The Constitutional Court found no 300 / 2004 Coll.

On 27 May 2003, the Constitutional Court received a proposal from the Regional Court in Ústí nad Labem, a branch in Liberec, pursuant to Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution ') to abolish part of the provisions of Section 106 (2) of Act No. 50 / 1976 Coll., on Territorial Planning and Construction Regulations (Construction Act), as amended by Act No. 83 / 1998 Coll. (hereinafter referred to as" the Act of Construction Act'), for a conflict with Article 1 of the Constitution, Article 1 and Article 11 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Charter ') and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to).

The regional court in the motion recaptures the proceedings prior to its application. In the construction proceedings, the Children's and Youth Fund "in liquidation" was fined CZK 200 000 for the failure to complete urgent security work consisting of fencing and partial stabilisation of the roof and their "suspension" as well as other security work, marked as a breach of the obligation defined in § 106 (2) (g) of the Building Act. The fund of children and youth 'in liquidation' in administrative proceedings and in the action against administrative decisions imposing a fine argued that it had carried out work within its limits and that the collapse of a part of the roof caused extremely adverse weather. He pointed out that as a state organization in liquidation, he had no money for new investment operations. The Regional Court considers that the lower limit of the fine of CZK 200 000 does not allow account to be taken of the above ratios and, in particular, that under Article I (4) of the Act No. 364 / 2000 Coll., on the abolition of the Children's and Youth Fund and on the amendments to certain laws, the liquidator acting on behalf of the Fund can take over new liabilities only in the direct context of "termination of outstanding liabilities." The Regional Court considers that the words "from CZK 200,000" in § 106 (2) of the Building Act, setting the lowest fine for the designated offences in the area of construction, are incompatible with the articles of the Constitution, the Charter and the Additional Protocol. The argument is in the conclusions of the Constitutional Court's finding of 13 August 2002, published under No 405 / 2002 Coll. The Court draws attention to the inequality between the wording of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Section 106 of the Construction Act. In the annexes, the court shall bring the action and the decisions of the building authorities contested.

The Constitutional Court called on the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic to comment on 4 June 2003 and asked the Regional Court to lend the file.

In its observations, the Chamber of Deputies is recalling the Court's proposal, including a reference to the existing case law of the Constitutional Court and the course of the legislative process. The current version of Paragraph 106 (2) of the Construction Act was amended by Act No. 83 / 1998 Coll., the Government of the Czech Republic was the author of the proposal. According to the explanatory memorandum, the amendment of Sections 105 and 106 led to the need to change substantially the amount of fines for construction offences found in the comment procedure and to set the range of rates for offences and administrative offences. Tightening of sanctions has been supported by some cities that have the most experience of building non-discipline. The bill was approved by a prescribed majority of Members on 13 February 1998, the Senate approved it on 18 March 1998, the President of the Republic signed it on 6 April 1998 and the law was duly declared. The legislature acted in the belief that the law adopted was consistent with the Constitution, constitutional order and international treaties. It is for the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of the contested provision.

In its observations on the proposal, the Senate also stated that one of the reasons for the extensive amendment to the construction law was effective since 1 July 1998, the attempt to tighten the sanctions for violating the obligations imposed by it in order to strengthen discipline in the implementation and use of the buildings. Although the scope of the administrative discretion of the competent administrative authority has been significantly narrowed in order to achieve this objective, the amendment has not been fully removed. The administrative authority should continue to consider the circumstances of the case and take them into account when setting the fine. The Senate recalls that it accepted the appellant's intention and approved on 18 March 1998 the bill in the form adopted by the Chamber of Deputies. When discussing the proposal, he did not find, as he stated in his observations on the proposal under sp. zn. It is up to the Constitutional Court, taking into account the finding published under No 405 / 2002 Coll., which concerned the lower limit of fines under § 106 (3) of the Construction Act, to examine the contested provision. In the Annex, the Senate sent part of the shorthand report on this amendment.

The procedure for the adoption of Act No. 83 / 1998 Coll., which newly imposed fines for offences in the field of construction administration, was already the subject of an examination by the Constitutional Court when discussing the case. The results justify the examination of the application in the substance of the case, since the Constitutional Court found that the law was adopted and issued in a constitutionally prescribed manner, within the limits of the constitutional competence provided for, in compliance with the criteria laid down in Article 39 (1) and (2) of the Constitution.

The basis for the finding of the Constitutional Court is, in principle, to derogate from its earlier caselaw, the conclusions expressed in the already cited finding of 13 August 2002 in Case No Pl. ÚS 3 / 02 (cited under No 405 / 2002 Coll. and published also in the Collection of Finances and Order of the Constitutional Court, Volume 27, Found No 105) on the proposal of the Regional Court in Hradec Králové to cancel the words "from 500 000 CZK 'in § 106 (3) of the Building Law.

The Constitutional Court stated in the cited finding that the imposition of a minimum fine in the law essentially pursues a legitimate objective, since in a far more clear way than would be the case only when the upper rate is set, it makes it possible to distinguish the seriousness or danger of any type of infringement. The further impact of this step is that it limits the scope for administrative discretion of the competent national 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 acts of the administrative authorities. 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.

The Constitutional Court concluded 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. 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, of course, allow an appropriate intervention to be applied at all times, since it may sometimes have the character of liquidation in relation to entities subject to penalties in the form of fines. For the reasons set out above, the Constitutional Court annulled part of the provisions of Paragraph 106 (3) of the Construction Act by a finding in the case sp. zn.

The Constitutional Court, in its cited finding, respected the link with the petition and could not therefore abolish the now contested part of the provision of Paragraph 106 (2). However, he pointed out the possible disruption of the system link and the introduction of an inequality with the provisions of Paragraph 106 (2) of the Construction Act, in which case the lower limit of the fine was maintained. Indirectly, he also expressed expectations that the legislator would also assess its constitutionality.

The evaluation of the application lodged by the Regional Court in Ústí na Labem, a branch in Liberec, cannot therefore be different in substance. The lowest statutory fines imposed by the legislature, defined by the "moderate 'serious infringements of the construction rules under Paragraph 106 (2) of the Construction Act, may constitute the same unconstitutional interference that has already been found by the Constitutional Court in cases dealt with by the Regional Court. The difference between the lowest penalty rate of CZK 500,000 in the case already solved and CZK 200,000 in the case currently solved does not appear to be significant. A fine of at least CZK 200,000 for offences defined in Section 106 (2) of the Building Act may in many individual cases be as liquidating as a fine of CZK 500,000 for offenses evaluated by the legislator as" more serious "as defined in Section 106 (3) of the Building Act. Moreover, the further existence of the provision now under appeal would confirm the imbalance between sanctions for the otherwise serious offences against the building law foreseen by the building law, as amended after the intervention of the Constitutional Court in 2002.

Beyond the previous argument The Constitutional Court notes that it did not assess the circumstances of the individualisation of administrative penalties which occurred in the previous administrative procedure, since the procedure for the application for annulment of part of the law within the meaning of Article 87 (1) (b) of the Treaty. (a) The Constitution is a means of abstract control of standards. The conclusion reached by the Constitutional Court does not prejudge the outcome of a specific review and proceedings on the wrongful conduct of the Children's and Youth Fund in "liquidation 'currently taking place before the Regional Court in Ústí nad Labem, a branch in Liberec. The Constitutional Court is also marginally able to comment on the reference to the limitation of the fund manager under the legislation of the special law (for example, for insolvency administrators). A ban on entering into new obligations cannot prevent the performance of obligations in the important public interest. Obligations arising from regulations providing for important public interests (here building law) must take precedence over an adjustment determining the treatment of property, possibly interpreted in such a way as to permit the fulfilment of those obligations. The argument of accepting that a legal person in liquidation has less responsibility for the status and administration of the property he owns could create a de facto inequality between the content of ownership rights of individual owners.

In view of the arguments put forward, largely in the case-law of the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court considers that the contested provision or part of it is incompatible with the principles of the rule of law, the Charter and Article 1 of the Constitution and constitutes a contradiction with Articles 1 and 11 (1) of the Charter and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol. Therefore, the Constitutional Court had no choice but to abolish the Constitutional Court pursuant to § 70 (1) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., as amended.