The Constitutional Court found No 299 / 2004 Coll.

Motion denied.

A group of 41 Members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Group of Members" or "the Proposals") submitted to the Constitutional Court an application for annulment of part of the provisions of Paragraph 11 (3) of Act No. 129 / 2000 Coll., on the County (Regional Establishment), as amended by Act No. 273 / 2001 Coll., Act No. 320 / 2001 Coll., Act No. 450 / 2001 Coll., and Act No. 231 / 2002 Coll., (hereinafter referred to as "Regional Establishment Act"), expressed in words "as well as to the proportionality of the amount of the property rights and freedoms of the person who committed the infringement" (hereinafter referred to as "the Charter"). "The Group of Members considers that, by adopting the provision cited in the Regional Act, there has been significant interference in constitutionally guaranteed equality in rights (Article 1 of the Charter), non-discrimination (Article 3 (1) of the Charter), the right to privacy (Article 7 (1) of the Charter) and the right to protection of persons (Article 10 (2) and (3) of the Charter).

The Group of Members argues that "the aspect of the proportionality of the amount of the fine to property ratios of a person who has committed an infringement is not even expressed in other standards of the Czech legal order governing administrative offences'. Therefore, it cannot be considered admissible that the inequality of persons committing infringements in different areas of public administration is thus established in the legal order. Moreover, from the explanatory memorandum, there is no clear intention of the legislator (or legislator). The Group of Members is also convinced that, even if this is intended to strengthen the effectiveness of the sanctions imposed or the effort - by means of the legal expression of the relevant aspects - to prevent excesses from reaching the limits of discretion or approval on the part of the administration, this cannot be done in a way that is unconstitutional.

The Group of Members also points out the ambiguity of the concept of "property ratios', which it considers to be unacceptable to examine by the public administration, in particular because it is an unacceptable interference in the private sphere of persons. The" perpetrator's ratios "are only relevant to the criminal law sentence (see Section 31 (1) of the Criminal Act), and are consistently interpreted as personal and family ratios, not property ratios. Moreover, according to the group of Members, the examination of property ratios is not related to the subject of the procedure in which the penalty for the infringement is imposed, so it is an unconstitutional collection of data on the person who committed the infringement.

A group of Members considers that sufficient defence against the possible hardships of the law likely to be faced by the contested legislation constitutes a review of the decision imposing sanctions by means of appeals (or after 1 January 2003 by judicial review of the decision in full jurisdiction); By contrast, the statutory examination of the "property regime" of the region provides the basis for the unacceptable and unconstitutional unequal treatment of persons committing the same infringement. Given that it may be a legal person and a natural person, the interpretation and application of the term "property ratios' would necessarily be different (cf. This is the case, for example, in the case of decisions" on the circumstances of the applicant for exemption from the legal fee under the provisions of Section 138 of the Civil Code '.

The Group of Members points out that, pursuant to Articles 1 and 3 (1): The Charter guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms to all without distinction, so that even a law cannot disadvantage or favour groups of persons when determining the amount of the fine for identical infringements. Such a procedure would be contra constitutionon or contrary to the quoted provisions of the Charter. The Group of Members reiterates that the examination by the administrative authority of the property situation in connection with the imposition of sanctions under Articles 7 (1) and 10 (2) and (3) The Charter would be an unconstitutional interference in privacy and an unauthorized collection of data on it.

The Constitutional Court requested observations on the application for annulment of the contested provision by the parties to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic as the authorities which issued the contested decision (Paragraph 69 (1) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended). In addition, he requested comments under Section 48 (2) in conjunction with Section 49 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act of the Ministry of Interior.

First of all, the Chamber of Deputies stated that the appellants' legal opinion appears to be very purposeful, superficial and does not take into account the requirement for effective and cost-effective administration (in the application of sanctions), which must be guided by an effort to ensure the enforceability of the fine imposed. Following the arguments put forward by the appellants concerning the breach of constitutionally guaranteed equality in rights, the Constitutional Court's finding of 2 April 1996 sp. zn. The fact that the legislator included in the legislation a provision to eliminate hardness in individual cases cannot in itself be regarded as an advantage or disadvantage for a particular group of persons. As regards the identification of property ratios, the Chamber of Deputies pointed out the finding of the Constitutional Court, sp. zn. I. ÚS 13 / 98 [Collection of finds and resolutions of the Constitutional Court ("the Reports of Decisions'), Volume 14, p. 107 et seq.], according to which (given the diversity of forms of legal persons) it is difficult to find a common criterion for assessing their property conditions." In spite of this, it will be a matter for the county to define the criteria to be taken into account when assessing the assets of legal persons when determining the amount of the fine. 'The appellants' claim that the aspect of the proportionality of the amount of the fine to the property ratios of a person who has committed an infringement is not expressed in other standards contained in the legal order, considers the Chamber of Deputies to be misleading in view of the ongoing development of the rule of law (the introduction of new, not yet used institutions).

For the sake of completeness, the Chamber of Deputies pointed out that, according to the recommendations of the Committee on Public Administration, Regional Development and the Environment, when discussing the amendment to the Regional Law, it approved an amendment to the provisions of Paragraph 11 (1) of the Government Bill by "imposing 'was replaced by the words" may impose', so that, in addition to the administrative discretion of the amount of the fine referred to in Article 11 (3), it was given the opportunity not to impose a fine at all. Act No 231 / 2002 Coll., which included the contested provision § 11 (3) in the Regional Act, was approved on 16 May 2002, was signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and was duly declared.

In the view of the Chamber of Deputies, the contested part of the provision of Section 11 (3) of the Regional Law is therefore not contrary to the Charter. The Chamber of Deputies stated that it acted in the belief that the law adopted was in accordance with the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution), the constitutional order and the legal order of the Czech Republic.

First of all, the Senate pointed out that, when discussing the amendment in question, the Committee on Constitutional Law and the Committee on Territorial Development, Public Administration and the Environment agreed to recommend to the Senate that the draft amendment to the Regional Law should be returned with amendments, including a proposal to delete part of the provisions of Section 11 (3) of the Regional Law in the same wording as proposed by a group of Members. In their decision-making, the Senate authorities considered, in particular, that examining the proportionality of the amount of the fine in relation to the property ratios of the offender is a legal principle which can be fully applied in cases where the law allows the sanctioning authority (while maintaining the legal rules) to choose from different types of sanctions. This is the case in criminal law, when the provision of Section 54 of the Criminal Act in connection with the imposition of a cash penalty provides for an obligation to take account of the property ratios of the perpetrator and, at the same time, orders not to impose a cash penalty if it appears to be impenetrable 'with the possibility of imposing a different kind of penalty'; then even if the penalty imposed is not paid, an alternative penalty must be imposed instead. In the opinion of the Senate, in the case of administrative punishment, the legal situation is different, since at present, apart from the law on infringements, there is no general legislation laying down adequate substantive and procedural rules to unify the current process of dealing with other administrative offences. The various rules on administrative offences enshrined in the special laws are inconsistent and allow, in the vast majority of cases, only one kind of penalty to be imposed for infringements. This is also the case in the case of an administrative offence under Section 11 of the Regional Law. In this context, the strict application of the principle that, when imposing a fine, account should be taken of the property ratios of a delinquent, in a number of cases, would mean that a delinquent against whom a fine is difficult to enforce could not be penalised at an amount corresponding to the seriousness of the conduct committed, or, in the event of a clear impossibility of impossibility of being penalised at all. The reason is said to be the absence of an alternative punishment. Consequently, the compulsory application of that principle could lead to an unequal position of persons before the law, since for similar infringements some persons would be penalised and others - taking into account the present state of their property situation - would be deprived or penalised of the disproportionately unlawful conduct committed. In addition, the argument pointing out that, in the absence of general rules on administrative penalties, the authorities of the local authorities did not have sufficient means to determine the property ratios of the offenders in each case in a legally relevant way. In particular, for these reasons, it was proposed to delete the provision in Section 11 (3) of the Regional Law.

According to the Senate communication, the draft amendment to the Regional Act was included at the 17th session of the Senate's third term of office on 10 May 2002. After the general debate, this proposal was not approved, as 28 of the 64 senators in the present vote for the proposal and 24 senators voted against it. Then followed a detailed debate, in which, inter alia, an amendment to the Senate committees to delete part of the provisions of Section 11 (3) of the Regional Act was tabled. Subsequently, this amendment was approved by the Senate in the vote on the various amendments, as out of the 64 senators present, 55 voted in favour and no one was against it. It followed the vote on the proposal to return the draft amendment to the Regional Act to the Chamber of Deputies with the amendments adopted. However, this proposal was not adopted because of the 65 senators present in favour of the vote of 20 and four senators opposed. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Senate, the negotiations on the draft amendment to the Regional Act are hereby terminated and, as a result of the failure to adopt the Senate resolution, the draft amendment to the Regional Act was adopted in accordance with Article 46 (3) of the Constitution by the expiry of a period of 30 days after its referral to the Senate.

The Senate therefore stated that it was up to the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of the provision in question under Article 11 (3) of the Regional Law.

The Ministry of the Interior ("the Ministry ') pointed out in its observations that the concept of" property conditions' is explained in the commentary on Paragraph 54 of the Criminal Act (source ASPI). It states that this concept occurs quite often in the legal order - except for Section 83 of the Law on the Constitutional Court - in particular in Act No. 140 / 1961 Coll., the Criminal Act, as amended, ("the Criminal Act '). According to Section 54 of the Criminal Act, the court will take into account the personal and property ratios of the perpetrator in the facts of the offences enshrined in Section 129 or Section 256c of the Criminal Act when measuring the financial penalty. This term is also found in Act No. 141 / 1961 Coll., on Criminal Procedure (Criminal Code), as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Criminal Procedure), in § 73a (2) (a), in § 91 (1) and in § 309 (1), in § 450 of Act No. 40 / 1964 Coll., Civil Code, as amended, and finally in Article 13 of the Convention on International Access to Courts (Notice of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs No. 58 / 2001 Coll.). The Ministry therefore submits that if the fact that the courts under the law take account of the personal and property terms of the perpetrator in order to determine the amount of the fine - which it may impose for infringement of the obligation laid down by the law of the county, was not found to be unconstitutional, then it should not be considered to be unconstitutional even if the county, under the provisions of § 11 (3) of the Regional Law, is liable to impose for infringement of the obligation laid down by the law of the county to a legal person and the natural person who is an entrepreneur, takes into account the proportionality of the amount of the fine in respect of the property conditions of the person who committed the infringement. The Ministry further pointed out that by establishing the criteria for the amount of the fine in Section 11 (3) of the Regional Act (one of which is expressed by the words" as well as the proportionality of the amount of the fine in relation to the property ratios of the person who committed the infringement'), the law guarantees that those criteria are binding on all to impose fines without distinction and would therefore not be unequal treatment of persons who commit the same infringement.

Finally, the Ministry added that, when preparing the new text of Paragraph 11 (3) of the Government Bill, account was taken of the views expressed by the Constitutional Court in the context of the various cases under discussion, in particular the views contained in the Constitutional Court's finding, published under No. 405 / 2002 Coll.; this was to exclude such interference in the property of the perpetrator of the offence as a result of which the property base for his further business would be "destroyed 'and also to eliminate the serious effects not only on the delinquent but also on other members of his household. In this respect, the order (correctly found) of plenary of the Constitutional Court under sp. zn. The intention was therefore to prevent the imposition of a fine at a liquidation level, which would in principle constitute the hardest case of interference with property ratios. At the same time, this could lead to a breach of Article 26 (1) of the Charter, as well as a breach of the right to own property pursuant to Article 11 (1) of the Charter and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, under which States may adopt laws which they consider necessary to regulate the use of property in accordance with the general interest and to ensure the payment of taxes and other charges or fines. It was also intended to prevent an infringement of Article 1 of the Charter, since the imposition of a fine at a liquidation rate would result in a fundamental inequality between social subjects (cf. the finding of the Constitutional Court, published under No 168 / 1995 Coll. or the decision of the plenary of the Constitutional Court under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 3 / 02).

The appellants request the annulment of part of the provisions of Paragraph 11 (3) of the Regional Law, expressed in words "as well as the proportionality of the amount of the fine in relation to the property ratios of the person who committed the infringement '.

1. The Constitutional Court, in its report on the 47th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic, found that on 26 March 2002, draft Act No 231 / 2002 Coll., amending and supplementing the Act on Counties (hereinafter referred to as "draft Act No 231 / 2002 Coll.") was approved by the necessary majority of Members (94 Members voted in favour, against 65 Members). From the report on the 17th meeting of the Senate of Parliament of the Czech Republic, the Constitutional Court found that on 10 May 2002 the amendment of the Senate committees to delete part of the provisions of Paragraph 11 (3) of the Regional Act, expressed in words, "as well as the proportionality of the amount of the fine due to the property ratios of the person who committed the infringement ', was approved by the necessary majority of the Senators (55 Senators voted against). Proposal for a refund of Bill No. 231 / 2002 Coll. However, the Chamber of Deputies, as amended, was not adopted (out of 65 there were 20 Senators for, 4 Senators against). Pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Senate, the Senate's resolution on draft law No 231 / 2002 Coll. ended and, in accordance with the provisions of Article 46 (3) and (1) of the Constitution, the draft law No 231 / 2002 Coll. was adopted by the expiry of a period of 30 days (in which the Senate did not express itself). Then the draft Act No 231 / 2002 Coll. was signed by constitutional officials and duly declared in the Collection of Laws in the amount of 87 sent out on 4 June 2002.

2. In the present case, the appellants specifically object (as is apparent from the content of the proposal) to the fact that, in the provision cited in Section 11 (3) of the Regional Law, the inequality of persons committing infringements in various areas of public administration is established in the legal order, on the one hand (even if the effectiveness of the sanction imposed or the defence against excesses from the discretion of the administrative authority were to be strengthened) that this cannot be done in an unconstitutional manner. They therefore consider that the contested part of that provision does not comply with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, since its adoption infringes the constitutionally guaranteed equality in rights (Article 1 of the Charter), the prohibition of discrimination (Article 3 (1) of the Charter), the right to privacy (Article 7 (1) of the Charter and the right to the protection of persons (Article 10 (2) and (3) of the Charter).

A. The Constitutional Court examined in particular whether part of the provision of Article 11 (3) of the Regional Law, expressed in words, "as well as the proportionality of the amount of the fine in relation to the property ratios of the person who committed the infringement" was contrary to Articles 1 and 3 (1) of the Charter relied on by the appellants.

(a) It follows from the related provision of Paragraph 11 (1) of the Regional Act that the Region may impose a fine of up to CZK 200 000 if the legal person or the natural person in business infringes the obligation (in the area of separate competence or in the area of delegation of the Region) which is laid down in a specific legislation (decree, regulation) of the Region.

The relevant text proposed by a group of Members for annulment (i.e. the words "as well as the proportionality of the amount of the fine in relation to the property ratios of the person who committed the infringement ') is part of Paragraph 11 (3) of the Regional Law, which reads as follows:" When determining the amount of the fine referred to in paragraph 1, the County shall take into account in particular the nature, gravity, duration and consequences of the infringement and the proportionality of the amount of the fine in relation to the property ratios of the person who committed the infringement.' This provision follows the above provision of § 11 (1) of the cited Act, which reads: "The Region may impose a fine of up to CZK 200 000 to a legal person and a natural person who is an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as" the person ") in breach of the obligation laid down by the legislation of the county." That provision is not contested.

(b) Article 1 The Charter is free and equal in dignity and in law. Fundamental rights and freedoms are inalienable, inalienable, unbiased and unbreakable. Pursuant to Article 3 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedom, all persons shall be guaranteed without distinction of sex, race, colour, language, faith and religion, political or other thinking, national or social origin, membership of a national or ethnic minority, property, genus or other status.

It is clear from the proposal for annulment of that text that the appellants refer, inter alia, to the incompatibility of the application of the property regime to assess the adequacy of the amount of the fine with the guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms under the provisions cited in Articles 1 and 3 (1) of the Charter.

Equality within the meaning of Article 1 According to the settled case law of the Constitutional Court, the Charter is not understood in an abstract manner, but in relation to the dignity and rights of man, i.e. without privileges and without discrimination (e.g. property). The Constitutional Court of the CSFR has already pointed out that "the equality of citizens before the law has not been seen as an abstract category, but has always been attributed to a certain legal standard, taken in a relationship between different subjects etc... The equality of relative, as all modern institutions mean, only requires the removal of unjustified differences... Special standards may establish specific equality criteria for certain fields, which do not generally result from the application of the principle of equality, since the application of the principle of equality does not set such precise limits as to exclude any discretion of those who apply them" (see the finding of the Constitutional CSFR sp. zn.

The Constitutional Court takes the view that, in the provision of Section 11 (3) of the Regional Law, the word "in particular 'expresses the demonstrative nature of the criteria to which the Region takes account of when setting the amount of the fine (it must). The word' property 'must be interpreted in conjunction with the words' in particular 'and' as well ', so that the law does not preclude the possibility of taking into account the circumstances of the person affected other than their property. The Constitutional Court notes, however, that the legislature of the chosen code is not the most appropriate solution from a grammatical point of view, which, in accordance with the principle of minimising the intervention of the Constitutional Court into the rule of law, can be bridged by a constitutional interpretation of the suggested standard. In addition to the objective criteria (nature, gravity, duration and consequences of the infringement), the legislator, in a demonstration list of the criteria to be taken into account by the county in the imposition of the fines, classified only one criterion of subjective nature (property ratios of the delinquent), cannot be seen as a ban on the county to take due account of the circumstances of the affected person other than its property ratios. Moreover, the examination of the property situation itself is enshrined in a number of contexts (not only as a criterion for the proportionality of the sanctions imposed) in the Czech legal order (similar to those of the other developed countries) and, according to the Constitutional Court's conviction, it is not possible to interpret them as unconstitutional because they introduce inequality in dignity and rights.

Where the appellants contend that the introduction of the criterion of property ratios until the decision on the level of the penalty is taken is likely to discriminate against property, i.e. a breach of the principle of equality, this claim must be rejected. The Constitutional Court consistently judges that it does 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. It is therefore not a violation of the principle of relative equality when two persons in different situations are fined at different levels, although the only difference in their situation should be precisely different property ratios. From a factual point of view (the purpose of the law), it can even be concluded that the criterion of examining the property ratios of the delinquent when considering the amount of the fine imposed is necessary and complementary - not because high fines would be unenforceable (as the Chamber of Deputies argues), but because of the risk of a "liquidation 'effect of an excessively high fine. The fine as punishment must be differentiated in order to act effectively as punishment and as deterrence (individual and general prevention). The Constitutional Court has already stated a time ago that" egalitarian universalism would necessarily trigger deeply inoperable social effects' (cf. the find sp. zn. The issue of the adequacy of the property sanctions in relation to the personal circumstances of the sanctioned persons was dealt with in detail by the Constitutional Court in its finding of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 3 / 02, to which it refers, and it considers necessary to emphasise that, even in this finding, it stated that "the fine may be compatible with Article 11 of the Charter and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol, if it allows - to some extent - to take account of the property situation of the delinquent '(cf. Sp.

B. The Constitutional Court points out that part of the provision of Paragraph 11 (3) of the Regional Law in words "as well as the proportionality of the amount of the fine in relation to the property ratios of the person who committed the infringement" does not constitute an unconstitutional interference with the principle of equality in rights. The appellants are wrong to claim that "the aspect of the proportionality of the fine to property ratios of a person who has committed an infringement is not even expressed in other standards of the law of the Czech Republic governing administrative offences." In order to determine the type of penalty and the nature of the offence, the Judge-Rapporteur shall decide, on the basis of a proposal from the complainant before the first oral hearing, that the costs of his or her representation will be paid by the State in whole or in part by the State in accordance with Article 31 (1) of the Criminal Code ("When determining the nature of the penalty and its measures, the court shall take into account the possibility of rectification and the payment of the criminal penalty '), in Article 73a (2) of the Penal Code (" the acceptance of the pecuniary guarantee is admissible, and at the same time as regards the person and non-estate. "to the circumstances of a natural person who has been damaged'), in the provisions relating to maintenance in the Family Act - Paragraph 85 (2) (" according to his ability, possibilities and property ratios'), Section 89 ("capabilities, possibilities and property ratios'), Section 92 (" capabilities, possibilities and property ratios'). In the area of the imposition of fines for administrative offenses, for example, Act No 15 / 1998 Coll., on the Securities Commission and amending and supplementing other laws (Section 10 (4) - "When deciding on the selection of measures to remedy or sanction under this Act, the Commission is obliged to base itself on proportionality in the imposition of a fine in respect of the property ratios of a person.")

It is clear that it cannot be circumvented in a number of cases without examining the personal, property and other circumstances of the person concerned by the proceedings in question. Thus, the legal arrangements for examining the "circumstances' of an undertaking or legal person as such are not - in the opinion of the Constitutional Court - an anti-constitutional regulation and do not introduce inequality in dignity and rights, as the applicants believe. In this context, the Constitutional Court points out that knowledge of the circumstances of the person concerned (delinquent) must also be assumed in the case of judicial review of the decision of the county authority on the imposition of a fine - which, in the view of a group of Members, is sufficient protection - because if judicial review is to protect against the possible hardships of the impact of the law (in full jurisdiction, in particular), the court cannot do without information on the circumstances of the persons to whom the fine has been imposed.

In addition, the Constitutional Court does not consider that the statutory examination of the assets of a legal person and of a natural person who is an entrepreneur (Section 11 (1) of the Regional Law) would constitute a "basis for the unacceptable and unconstitutional unequal treatment of persons who commit the same infringement '. As a reason, a group of Members refers necessarily to the different interpretation and application of the term' property ratios', precisely because it can be both a legal person and a physical person. In this context, the Constitutional Court considers it decisive that, in the case at hand, in the case of a legal person and a natural person who is an entrepreneur (cf. Section 11 (3) of the Regional Law), similar entities are involved, since their business activities and property ratios arising from them and related to them must be considered as a criterion for their status. The property situation must therefore be interpreted in the same way and there is no distinction between those entities. Arguments of the group of Members by the opinion of the Constitutional Court (a contrario) mentioned under sp. above.

C. The Constitutional Court has therefore not come to the conclusion that the examination of the property situation by the county authority would constitute an unconstitutional interference in the privacy of the natural person who is an entrepreneur and by the unlawful collection of data on it and that this would infringe Articles 7 (1) and 10 (2) and 10 (3) of the Charter; After all, this is not specified by a group of Members. This is naturally not the case for legal persons. In this context, reference can be made to Act No. 101 / 2000 Coll., on the Protection of Personal Data and on the amendment of certain laws, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "Act No. 101 / 2000 Coll. '), which refers in Paragraph 4 (a) to the concept of" Personal Data' (essentially to establish the identity of the data subject) and which even refers to sensitive data which it explicitly calculates, and does not include property data between them. According to the provisions of § 5 (2) of the Act cited by the administrator (i.e. also the authorities of the county - cf. § 3 (1) of the Act), it may process personal data with the consent of the data subject. Without this consent, it may process [Paragraph 5 (2) (a) of the Law] if it carries out the processing provided for by a special law or necessary for the performance of the obligations laid down by a special law (e.g. it refers to certain laws). The Constitutional Court considers that such a special law is also the law on the regions (in the contested part) and that the activity of the county (considering the proportionality of the amount of the fine and the proportion of the offender) is the processing of personal data within the meaning of the provision cited by Act No. 101 / 2000 Coll. A similar opinion on the range of cases in which the consent of the data subject pursuant to § 5 (2) of Act No. 101 / 2000 Coll. is not necessary can also be derived from professional literature (cf. Mates, P.: Protection of personal data. UK in Prague. Karolinum 2002, p. 48).

However, with regard to the cited Act No. 101 / 2000 Coll., it is possible to argue - first and foremost - even more fundamentally. That law defines in Section 1 (subject-matter of the regulation) its personal scope by covering the protection of personal data of natural persons. It therefore does not protect legal persons. As regards natural persons who are entrepreneurs - and which are covered by Article 11 of the Regional Law, the part of which is contested - can be considered the same, since their status must be regarded as a distinguishing criterion for their business activity. The data on this activity (as in the case of legal persons) therefore - in the view of the Constitutional Court - do not benefit from the protection provided for in Act No. 101 / 2000 Coll..

For all these reasons, the Constitutional Court's proposal by a group of Members to abolish part of the text of the provision of Section 11 (3) of the Regional Law in words "as well as the proportionality of the amount of the fine in relation to the property ratios of the person who committed the infringement 'under the provisions of Section 70 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court.

Pursuant to Article 14 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, the judges of JUDr. Vojen Güttler and JUDr. Dagmar Lastovecká took different positions on the decision.