the person responsible for the offence and its circumstances.
8. The Constitutional Court therefore concludes that, under certain circumstances, the fine may constitute an intervention, in particular, in the fundamental law referred to in Article 11 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The fine may be regarded as an intervention with a constitutional legal dimension if it interferes with the property situation of an individual with considerable intensity. The Constitutional Court therefore assessed the purpose of the intervention in relation to the resources used, the proportionality principle being the criterion for this assessment. The degree of repression posed by the increase in the upper limit of the penalty may meet the intended objective and, in view of the sufficient scope to take into account the circumstances of a particular case, also allows compliance with the proportionality of the intervention. The determination and increase of the lower limit of the penalty minimising this area does not naturally always allow an appropriate intervention to be applied, since it may have, in relation to entities to which a penalty is imposed, sometimes the character of liquidation [see also the finding of the Constitutional Court sp. zn.
9. Also in this case, the lower limit of the fine for another administrative offence is set at CZK 250,000. In the case which is the subject of an examination in proceedings before the Municipal Court in Prague under sp. zn. 10 Ad 20 / 2013, the fine was not imposed directly at the very lower limit of the legal margin, but at the amount of CZK 300 000, the law allows the fine to be imposed up to CZK 10 million, and therefore it is still a fine practically just above the minimum limit of the legal rate margin. It follows from the reasoning of the decision of the administrative authorities of the two stages that the specific amount of the fine was determined in the light of the scope of the legal margin and the buyer. The State Labour Inspection Office explicitly pointed out that "the degree of type-gravity of the infringement in question is expressed by the legislator by means of the amount of the fine within which the administrative offence can be penalised '.
10. According to the appellant, it follows from the description of an act in which the administrative authorities see an administrative offence that there is no case of conduct showing a high degree of social hazard within this type of administrative offences, rather the contrary. The administrative offence was to take place in such a way that two employees worked outside the place indicated in their employment permit during one calendar day. The appellant stated that he does not want to anticipate now whether the assessment of this conduct as an administrative offence was indeed correct, but it is clear that, even if that were the case, it would be a relatively small degree of social hazard: it was only two employees, only one day and it was foreigners who had a valid employment permit, "only" with another place of work; the work was carried out on the basis of a duly concluded employment contract.
11. For comparison, the appellant pointed out two other cases of administrative misconduct involving the possibility of carrying out illegal work, which he met in his decision-making practice: a case where the illegal work was allowed in total 197 foreigners who worked completely without permission, in addition to the work contract, the administrative offence took place for 11 months and was a fully intentional, planned and systematic infringement of the legislation for which a fine of CZK 1.5 million was imposed. According to the appellant, it is possible to imagine that such cases could motivate the legislator to tighten the penalties for allowing illegal work to be carried out. However, the same legal provisions also include cases which are significantly less serious and may not only be illegal employment of foreigners which significantly disturb the labour market, but rather cases which have the nature of administrative negligence on the part of the employer. This is also the second example of a decision-making practice: the case of a cooperative who committed an administrative offence comparable to the present case - the work was also in contravention of the employment permit issued, the contradiction being a different place of work, and illegal work took place in two calendar days for one stranger. In the absence of the lower limit of the fine in the then effective version of the Employment Act, a fine of CZK 50 000 was imposed for this administrative offence.
12. The appellant therefore concludes that the amount of the penalty in the present case does not reflect the actual level of social hazard of the present administrative offence. Indeed, for a company with only 12 employees, the payment of several hundred thousand sanctions may constitute significant existential problems unless such a fine is directly liquidation, which also illustrates the fact that the capital of the disabled is only 70 000 CZK in the present case. While the administrative court is entitled to reduce the amount of the fine imposed for the administrative offence (if the applicant so suggests in the course of the proceedings), it is also bound by the lower limit laid down by the legislator. In view of the impact on the plaintiffs, the court is convinced that even the reduction of the fine imposed to the amount of CZK 250,000, i.e. to the minimum laid down by law, will still constitute a very sensitive penalty for the plaintiffs, approaching or reaching the liquidation level, and due to the social hazard of their actions and penalties disproportionate.
13. In view of the above, the appellant - Municipal Court in Prague is convinced that Article 140 (4) (f) of Act No. 435 / 2004 Coll., on Employment, as amended by Act No. 367 / 2011 Coll. and Act No. 1 / 2012 Coll., in its contested part, is contrary to Articles 11 (1) and 4 (4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. It therefore proposed that the Constitutional Court repeal this provision.
14. In the observations of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, following the recap of the proposal for the annulment of part of the legal provision in question, it is stated that the government bill, which was declared in the Collection of Laws under No. 367 / 2011 Coll., was distributed to Members as a press release 373 on 27 May 2011. As regards the provision on the amount of the penalty for the administrative offence referred to in Section 140 (1) (c) of the Employment Act, it has left it in the present version, i.e. without setting the lower limit of the penalty and at a level other than that which was later approved by the Chamber of Deputies.
15. The first reading of Press 373 took place on 8 June 2011, the press was ordered to the Committee on Social Policy, which adopted a resolution on 30 August 2011, which recommended that the Chamber of Deputies approve the draft law as amended by it. Among these amendments was also the proposal for a new text of Paragraph 140 (4) (f).
16. Press 373 had a general and detailed debate at second reading on 1 September 2011. Several amendments were tabled in a detailed debate, but none of them touched on the contested provision. The motion to reject the bill was made by Members Dana Váhal and Marta Semel. At the third reading on 9 September 2011, the motion to reject the bill was not accepted by the Chamber of Deputies. The amendments to the Social Policy Committee, which included a proposal for a new text of Paragraph 140 (4) (f), voted in favour of 143 Members, 30 against, and the proposals were adopted. In the final vote on the draft law, as amended by the amendments adopted, 143 Members 84 voted in favour, 58 against.
17. The Chamber of Deputies passed on 19 September 2011 a draft Senate law, which was discussed and rejected on 13 October 2011. The Chamber of Deputies renegotiated the proposal rejected by the Senate on 3 and 6 November 2011, when it insisted on its original bill when 108 in favour and 69 against voted out of 179 Members. The President of the Republic signed the Act on 22 November 2011 and the Approved Act was published in the Collection of Laws on 6 December 2011.
18. The expression of the Chamber of Deputies is concluded by stating that the bill was adopted after a properly implemented legislative process and it is up to the Constitutional Court to assess its constitutionality and to give its decision in connection with the proposal submitted by the Municipal Court in Prague.
19. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic did not comment on the proposal.
20. Another proposal, this time on 27. 11. 2013, delivered to the Constitutional Court on 12. 12. 2013, the Regional Court in Hradec Králové requested the annulment of the identical provision. Under the Law on the Constitutional Court, an application to initiate proceedings is inadmissible if the Constitutional Court is already acting on the same issue; where it has been submitted by an authorised applicant, he shall have the right to participate as an intervener in the hearing of the earlier application. The Constitutional Court therefore rejected this proposal by means of resolution sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 58 / 13 of 15.4.2014 (available at http: / / nalus.ujud.cz).
21. Since the appellant of the Regional Court in Hradec Králové has, in accordance with the provision of § 35 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, the right to take part in the application proceedings in the case sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 52 / 13 as an intervener, the Constitutional Court took into account the relevant part of his constitutional argument: the subject of the proceedings before the Regional Court in Hradec Králové under sp. zn. 30 Ad 15 / 2012 was an action against the administrative decision pursuant to § 65 et seq. The applicant, acting as a natural person, sought judicial review of the decision of the State Labour Inspection Office, based in Opava, which rejected its appeal and confirmed the decision of the Regional Labour Inspectorate for the Králové Hradec Region and Pardubice Region, based in Hradec Králové. By this decision, the administrative authority of the first instance recognised the claimant guilty of committing administrative misconduct on the employment section under the provisions of Section 140 (1) (c) of the Employment Act and imposed a fine of CZK 250 000 under Section 140 (4) (f) of the same law. The applicant opposed, inter alia, the amount of the fine and stated that it was not in its capacity to pay the fine and that this would mean the immediate cessation of all its business. In support of his claim, he added, inter alia, photocopies of personal income tax returns for 2010 and 2011.
22. It follows from the above decisions that, in the administrative procedure in which the decisions were issued, the two administrative bodies acted under the Employment Act as amended by Act No. 367 / 2011 Coll., which amended the existing fines in the area of illegal labour punishment with effect from 1 January 2012, with a penalty of CZK 250 000 in the performance of illegal work under § 140 (1) (c) and (e) of the Employment Act.
23. The Regional Court in Hradec Králové considers that part of the provision of Paragraph 140 (4) (f) of the Employment Act (namely the part at the end of that provision that reads: "at least CZK 250,000") is contrary to the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, in particular Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, since it does not respect the principle that the imposition of a fine, even at a minimum, should not be liquidation for a delinquent. This is an intervention in the property rights of an individual, which, because of its intensity, constitutes an infringement of that Article and, at the same time, constitutes an infringement of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, as it causes fundamental inequality between social actors. According to the above legislation, an administrative authority cannot impose a fine of less than CZK 250,000 on the employment section under Paragraph 140 (1) (c) or (e) of the Employment Act and in any way take into account at least the property and personal circumstances of the offender.
24. The Regional Court also referred to the established case-law of the Constitutional Court concerning the prohibition of winding-up fines, namely the finding of 13.8.2002 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 3 / 02 and the finding of 9.3.2004 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 38 / 02, and pointed out that the above-mentioned plenary findings are also followed by the Senate case-law of the Constitutional Court [e.g. the finding of 13.12.2004 sp. zn. I ÚS 416 / 04 (N 190 / 35 SbNU 485)], which confirms the view that, from a constitutional point of view, it is necessary to avoid undue fines.
25. The Regional Court therefore concluded that the penalties must be proportionate not only to the objective and subjective aspect of another administrative offence (the gravity of the administrative offence, the manner in which it was committed, its consequences and the circumstances in which it was committed), but also to the person of the offender and his circumstances. In doing so, setting a lower fine rate by the legislator limits the administrative discretion of the competent authority, which may, as a result, constitute an obstacle to taking into account not only the actual gravity of the particular infringement but also the economic situation of the offender. In the light of the case-law cited by the Constitutional Court, it must be concluded that the administrative authority will commit unconstitutional interference in the property law of the delinquent if it imposes a fine on him, as this will undermine the very nature of his property. Therefore, when determining the amount of the fine, the administrative authorities must always take into account the personal and property ratios of the offender in order to avoid imposing a liquidation fine, i.e. a fine which would be capable of insolvent him or of forcing him or her to cease his or her business activity, or the situation that, as a result of such a fine, would essentially become the sole purpose of his or her business for a long period of time of repaying the fine at real risk that he or she, or her family (if it is an undertaking natural person), would be in difficulty on the basis of that fine. However, in order to be able to fulfil its obligations and not impose such a liquidation fine, the administrative authority must be able to assess the property ratios of the offender. In the light of the above, the Regional Court has proposed to abolish that section of the Employment Act.
26. The Constitutional Court, in accordance with the provision of § 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., first dealt with the question whether the law in respect of which the illegality of its provisions is objected was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution of the Czech Republic by a specified competence and by a constitutionally prescribed manner. As the Constitutional Court verified from the relevant parliamentary press, from the data on the voting process and from the observations of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, it has thus become assumed, constitutionally consistent.
27. In the course of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, Act No. 136 / 2014 Coll., amending Act No. 435 / 2004 Coll., on Employment, as amended, Act No. 582 / 1991 Coll., on the Organisation and Implementation of Social Security, as amended, and Act No. 251 / 2005 Coll., on Labour Inspection, as amended. Article 2 Part of the first law was amended with effect from 1 January 2015, by replacing the amount of CZK 250,000 (closer to sub 36).
28. The reason for the report on this point is: "On the basis of the checks carried out and administrative procedures subsequently carried out, it can be concluded that the current minimum amount of the fine (CZK 250,000) exceeds, in a number of cases, the preventive function including the aspect of deterrence from illegal employment. Thus, the minimum amount of the fine in these cases becomes de facto liquidation and goes beyond the legislator's intention. In order to maintain the objective of pursuing preventive but also deterrent effects, it appears useful to amend the minimum penalty level set. In addition to the above-mentioned objectives, setting a new threshold for minimum sanctions is intended to ensure that illegal employment cannot be paid to employers. These aspects meet minimum limits of about CZK 50,000. The penalties provided for in this way leave sufficient scope within the administrative discretion of the administrative procedure to determine the amount of the penalty, taking into account the specific circumstances, in particular the number of illegally employed persons up to the limit of the maximum range, i.e. CZK 10 million."
29. On 22 August 2014, the appellant responded to the situation and amended the petit of its original proposal. It stated that, since it must be based on the facts and legal situation at the time of the administrative decision (Paragraph 75 (1) of the Administrative Rules) in the review of the administrative decision, the amendment of the legal arrangements for the proceedings before it is based is not decisive. It therefore proposed, in the event that the Constitutional Court concludes that the original application cannot be accepted, that the amendment of the application be accepted and that the procedure should be continued as an application for a finding in which the contested provision was found to be contrary to Articles 11 (1) and 4 (4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms as amended before its amendment.
30. After examining the substance of the case, the Constitutional Court found that the application was justified.
31. Findings of 9.3.2004 sp. zn. The Constitutional Court rejected the motion of a group of Members to repeal Section 11 (3) of Act No. 129 / 2000 Coll., on Counties (Regional Establishment), as amended, which laid down the criteria for the amount of the fine for the administrative offence. The finding on the objection to discrimination on grounds of property stressed that it did not understand equality as absolute but as relative (and, moreover, accesoric in relation to other fundamental rights and freedoms). The concept of relative equality is closely linked to the concept of proportionality of intervention in fundamental rights. The nature of the fine as property penalties necessarily implies that, if it is to be individualised and proportionate, it must also reflect the property situation of the punished person. The same amount of the fine imposed on the owner will appear to be ridiculous and ineffective, whereas in the event of a penance on the owner, he may act draconian and liquidation. Therefore, it is not a breach of the principle of relative equality if two persons in different situations are fined at different levels, although the only difference between their situation should be precisely different property ratios. The criterion of examining the property ratios of the delinquent when considering the amount of the fine imposed is necessary and complementary - but not because high fines would be unenforceable, but because of the risk of the liquidation effect of unduly high fines. The fine as punishment must be differentiated in order to act effectively as punishment and as deterrence (individual and general prevention).
32. The Constitutional Court, therefore, in the cited finding, not only rejected the view that taking into account property ratios and projecting them into the overall amount of the fine would be discriminatory (on the contrary, it found them in accordance with the principle of relative equality), but even considered that taking into account these ratios was necessary and necessary to achieve the purpose of the penalty.
33. An even closer case to the present case is the finding of 13. 8. 2002 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 3 / 02 (which the appellant has also rightly pointed out) by which the Constitutional Court annulled part of the provision of § 106 (3) of Act No. 50 / 1976 Coll., on zoning planning and construction rules (construction law), as amended by Act No. 83 / 1998 Coll., which set the lower limit of the fine for another administrative offence under the building law of CZK 500,000. In that case, it was examined whether the solution adopted by the legislator was a legitimate interference with fundamental rights, namely the right to own property. It was found that not every withdrawal of assets on the basis of a fine or fees and taxes, as the case may be, constituted an intervention in property rights, but only one which fundamentally changes the property relationship of the entity concerned by changing its overall ownership position by "destroying the substance of the property '. In the case of entrepreneurs, the Constitutional Court ruled out the intervention that would" destroy the property base for further business activities. "
34. Therefore, according to that finding, fines which are of a liquidation nature are not allowed, which means cases in which the fine exceeds the potential revenues from the business so much that the business activity becomes essentially pointless (i.e. only intended to pay the fine imposed for a significant period of time). The risk of a liquidation fine consisting of the impact on the perpetrator's surroundings, in particular in the case of business individuals, has also been highlighted, given that their private property and property for business is not separated. In the present case, the Constitutional Court has concluded that the lower limit of the fine under consideration is contrary to Article 11 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as it "regulates the gravity of the infringement, thereby limiting the possibility for the administrative authority to take account of the specific circumstances of the case, the person delinquent and its circumstances'. The provision under assessment was also found to be contrary to Article 4 (4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and to the constitutional principle of equality in accordance with Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, consisting of a de facto unequal impact of fully identical fines on different delinquents:" In this case, although the contested provision treats all entities equally, it significantly impedes the distinction between their property situation. 'It was therefore noted that the resulting de facto social inequality is so intense that it constitutes an intervention in fundamental rights and freedoms and is therefore an inequality in the constitutional sense.
35. In the view of the Constitutional Court, it is therefore clear that the conclusions drawn from its previous findings apply mutatis mutandis to the case currently under examination. Since it is superfluous to repeat the same in a slightly different way, the Constitutional Court refers to its conclusions already made and summarises that the legislation adopted, which, as has been explained above, has already been amended, but is still in force, prevents the proper individualisation of a particular case, since the lower limit of the fine is set at such a level that it limits the decisive administrative authorities to take into account the specific circumstances of the various cases, as well as the persons of the offenders and their property ratios. In some cases, it can intervene with considerable intensity in these property regimes, and this is therefore the manifestly disproportionate level of the lower limit of the fine which reaches the constitutional dimension. These are also illustrated by the specific cases described above (the applicant and intervener), although the Constitutional Court assesses the issue in the application for annulment of the law or its individual provision in an abstract and not specifically; it will then be the task of the general courts. It is clear from this that the decisions of the administrative authorities could not be fair and therefore not constitutional as a result of the legislation under assessment in a non-negligible number of cases.
36. In principle, the legislature accepted these grounds when amending the contested legal provision (see the abovementioned reporting report). In this context, the Constitutional Court considers it necessary to emphasise, in the light of the principle of minimising the legislature's decision-making, that the constitutionality of the lower limit was precisely the minimum amount of the fine applicable to the decision of the appellant and intervener in the proceedings (see paragraphs 1 to 3 and 21 to 23), from which their proposal was made within the meaning of Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic. Therefore, the abstract control of the constitutionality of the provisions of Section 140 (4) (f) of the Employment Act, as effective from 1 January 2015, was not carried out, i.e. the general constitutional admissibility of the otherwise defined lower limit of the fine in question, but only the constitutionality of the lower limit of the fine of CZK 250 000. The Constitutional Court, therefore, is not entitled in this proceedings to make any statement as to whether or not at all and, if so, to what extent the lower limit of the fine should be laid down by law in the case of this administrative offence. From the enforceability of the finding to the entry into force of the above amendments to the Employment Act or other amendments to the text of Paragraph 140 (4) (f) of the Employment Act, the lower limit of the fine will not be set at all. It will then be up to the legislator to "at least at the level" of the text in the provision in question to be stylistically adapted. In view of the framework of the so-called specific control of constitutionality, which is linked to the "link 'to the decision-making activity of the appellant and the intervener, it was not possible in this proceeding to prejudge the conclusion on the determination of the specific amount of the fine by these courts (in the light of their law), whether legally by the end of 2014 or from 1 January 2015, as the assessment of the specific circumstances of the case of the imposition of a fine by the Constitutional Court in proceedings under Paragraph 64 (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court is not appropriate.
37. The Constitutional Court therefore complied with the appellant and stated that, in the words "at least CZK 250 000," the provisions of Paragraph 140 (4) (f) of Act No. 435 / 2004 Coll., on Employment, as amended by Act No. 367 / 2011 Coll. and Act No. 1 / 2012 Coll., in the words "at least CZK 250 000," are contrary to Articles 1, 4 (4), 11 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v. r.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found no 219 / 2014 Coll., on the proposal to declare the unconstitutional part of the provision § 140 paragraph 4 (f) of Act No. 435 / 2004 Coll., on Employment, as amended by Act No. 367 / 2011 Coll. and Act No. 1 / 2012 Coll. |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 20.10.2014 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0