The Constitutional Court found No. 259 / 2013 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 23 July 2013 sp. zn.
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
23.08.2013
259
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
On 23 July 2013, the Constitutional Court decided under sp. zn.
as follows:
I. Paragraph 289 (2) of Act No. 40 / 2009 Coll., the penal code, is in words "and how much is greater than small for narcotic substances, psychotropic substances, preparations containing them and poisons" is deleted from the date of the publication of this finding in the Collection of Laws.
II. At the same time, the provisions of § 2 and Annex No 2 of Government Decree No. 467 / 2009 Coll., establishing, for the purposes of the Criminal Code, what is considered to be poisons and what is the quantity greater than small for narcotic substances, psychotropic substances, preparations containing and poisons, as amended by Government Decree No. 4 / 2012 Coll., the date of publication of this finding in the Collection of Laws.
III. The proposal to abolish the remaining parts of the provision of § 289 (2) of Act No. 40 / 2009 Coll., Criminal Code, is rejected.
Reasons
Recital of the proposal
1. By a proposal submitted on 24 April 2012, the appellant seeks the annulment of the provisions of Section 289 (2) of Act No. 40 / 2009 Coll., the Criminal Code, for a conflict with Article 39 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter ').
2. In its proposal, it recap that it is prosecuting Miroslava Feisaer under sp. fr. 4 T 12 / 2012 for an offence of possession of a narcotic and psychotropic substance and I am driving under § 284 (2) of the Criminal Code. According to the prosecution, this was done by keeping four plastic bags of 3,25 g methamphetamine (so-called meth) containing the active substance 1,9 g methamphetamine-base in the vehicle in the backpack, although methamphetamine is listed as a psychotropic substance in Annex 5 to Act No. 167 / 1998 Coll., on addictive substances and amending some other laws, as amended, that is to say, improperly preserved as a psychotropic substance greater than a small other psychotropic substance than a psychotropic substance containing any tetrahydrocanabinol, an isomer or its stereochemical variant (THC). In the present case, the amount of psychotropic substance is a criterion that determines the crime. This quantity is required by the court according to the legal provision in the Decree of the Government No. 467 / 2009 Coll., establishing for the purposes of the Criminal Code what is considered to be poisons and what is the quantity greater than small for narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, preparations containing and poisons. The appellant concludes that the legal provision in question, the use of which is relevant in the criminal case in question for the decision on guilt and punishment, is contrary to constitutional order. He therefore suspended the prosecution and brought the case before the Constitutional Court.
3. The appellant is of the opinion that the rule of lower legal force than the law cannot set the limit which sets the crime. Where the penal code empowers the government, as a power-holder, to determine the limits of criminal offences under the law, such a provision of the law is contrary to the principle of nullum crimen sine lei as set out in Article 39 of the Charter. Nothing prevented the legislature from establishing a range of narcotic and psychotropic substances in Act No. 167 / 1998 Coll., on addictive substances and amending some other laws, as amended, to establish a quantity which is considered larger than small. A similar situation has already been dealt with by the legislature in the past by the legislature in determining the limit of the crime of property offences, when, inter alia, the conflict with Article 39 of the Charter was also one of the reasons for which Act No. 265 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 141 / 1961 Coll., on Criminal Procedure (Criminal Code), as amended, Act No. 140 / 1961 Coll., the Criminal Act, as amended, and certain other laws, laid down directly in the Criminal Act the amount of damage as a qualifying sign of property offences, until then laid down by Decree No. 464 / 1991 Coll. The previous legislation, which left judicial practice to determine the amount of a narcotic and psychotropic substance as the limits of crime, was, according to the appellant, more consistent with the constitutional order [Article 40 (1) of the Charter, as well as with Article 90 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution)] than the one whereby the executive authority sets that limit. The division of power resulting from constitutional order gives the legislator the competence to define the mandinels (in the form of laws) which are only entitled to interpret by the courts. Deciding on the limits of criminal conduct is not and cannot be the authority of the executive body.
Recital of observations by other parties
4. The Constitutional Court invited the other parties to comment on the application.
5. The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic commented on the proposal that the legal provision in question was approved by Act No. 40 / 2009 Coll., the Penal Code, which was discussed by the Chamber of Deputies in the 5th parliamentary term as House Press No. 410. The bill was passed at 3rd reading on 11 November 2008 (120 votes in favour of 152 Members, 23 against). The legal provision in question was part of the original government proposal and remained unchanged in the hearing, with Article 287 (2) of the original government proposal. The reason report of the Government's authorisation to issue the Government's regulation justified the needs of practice in which it was very difficult to unify the practice of law enforcement authorities (see the different tables in the binding guideline of Police President No 39 / 1998 and in the guideline of general nature of Attorney General No 6 / 2000) and the case law concerning the amount of drugs and psychotropic substances and poisons, resulting in inconsistency in criminal proceedings.
6. The Minister of Justice stated in his speech when discussing the bill at first reading in connection with the contested provision: "The new issue is also the regulation of drugs in the new penal code, where there is an attempt to find a compromise between supporters of liberal concepts and supporters of a more radical, harder approach to possession and use of drugs. I would like to say that the adjustment that is before you is, in principle, in the phase of possession of drugs merely by specifying the existing regulation. The principle is already in force today that possession of drugs on a scale greater than small is a criminal offence and is an offence in less than small. It's just not said where the line is. That is the problem, and that is what our adjustment brings. The government's regulation, which follows the penal code, is to make it clear where the level is for individual types of substance so that citizens have greater legal certainty, so that they know what is a criminal offence and what is an offence, and the law enforcement authorities also had instructions on how to proceed. So, from the point of view of possession of a drug, what is an offence and what is a crime, nothing changes from the current regulation. The division is the same, the principle, the word, the quantity greater than the small 'or, less than the small' is preserved, it is only specified by the types that are meant by this. And in the case of possession of drugs, when quantities are held greater than small, when they are a crime, they distinguish into two forms of fact, so-called soft drugs, where freedom is expected to be withdrawn for up to one year, and other drugs, where two years are counted. So this distinction here is a certain one, this is a qualitative change, but I note that this qualitative change was already contained in the proposal that was discussed two years ago and this proposal has passed in the Chamber of Deputies, so we do not come here with significant adjustments, we are more or less based on what was discussed two years ago."
7. The statement was concluded by stating that the concept that the government, by means of its regulation, should determine how much is greater than small for narcotic substances, psychotropic substances, preparations containing and poisons, has not been questioned by any of the debating Members and no amendment has been tabled in this context.
8. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic also recalled in its observations on the proposal that the legal provision in question was part of the penal code since its adoption and became valid with it on 9 February 2009 without any later amendment. The Constitutional Legal Committee recommended that the Senate approve the law as referred to by the Chamber of Deputies. The draft Penal Code (Senate Document No 11), as referred to by the Chamber of Deputies, was adopted by Resolution No 78 of 8 January 2009 at a constitutional deadline (7th term) when, in vote No 4 of the 76 senators present, 74 senators voted in favour of its approval, one and one of the senators present abstained.
9. The penal code was most positively evaluated by the Senate as a whole. Repeated in the debate on the proposal, there was concern that the return of the draft Penal Code for Partial Requirements could delay its adoption for several years, and therefore the adoption of the law is also subject to some partial reservations (but not in that direction). When discussing the draft penal code, the principle of nullum crimen sine lev was not questioned (the law sets out the character of criminal conduct - it is not enough to have a small amount of intoxicating or psychotropic substance), in the sense of excluding a judicial libel and greater legal certainty for the citizen and the principle that the judge is bound by law when making decisions ("the law"). The principle that secondary standards are only used for the implementation of the law, not to supplement it, was not questioned in the hearing (the Government implementing regulation contains only a list of more than 100 substances and their critical doses). In most cases, therefore, there has been an identification with the government's explanatory report, which highlights the importance of the provision to unify the action of law enforcement authorities and the exit from uncertainty. The negotiation of the Penal Code did not directly affect the legal authority for the Government to determine critical quantities for narcotic drugs and psychotropic doses and preparations containing them. In the debate, however, it was possible to record a speech which, in relation to "drug" offences, appreciates the specifications used (in general also quantitative statements).
10. The statement was concluded by stating that the Senate had discussed the draft penal code in question within the limits of the Constitution for the given competence and in a constitutional manner, and agreed to this draft law in a majority belief that it was in line with constitutional order and international obligations. He left it to the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of the contested legal provision.
Text of the contested provision
11. The legal provision in question reads:
"The Government of the Government shall determine what is considered to be poisons within the meaning of Sections 283, 284 and 286 and what is greater than the small amount for narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, preparations containing and poisons. '
12. This legal provision, entitled "Common provision ', is included in the first part of Title VII of the Penal Code dealing with offences of general danger. The quantification in question thus constitutes an element of the facts of the offences, the illicit manufacture and other treatment of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and poisons under Section 283 of the Criminal Code, the possession of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and the poison under Section 284 of the Criminal Code and the manufacture and possession of an article for the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and poison under Section 286 of the Criminal Code.
13. In accordance with this legal provision, the values of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and preparations containing them for the purposes of the Criminal Code are set out in Annex 2 to Government Regulation No 467 / 2009 Coll., which determines for the purposes of the Criminal Code what is considered to be poisons and what is the quantity greater than that of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, preparations containing and poisons. This Decree of the Government was amended by Government Decree No. 4 / 2012 Coll., which however did not change the values set there, but only the terminology or additions, and to complement the values for other substances.
Active ID
14. The Constitutional Court first dealt with the applicant's active legitimacy. The General Court is entitled to file an application for annulment of the law or its individual provisions, if it concludes that the law to be applied in the resolution of the case is contrary to the constitutional order (Article 95 (2) of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 64 (3) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended). In so doing, the General Court is not entitled to seek a declaration of non-compliance between the Government Regulation and the Constitutional Order (Order of 22.9.1993 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 1 / 93, U 1 / 2 SbNU 197).
15. In the case under consideration, it is not the application of the Government's regulation itself, but the application of the provisions of the law which empower the issue of a statutory act and consequently orders its application. The General Court is then under Article 95 (2) Without doubt, the Constitution is entitled to question whether the legislator is entitled to pass on to the Government what the General Court considers to be the subject of the law and what the General Court should apply in its particular case.
16. In the case under consideration, the General Court is required to rule on an indictment in which, according to the factual sentence, the possession of a psychotropic substance listed in Annex 5 to Act No 167 / 1998 Coll., on addictive substances and on the amendment of certain other laws, as amended, is in excess of the small amount. The determination of quantities greater than small for psychotropic substances is then reserved by the legislator for the government's regulation. Therefore, the General Court is actively authorised to make an application in this case. It is precisely because the general court is obliged to apply the legal provision only in relation to the legal character of quantities greater than small, that it is actively legitimate in the procedure for the control of standards only in the application for the annulment of that part of the provision in question which relates to it. In the rest, therefore, the proposal was rejected on the grounds of Article 43 (1) (c) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 77 / 1998 Coll.
Conformance of the adoption of a legal provision
17. From House Press No. 410 The Constitutional Court found that the legal provision in question was contained in the Government's draft penal code (then as Section 287 (2)), which was circulated to Members on 25 February 2008. The draft law, including the legislative provision in question, was approved at the 42nd session of the Fifth Period of the Chamber of Deputies on 11 November 2008, when 120 of the 152 Members present voted for it.
18. From print 11 it was found that the Senate received the bill on 12 December 2008. It was approved at the third meeting of the seventh term of office on 8 January 2009, with 74 out of 76 senators voting for it.
19. The President signed the bill adopted on 27 January 2009. The Act was published in 11 Collection of Laws on 9 February 2009.
20. The Constitutional Court notes, in the light of the above, that the contested legal provision was adopted as a law in a constitutional manner.
Constitutional bases
21. Standard competence through government regulations is a separate power of order under Article 78 of the Constitution. In that case, the Government shall be entitled to issue regulations implementing the law and within its limits and shall not require any special authorisation from Parliament. However, in accordance with the principles of the democratic rule of law, explicit authorisation of the government to issue regulations is also possible. In such cases, the constitutional condition is that the framework specification of such authorisation must be directly in the Act [cf. sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 19 / 93 of 21.12.1993 (N 1 / 1 SbNU 1; 14 / 1994 Coll.)]. If a government regulation is not foreseen, the law is silent (which may not mean that it cannot be implemented and within the limits of the government regulation). In any case, a government regulation cannot deviate from the legal limits - it cannot be a praeter legem - and must remain within the limits of the law which are either expressly defined or resulting from the meaning and purpose of the Act [the finding of the sp. zn. It is never entirely free to take account of the executive because it is always limited by the Constitution, international treaties and general legal principles [Found sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 17 / 95 of 25.10.1995 (N 67 / 4 SbNU 157; 271 / 1995 Coll.)].
22. If the legislator is competent to another authority, the Government is not entitled to exercise it under Article 78 of the Constitution [Found sp. zn. This is a key issue of the division of power between legislative and executive powers in the field of standardisation. Even the legislator does not create this power in the form of ordinary laws. On the contrary, the principle of division of power is consistent with the fact that the constitutional boundary of power sets limits for both executive and legislative authorities [the finding of sp. zn. It follows from the concept of a rule of law, which has its constitutional status in Article 1 of the Constitution, that neither the legislature nor the executive body can handle the forms of law, i.e. the sources of the law, in any way but must follow the aspects of the legislator, as well as the aspects of others, in particular transparency, accessibility and clarity [Sp. V. ÚS 24 / 99 of 23.5.2000 (N 73 / 18 SbNU 135; 167 / 2000 Coll.)].
23. This fundamental position is certainly nothing new in domestic constitutionalism. Already at the beginning of the construction of a democratic republic in the country, it was noted that a legislative act containing, in fact, a delegation of legislative power to the government would change the constitutional charter by adding to it an uncontained reservation that the power of the National Assembly was exercised only as long as it was not delegated to the Government (cf. the finding of the Constitutional Court of the Czechoslovak Republic no. 120 / 22-2 / 10 of 7 November 1922 in: Official Gazette of the Czechoslovak Republic 1922: 284, 5605-5608).
24. Thus, it follows that the constitutional definition of the derived standard of execution must be issued by a legitimate body, cannot interfere with the matters reserved for the law and that the legislator's will to regulate above the legal standard must therefore be opened up to the scope of the regulation. Thus, like any other statutory regulation, the Government can only specify in more detail the matter covered in the essential features already by law [cf. ÚS sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 45 / 2000 of 14.2.2001 (N 30 / 21 SbNU 261; 96 / 2001 Coll.), ÚS 3 / 95 of 11.10.1995 (N 59 / 4 SbNU 91; 265 / 1995 Sb.) etc.].
Conclusions
25. The Constitutional Court sees the difference in the expression of the principle of nullum crimen sine klim in Article 7 (1) of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"), which clearly found expression not only in the formally benevolent approach of the European Court of Human Rights on what can be regarded as a law but also in the observations of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. It obviously combines terms with law and law. Indeed, following its own legislation or absence, various legislative solutions can be traced in the area in the Council of Europe.
26. However, even if the Convention is binding, the Constitutional Court must give priority to the regulation of fundamental rights and freedoms in their domestic sense, provided that they provide a higher standard of protection. Nota bene, if this is to reflect the amendment of the Constitution itself (cf. also the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court sp. zn. 2 BvR 2236 / 04 of 18 July 2005).
27. Among the aspects of the constitutional definition of the derived standard of execution, there is also a ban on interfering in matters reserved for the law, as explained above. In the past, the Constitutional Court has explained in the context of the legislation of another area that it is not possible to allow the sphere of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms to be under the authority of an executive who is not entitled to do so [the find sp. zn. According to Article 39 of the Charter, the definition of conduct as a criminal offence is entrusted only to the law for which Parliament is competent pursuant to Articles 15, 41 (1), 45-48 of the Constitution. Mixing the terms of the law and the law mentioned above is therefore excluded under the conditions of the Czech Republic in the field of fundamental rights and freedoms.
28. It is precisely because the legislature entrusted the authority to define the facts of the offence exclusively to the law, that in other cases the possible and desirable secondary regulation of matters unforeseeable at the moment of the adoption of the law, subject to frequent changes, details of a particularly technical nature, where the legal basis may contain only the most important (cf. Opalka, V. The sources of administrative law, in: Hendrich, D. and kol. Administrative law. General section. 7th edition. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2009, p. 70). Indeed, there is no part of the legal theorists or sublegal standards among the sources of criminal law (Jelinek, J. et al. Criminal law substantive. Issue 2. Praha 2010, p. 37-43; Frysták, M., Prouza, D., Žatecká, E., Heinz, R., Galát, M. Criminal law material - general part. Ostrava 2008, p. 12-15; Chmelík, J. et al. Criminal law substantive. General section. Praha 2009, p. 31-33). In the present situation, the regulation in question by the Government's regulation would therefore still be acceptable if the international regulation, which the Czech Republic is bound by Article 1 (2) and Article 10 of the Constitution, was thus clarified or made more accessible to the domestic addressees of the legislation, or was to be specified in the legal standard governing the issue at least in the essential features. That's not the point. The international obligations give rise to wide discretion as to the limits of the quantities of legally held substances [Articles 3 (2), 4 (a), 5 (3) and 7 (b) of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances - designated under No 62 / 1989 Coll., 33 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Substances - issued under No 47 / 1965 Coll., Article 3 (1) (c) (ii) of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Trade in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances - issued under No 462 / 1991 Coll.]. The "empowerment 'provision in question does not lay down any criteria at all and therefore the Government does not specify anything on its basis, but complements the facts directly.
29. If, therefore, the legislature considered it essential to define precisely what, for the purposes of the legal qualification of the facts of the offences, the quantities are greater than the small for psychotropic substances, without leaving it to the assessment, taking into account all the circumstances of the case to the general courts [cf. also the finding of sp. zn. It is indecisive whether it is a legally-theoretically binding or optional character of the nature of the offence, since it is in any case a character that is a condition of criminal activity.
30. According to the explanatory memorandum, the adoption of the legal provision in question was justified by the needs of practice, namely by the very difficult unification of the practice of law enforcement authorities (when the police president and the highest public prosecutor issued their own binding tables) and the case law concerning a set amount greater than small in the law on narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and poisons, resulting in a discrepancy of the law enforcement authorities (Press 5 of the Chamber of Deputies No 410). In his speech before the Chamber of Deputies, the Minister of Justice pointed out this, as mentioned above.
31. Therefore, in the historical comparison, it can be recalled that similar circumstances led to the adoption of Article 2 (1) (a) of the basic Regulation. I, part A, point 53 and point 2 of Article IV of Act No 175 / 1990 Coll., amending and supplementing the criminal law. These have been introduced into the legal system by a design according to which the government determines the amount of the lowest monthly wage as a qualifying criterion for property offences, as pointed out by the appellant. This solution was justified, on the one hand, by the fact that the criminal law did not specify the boundaries of the qualifying characteristics of property offences with fixed amounts and used dates of greater damage, greater scope, significant damage or significant scale or large scale damage, and these concepts were interpreted by a case-law which did not change depending on the change in social conditions, which led to the progressive changes in price levels to the de facto intensification of criminal repression. On the other hand, paradoxically, this solution was meant to be temporary according to the explanatory memorandum. It was considered appropriate to empower the federal government to declare the lowest monthly wage until this issue was amended in more detail by labour legislation (the press of the 5th term of the Federal Assembly of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic No 325).
32. Subsequently, the concept of "empowerment" (not reference) standard was abandoned by Act No. 265 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 141 / 1961 Coll., on Criminal Procedure of the Court (Criminal Code), as amended, Act No. 140 / 1961 Coll., Criminal Act, as amended, and certain other laws. According to the explanatory memorandum, the practice has shown that the assumption that the authorisation to issue a government regulation will be more flexible in response to inflation developments has not been met. The same can reasonably be argued against the current solution to the issue under assessment. Moreover, it should be argued against the adjustment when the applicable amount for the determination of the amount of damage which determines the limit of criminal liability for property offences as well as the most frequent qualifying circumstances for such offences in relation to the amount of damage, that the government, as the executive body, has an extremely important power here, which is contrary to Article 39 of the Charter [Prints of the 3rd parliamentary term of the Chamber of Deputies No 785 - to paragraph 33 (§ 89 (11) of Part Two, Article IV], and that is why the limits of the amount of individual damage were laid down directly by law.
33. In the case of the adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the one hand, the explanatory report on the adjustment of the qualification circumstances established the amount of the damage only that "they are interpreted in common provisions in the same way as the law in force interprets them and the caselaw approaches them '. Thus, the reasons which led to the adjustment were consistently taken over by criticising the modification of the previous" empowerment "standard. At the same time, however, the above-mentioned practical and technical approach, without constitutional interference, followed the reasoning of the contested legislation. In doing so, it is well known from the official activity of the Constitutional Court that the decision-making activities of the general courts in the field have become fundamentally predictable during the period of the previous legislation. This is not an exception to criminal law. This is similar, or was the case of a minor and severe injury to health or the qualification of a state of exclusion that was caused by an addictive substance, etc.
34. Nor does the contested regulation fully fulfil the principle that the law referred to in Article 39 of the Charter must be formulated with a sufficient degree of certainty for its addressees (lex certa). As demonstrated by the application practice, the new regulation, like the previous one, needs subsequent completion through the interpretation carried out by the power of the court in the decision on specific cases (resolution of the Supreme Court sp. v. 8 Tdo 830 / 2010 of 13 October 2010, resolution of the Supreme Court in sp. v. 15 Tdo 1003 / 2012 of 27 February 2013 etc.). Thus, derogations may again take the meaning of earlier judicates that adequately define small and larger than small quantities of psychotropic substance [cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court in sp. zn. From a constitutional point of view, therefore, there is no need for new legislation to be adopted unless the legislator wishes to approach it in accordance with the principles set out here.
35. For the reasons set out above, the Constitutional Court concluded that the provision of Article 289 (2) of the Criminal Code is in words "and what is greater than small for narcotic substances, psychotropic substances, preparations containing them and poisons', in conjunction with Article 78 of the Constitution, has therefore been annulled by the Constitutional Court pursuant to Article 70 (1) of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll., as amended by Law No 48 / 2002 Coll. Since he did not find the relevant reason for the postponement, he decided to cancel the date of the declaration of the finding in the Collection of Laws. At the same time, in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 70 (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, it was stated that Government Decree No. 467 / 2009 Coll., as amended by Government Decree No. 4 / 2012 Coll., expires in the provisions which were issued on the basis of the annulled part of the contested legislative provision [cf. Sp. zl. Pl. ÚS 5 / 94 of 30.11.1994 (N 59 / 2 SbNU 155; 8 / 1995 Coll.), the finding sp. zn. Pl. Pl. ÚS 3 / 95 of 11.10.1995 (N 59 / 4 SbNU 91; 265 / 1995 Sb.), the finding sp. Pl. ÚS 42 / 2000 of 24.1.2001 (N 16 / 21 SbNU 113; 64 / 2001 Coll.].
36. The intertemporal effects of the adopted finding must be seen as having developed ex nunc, i.e. only from the date on which the finding will be declared in the Collection of Laws. The reasons for this finding can therefore only be applied to futuro (in the future), not to the Court of First Instance's decision on the actions which took place during the duration of the contested legislation [cf. Opinion of Plenary Pl. The opposite approach in relation to the cases opened but also already closed would not lead, in relation to the parties to the proceedings, to a higher degree of legal certainty (cf. Therefore, because of the differences between the above-cited fixed stricter decision-making activities of the general courts and the more moderate solution chosen by the Government through the contested empowerment legal provision, the differences lacking any rational constitutional justification, are not material and therefore not a formal reason for any action under Paragraph 71 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act.
37. Further clarification could not be expected from the oral hearing. In addition, the appellant and the Senate expressly agreed to waive oral proceedings. Therefore, the oral hearing under Article 44 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, was abandoned.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v. r.
Different opinions pursuant to Article 14 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, were taken by the Judges Vladimir Krórek and Jan Musil to decide on the decision of the full, and by the Judges Jan Filip and Ivan Jan.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No. 259 / 2013 Coll., on the application for annulment of § 289 (2) of Act No. 40 / 2009 Coll., Criminal Code |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 23.08.2013 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0