The Constitutional Court found No 331 / 2005 Coll.

Motion denied.

On 26 April 2004, the Constitutional Court received a proposal pursuant to § 64 (1) (b) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, (hereinafter referred to as "the Law on the Constitutional Court ') by which a group of 26 Senators of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as" the author'), under which Senator MUDr. K. T., refers to the Constitutional Court with a proposal to repeal Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., on the service ratio of members of the Security Corps. The inconstitutionality of the law is seen in the circumstances of the way in which the draft law is discussed.

The author described the course of discussion and approval of this bill in both chambers of Parliament of the Czech Republic during the period from its submission to the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic on 18.3.2003 to its final approval on 23.9.2003. In particular, it stated that the proposal was submitted by the Government and distributed to Members as Press No 256 / 0. At first reading, the Committee on Defence and Security was ordered to approve it, as amended by 50 amendments (Resolution No 256 / 2). Furthermore, the proposal was discussed without amendments by the Committee on European Integration. At the 18th session of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, at second reading, there were 46 other amendments made by Members. All designs were then processed as print No 256 / 3. In the third reading at the 18th meeting of 2 July 2003, only Mr I. L. submitted a proposal for a legislative technical amendment to his amendment under E4 in print No 256 / 3. Other proposals have not been made. Consequently, Resolution No 581 approved the draft law as amended.

The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic was served on 17 July 2003. On the basis of the recommendation of the committees which pointed to the inconsistency between the text approved by the Chamber of Deputies and the text forwarded to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic at its 9th meeting on 7 August 2003 excluded this proposal from the agenda. The President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic called on the President of the Chamber of Deputies to send to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic the text of the draft law, which was actually approved by the House. The Senate of Parliament of the Czech Republic received a new draft law on 13 August 2003 with a new deadline for its consideration, which was due to expire on 12 September 2003. On 10 September 2003, when discussing such a referral, some senators again pointed out that even in the second referral, the irregularities had not been remedied. For fear of the expiry of the period for discussion on 12 September 2003, the Senators addressed the proposal without requesting a new delivery. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic therefore returned the draft law to the Chamber of Deputies at the 10th meeting of 10 September 2003 with amendments (Resolution No 197) and added this to the accompanying resolution No. 198, in which the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic notes that the text of the draft law, even after repeated referral by the Chamber of Deputies on 13 August 2003, is not identical to the text approved in the Chamber of Deputies. It was found that out of the 13 identified differences listed in the annex to the proposal, only one difference was removed, namely in Section 10 of the draft law.

The Chamber of Deputies again voted on the proposal at the 20th meeting of 23 September 2003, failing to approve the proposal as amended by the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and remaining on the original text referred to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic on 13 August 2003 and not in the original version. The President of the Republic signed the law on 13 October 2003 without, according to the appellant, possibly knowing the defects of the previous procedure, where the Chamber of Deputies arbitrarily amended the proposal and could therefore de facto be misled. The legal process was therefore burdened by a defect, it is an irregular procedure in which the law was adopted, and it shows unconstitutional defects.

As a matter of fact, the appellant stated that:

1. The Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) provides for the constitutional foundations of the law-making process in Articles 41 to 52, in which case Article 45, which provides that the draft law with which the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has given its assent, shall be referred to the Chamber of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. In doing so, it pointed out the finding of the Constitutional Court, published under No 476 / 2002 Coll., that the powers of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic are exhausted by the adoption of a resolution giving its assent to the draft law, and the proposal cannot be amended beyond the limits of the decision.

2. The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic gave its assent to the draft law in its version, which was not identical in 13 cases to the text forwarded by the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. This was not a draft law within the meaning of Article 45 of the Constitution, at the same time it infringed in particular Article 46 of the Constitution, which regulates the position of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic when approving the draft law.

3. Such a procedure is, according to the appellant, affected by the constitutional principles of the division of power within the powers legislative under Article 45 to 48 of the Constitution and by the representative democracy under Article 2 (1) of the Constitution.

4. It is also a breach of the rule of law under Article 1 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Charter). The departure of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic from the constitutionally established legislative procedure, according to the appellant, constitutes elements of indiscretions and uncontrollability of power if it is not possible to correct this by the review of the Constitutional Court. In this context, it was pointed out again to the find No. 476 / 2002 Coll., where the requirement for a procedural flawless process, including the firm moment by which the decision-making process in the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic ends, which is intended to prevent the potential risk of usurping power, which is not the responsibility of the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic.

The appellant stated that the analysis of the importance and impact of the 13 provisions in question were already beyond the scope of the proposal. In its view, the violation of constitutional requirements is burdensome by the law as a whole and therefore cannot be covered solely by these provisions. Moreover, the repeal of those provisions alone could not restore their text actually approved. However, by its submission of 11.11.2004, the appellant supplemented its proposal by expressing its legal representative to which it gave its opinion on the observations of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (see below). In it, it disputes how the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic assesses the changes made under paragraphs 2, 6 to 9, 11, 13, and demonstrates that the statement that the legislative-technical editorial action of the law did not change the proposal or content or law must appear to be very misleading and unacceptable. It also does not agree with the opinion expressed on the fringe in the opinion of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, namely that the submission of a content violation of the law with the constitutional order is decisive for the eligibility of the bill, and only in the context of its examination (derived) can it be ascertained whether the law was issued in a constitutional manner.

Therefore, the appellant, referring to the infringement of Articles 45, 46 to 48 and Article 50 of the Constitution in the process of adopting the draft law, stated that the legislative process had been infringed, which is at the same time contrary to Article 2 (1) of the Constitution and Article 2 (2) of the Charter. The approved law therefore contradicts the constitutional order of the Czech Republic pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Since the draft law was not adopted within the limits of the Constitution and the constitutional procedure (Section 68 of the Constitutional Court Act), it proposed its annulment.

On receipt of the application, the Constitutional Court concluded that the application fulfilled the conditions for proceedings before the Constitutional Court. It did not find any reason to terminate the procedure under Section 67 of the Constitutional Court Act or to reject the application under Section 43 of the same Act. Although the contested Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll. was amended in the meantime by Act No. 186 / 2004 Coll., No. 436 / 2004 Coll., No. 586 / 2004 Coll. and No. 626 / 2004 Coll., it could not, however, have had an effect on the content of the draft and the nature of the contested Act's defects on its further examination [Note.: it is Act No. 186 / 2004 Coll., amending certain laws in connection with the adoption of the Law on the Customs Administration of the Czech Republic, Act No. 436 / 2004 Coll., amending certain laws in connection with the adoption of the Law on Employment, Act No 586 / 2004 Coll., amending certain laws in connection with the adoption of the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on Brandy duty and its provision (Law No 626 / 2004 Coll. The application was submitted by a legitimate appellant within the meaning of Article 64 (1) (b) of the Constitutional Court Act. That is why the Constitutional Court called on the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic as parties to the proceedings, pursuant to Paragraph 69 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, to comment on this proposal. Furthermore, in the light of the observation that the President of the Republic was wrong to sign the law, the President of the Republic was also asked to comment.

On behalf of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, his then-President, JUDr. Petr Pithart, who, on the issue of the admissibility of legislative-technical editorial work of draft laws, or the admissibility of a certain extent of this editorial work, stated that the part-debate of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic was on these issues when discussing the draft bill on the service ratio of members of the Security Corps (Senate Press No. 135) at the 10th meeting of the 4th term of office of 10 September 2003. The debate expressed the view that the criticised amendments to the draft law cited by the appellant in its submission to the Constitutional Court under No 2 to 13 constitute an admissible legislative and technical regulation of the proposal. This view was, in a sense, in line with the majority decision of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic by which the Chamber accepted the draft law when it adopted Resolution No 197 on 10 September 2003, by which it returned the draft law to the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic with amendments which did not, however, relate to the amendments in question. At the same time, in the debate of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, opinions were strongly expressed with doubts as to the legitimacy of certain types of legislative technical adaptations. The doubts raised by the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic were reflected in the Chamber of the adopted Resolution No 198 of 10 September 2003, in which it is noted that the texts are not identical.

It also states that it is necessary to agree with the appellant that the draft law adopted can no longer be amended. However, this must be distinguished from the legislative-technical editorial work of the text of the law that follows. This is no longer the creation of the law, it is not created, it does not change or cancel, it is merely modified in the context of the will exercised by the legislator. Typically, it is the adjustments that logically result from approved amendments, where not to translate them into the relevant provisions of the draft law would undermine the unity of the legislature of the amendments followed. In other words, the legislative and technical provisions cannot be amended in any way in substance or in law, as this is reserved only for legislative amendments (law making). Moreover, the legislative-technical editorial work is intended to contribute only to the elimination of formal defects in the draft law and to the clarity of its organisation.

Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll., on the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, as amended, remembers the legislative-technical arrangements made by Members in the third reading. The third-reading adjustments usually only make amends in some cases of very simple designs. It is virtually unthinkable that the curriculum of laws, which are tasked by tens, often hundreds of amendments, should be left without the final legislative-technical editorial following the agreement of the Chamber with the bill. It is impossible to predict which of the amendments will eventually be adopted, and "on the run" thus creates new variants of the arrangement of the whole draft. However, even this editorial cannot rule out omissions, errors, etc., as it is human activity. In this context, the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic stated that the absolute necessity of implementing the legislative-technical editorial is recognised in Czechoslovak and Czech legislative practice at least since the 1990s and is already a well-perceived practice. Should the final legislative-technical editorial be excluded, the rules of the legislative process (law-making) on the submission of amendments in the chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, including the consistent implementation of the principle of projecting the proposed amendment into other provisions of the draft law and the voting rules on them, would need to be changed very substantially.

Whether there has been a deviation from the limits of the legislative-technical editorial and, therefore, from the content or legal amendment of the draft law to the form approved by the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Parliament, it is necessary to look in a specific analysis of the 13 cases presented, the so-called amended provisions of the draft law. He therefore stated the characteristics of these changes in the text of the Government Bill in question (House Press No. 256) as defined by the appellant under Nos 1 to 13. In this context, the following was mentioned in the observations on the various differences identified by the appellant:

Point 1. The change of words "less than" by "more than" was an unacceptable adjustment. The authorities of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic have corrected the text in the newly submitted draft law.

To point 2. This was a change brought about by the approval of Amendment A5 (Paragraph 7 deleted paragraph 2). The alternative to "referee or chief referee 'and" chief referee or assistant' in § 26 (3) became irrelevant and confusing since the amendment of the A5 ruled out a special feature according to which the lowest rank of "referee 'was reserved only for the Fire Rescue Corps, while the other security corps began with a scale of rank" chief referee'.

To point 3. Amendment G5 added a new item to the alternatively arranged items of paragraph 5 in Paragraph 42, which is undoubtedly another alternative (the context does not allow any other option), and therefore the connection with the clutch "or" was moved from the position between the first and second items to the position between the second and third items.

K point 4. The conditions laid down in Paragraph 69 (4) for the provision of leave were not sufficiently clearly assigned to the reasons for the leave, unlike those for other types of leave. The addition of the reference to the word "Article 68 (5) (d) 'made the dictation completely understandable.

To point 5. In the Government version of Paragraph 95 (4), reference was made to specific provisions of another legislation, which is considered to be a legislative technical error. According to the established rules of practical legislation (including Article 45 of the Legislative Rules of the Government), the content description of the regulation is used with reference to the specific legislation and its footnote. This adjustment was made correctly.

To point 6, the turnover of the "Director of the Security Corps" was the correct use (projection) of the legislative acronym introduced in the provisions of Paragraph 1 (2) in all the following provisions of the Act. A legislative-technical error has been corrected.

Point 7. The reason for shortening the reference "under § 54 (2) and (3) 'to" under § 54 (2)' was obvious. In fact, only the general definition of the overtime service was included in paragraph 3, but the reference is targeted only to a specific reason for the overtime service.

To point 8. Paragraph 131 (§ 127) refers to the provisions governing those branches of the staff of the Director of the Security Corps, which shall be determined by his superior. The deletion of the reference to Paragraph 114 was justified as it provided for the "fixed" basic tariff of each service income, which is provided for by law, i.e. without the possibility of influencing it (changing its level) within the authority of the superior. The deletion of the reference to § 114 of § 131 (§ 127) was a legislative technical intervention against confusing redundancy.

Point 9. The change in the heading's classification was probably not forced. The amended heading expresses the same fact in other words. However, this change does not seem to affect the substantive or legal aspect of the regulation.

Point 10. Paragraph 7 of Paragraph 138 (§ 134) provided assurances that the adjustment of the rights to natural persons does not concern the Director of the Security Information Service, since its formalities are governed by a special law, let us understand by Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., on the salary and other formalities connected with the performance of the duties of representatives of the State Government and of certain state authorities and judges, as amended, in whose title the sixth provisions are governed by the salary and in kind requirements of the Director of the Security Information Service. If, in part of the 24th Act No. 362 / 2003 Coll., on the amendment of the laws relating to the adoption of the Act on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps, we will find that, at the same date of effectiveness as the provisions of § 138 (§ 134), abbreviated by paragraph 7, the repeal of the title of Sixth Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., also takes effect. That legislative technical regulation was the result of the legislator's parallel intention.

Paragraph 153 (§ 149) (1) provides for the right to reimbursement of travel expenses if, for various reasons, the member is transferred to another place of employment. One of the reasons was expressed by reference to § 27. By reading this provision, we find that it is the transfer of the Director of Intelligence within the same place of employment. The adjustment removed the contradiction between the two provisions.

Point 12. The clearly erroneous reference to § 157 (§ 153), i.e. common provisions, was replaced by the correct reference to § 153 (§ 149), i.e. the conditions for entitlement to reimbursement of travel expenses. Legislative-technical error has been removed.

Point 13. An annex to the law is only a passive overview of the requirements (brief information) of the requirements of the tariff class. There is no doubt that the own requirements are laid down in Section 7. The amendment to the Annex in the section for the eighth tariff class - Bachelor's education for the Chief Commissioner - thus merely mirrored the change based on the G1 amendment in § 7 (1) (h), meaning the Bachelor's education for the Chief Commissioner of the 8th tariff class. The adjustment was the result of the legislative amendment.

From the analysis of 13 cases of the above mentioned changes, the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic concludes that it is possible to differentiate between, on the one hand, the provisions resulting in a substantive or legal amendment to the draft law (case no. 1), which must be clearly rejected as inadmissible and, on the other hand, legal amendments (all other cases) which can be further subdivided into two subgroups according to the motive of editorial activity. Firstly, the adjustments which are a rational consequence of the amendment adopted (cases No 2, 3, 10 and 13). These are, in a sense, forced, ensuring consistency of the amendment with the environment to be integrated into. These interventions represent the most intrinsic type of legislative technical regulation. Secondly, it is an adjustment of the unforced, carried out by initiative in favour of the legislative-technical level of the text of the law, such as minor interventions to eliminate obvious errors, contradictions and redundancies, and interventions to increase the clarity of the text (cases 4 to 9, 11 and 12). Although there are also provisions which do not change the factual or legal situation of the draft law, the degree of initiative may vary in this type of regulation and therefore their application is problematic in some sense. In practice, the use of innovative legislative technical adaptations is rather exceptional and is limited to fragmented error cases.

With regard to the objection of the so-called repeated referral of the draft law, he states that the positions of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic on these issues can be derived from some of its acts, negotiations or acts of its institutions. After 17.7.2003 The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has referred the draft law to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, starting to run the 30-day constitutional deadline for the discussion of the proposal, which was due to expire on 18 August 2003. The draft law (Senate Document No. 135) was removed from the agenda by the Senate of Parliament of the Czech Republic on 7 August 2003, i.e. 11 days before the deadline. The President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic found that, in the case of Paragraph 10 (2), the text referred to in the draft law had an unfounded confusion of the words "less than 5 years' for the words" more than 5 years' and sent to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic the corrected version on 13.8.2003 (i.e. before the end of the period of discussion running from the first referral) with a biased assumption that this new referral would eliminate the effects of the previous one and that the 30 days would start to run again. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has undoubtedly accepted a new referral in its subsequent action when it discussed the draft law thus referred to by 12 September 2003 and returned it with amendments (see Resolution No 197 of 10 September 2003 at the 10th meeting of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic). The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, in its next legislative procedure in relation to the draft bill returned, also accepted this method of correction with a 30-day period running again, when it was duly decided at its 20th session on the proposal on 23 September 2003 (Resolution No 645).

The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic excluded the bill from the agenda of the meeting, knowing that if the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (its President) does not accept the possibility of sending an approved text, the deadline for discussing the draft law will expire in vain by the Chamber of Parliament of the Czech Republic. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has not taken any step that could give rise to a presumption of the application of constitutionally unfounded powers. The subsequent agreement of the chambers to correct the error was legitimized by the aim of maintaining the legislator's original will. The debate of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic on the subject at the 10th meeting of 10 September 2003 was limited to expressing the idea that the absentee law on the contact of both chambers was superseded by parliamentary practice (precedence of chambers), which can be relied upon by the older resolution of the Senate of the Czech Parliament No 316 of 5 April 2000. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic interprets that, in the case of referral of the corrected text of the bill, the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic begins to run the 30-day period referred to in Article 46 (1) of the Constitution again, and the constitutional period of previous versions is not to be taken into account. In addition, the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic notes with this resolution that only the bill referred to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic by the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic can be considered as a draft law with which the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has given its assent within the meaning of Article 45 of the Constitution. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic with this resolution refused earlier attempts to make certain corrections to the submitted bill at the level of the Office of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.

The President of the Chamber of Deputies is responsible for the compliance of the submitted proposal with the will of the Chamber with its signature pursuant to § 29 (1) (i) and § 68 (2) of the Act on Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Parliament. In this context, the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic referred to the nature and function of the signature of the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic under an approved bill. It stressed the presumption that such an act was correct and that the two chambers were in the legislative process. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is not entitled to examine the impeccable procedure passed by the draft law in the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. If the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has made a mistake, it is up to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic to give it the opportunity to correct it. In his view, the legislative-technical editor of the draft law on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps did not change the proposal either in substance or in law against the text with which the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic gave its assent and who, with the exception of a later revised provision, forwarded the Senate to the Parliament of the Czech Republic. The regulation appears to have been applied in an intensity that has been used over the long term and respected in parliamentary legislative practice. Similarly, the repeated (corrected) referral of the draft law did not interfere with the constitutional arrangement of the balance of legislative power or other constitutional values and procedures, as it was carried out in the factual agreement of the bodies of both chambers of Parliament, which the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic eventually fully accepted. Finally, the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic stated that the proposal for the annulment of the law in question did not appear justified, but it is only up to the Constitutional Court to assess whether the law is contrary to the constitutional order. Finally, he added, on the other hand, that the submission of a content violation of the law with the constitutional order is crucial to the eligibility of the bill, and only in the context of its examination (derived) can it be ascertained whether the law was given in a constitutionally prescribed manner.

In the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, its President PhDr. Lubomír Zaorálek also pointed out the course of the discussion of the draft law No. 361 / 2003 Coll. He stressed that, in addition to compliance with the established competence and the constitutionally prescribed method of adoption, it was necessary to ensure that the laws were clear, unambiguous and indiscriminate on the outside. This fact is all the more important because, according to the Constitution, the detailed examination of the draft law is to take place primarily in the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, with the fact that the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic does not have to deal with some of the draft laws at all, or when the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic will remain on its original text after the law is returned. That is why the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic must send him essentially "done" laws satisfying even legislative and technical requirements. The legislative and technical arrangements must not, of course, affect the substance of the law and can only eliminate certain technical inaccuracies, contribute to fulfilling the purpose of the law, since, otherwise, insurmountable interpretative difficulties could arise in practice. These adjustments are made by Members - committee rapporteurs in cooperation with the draftsman and legislative department of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic mainly during the second reading of the proposal. Furthermore, legal-technical corrections can be proposed at 3rd reading. Nor can all the adjustments be affected under this procedure, as a significant part can result from the results of the vote on the various amendments at the end of the third reading. However, if such corrections could affect the substance of the text, the text is forwarded to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic with these defects. In this context, he stated that the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, in an effort to clarify these procedures, adopted Resolution No 656 of 26 September 2003, which regulates the procedure for these adjustments and defines their scope. The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is aware of the conflict with the requirement to issue laws without technical deficiencies and the requirement to issue laws which accurately express its will. In order to resolve this conflict, an amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic was also adopted, which extended the period from 1 September 2004 between 2 and 3 reading from 24 hours to 72 hours.

On its own problem, it states that in all the cases of amendments objected, they were merely legislative technical adaptations, including the amendment of the text of Section 10 (2) of the draft law. That is why, in order to avoid any subsequent questioning, the provision in question was amended and the proposal was resent to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic for reconsideration. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic accepted this resubmitted proposal and also discussed it. The meaning of the accompanying resolution is therefore somewhat unclear. The President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic stressed that, after the bill was returned to the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic with amendments to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, the text sent to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic for consideration is always submitted to Members as the House of Deputies (here, Press No. 256 / 4). Therefore, if the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has actually discussed the corrigendum and all the amendments in question, and then all Members have received the text and have decided that they remain on it, in its view, all the amendments in question were adopted and recognised by the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic as justified and implemented in accordance with the procedure laid down. The Constitution was subsequently confirmed by the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has the competence to remove any material (content) defects of the approved law. However, as regards technical adaptations which do not affect the substantive aspect of the law and are found before the draft law is sent to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, these are the arrangements made in accordance with the constitutional powers and the constitutional procedure for the adoption of laws. He also pointed out that, by signing the law or the accompanying letter, he was certifying that the legislative process had taken place in a constitutional manner. The substantive arrangements can only be implemented until the final vote, thereby excluding any indiscretions. The technical adaptations are made before this signature, with the signature of which the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic actually approves them and includes them in the text of the law. Finally, the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic stated that the law had not yet been effective at the time of its observations, but could have established a whole range of relationships in fact. Therefore, the proposal for annulment should also be assessed in the light of the relationship between the alleged breach of the constitutional procedure and the possible breach of these relations. It is, however, for the Constitutional Court to examine the application and issue a relevant finding.

On the invitation of the Constitutional Court, the President of the Republic also commented on the proposal, which stated that he did not believe that his error could play a role in signing the law. He has not found, nor has he now found, a reason for returning the law to the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic. The text of the law was forwarded to him by the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in accordance with Section 107 of its Rules of Procedure. The signing of the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic considers, under the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure, proof that the text of the approved law has been submitted to him.

Article 68 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act The Constitutional Court assesses the content of the laws from the point of view of their compliance with the constitutional laws and ascertains whether they have been adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution by the designated competence and by the constitutionally prescribed means. In the present case, in the context of this tripartite, compliance with the constitutionally prescribed method of acceptance and issue of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps is called into question. The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic adopted this law by voting again on its proposal at the 20th meeting of 23 September 2003, when it had not previously approved the proposal as amended by the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and maintained the original version referred to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic by the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic on 13 August 2003. The Act was signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and was duly declared in the amount of No. 121 of the Collection of Laws, which was circulated on 31 October 2003, its effectiveness was postponed by Act No. 626 / 2004 Coll. to 1 January 2006.

The basic question in the present case is, according to the author, the way in which the proposal was modified after the end of the legislative process in the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Parliament after the third reading at the 18th meeting held on 2 July 2003. In this context, the Constitutional Court concluded, after examining this question, that the proposal was not justified. It was led by these considerations.

The situation which arose in August and September 2003 must be stated that it is not an analogous case to the amendment to the Commercial Code, which was dealt with by the Constitutional Court by the finding No. 476 / 2002 Coll. (the finding sp. zn. In 2001, this was an inadmissible second vote by the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, whereas only one vote was taken in the present case. The problem of inconsistencies and errors is that the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic should have confirmed the authenticity of the text by signing it, but it does not correspond to what the House has decided in the author's opinion. On the contrary, in the case of the amendment of the Commercial Code implemented by Law No 501 / 2001 Coll. the unity of the views was in what the House decided, the contradiction was whether it could have been decided on. In the event of inconsistencies between the draft law referred to it, which was approved by the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic, and a record of its action (amendments, votes on them), this is another situation which cannot be resolved according to principles such as vote acquis or not bis in idem.

The Constitutional Court therefore notes that it is competent to decide on the repeal of laws or their individual provisions if they are contrary to constitutional order. It shall comply with the constitutional order and the law which, within the meaning of Article 88 (1): The Constitution regulates the rules of procedure before the Constitutional Court. The Law on the Constitutional Court requires that the Constitutional Court, in the context of the control of the constitutionality of the laws, evaluate their content in terms of their compliance with the constitutional laws and determine whether they have been adopted and issued within the limits of the constitutional powers laid down and in a constitutional manner. In the present case, the appellant does not dispute the very content of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., or argue that an assessment of the content of the Act would not lead to the elimination of the defects with which its adoption is linked. The actual procedure for adopting the draft law in question accuses it of violating Articles 45, 46 to 48 and Article 50 of the Constitution, which it also considers to be a breach of Article 2 (1) of the Constitution and Article 2 (2) of the Charter.

The Constitutional Court did not identify with these objections to unconstitutionality. First of all, it should be noted that the legislative process in the Czech Republic is entrusted to the only body of legislative power, which is the Parliament of two chambers. However, the adoption of the law is a multifaceted and complicated process, which is only partially regulated by constitutional regulations. Other regulations of reglement law also play an important role here, which represent, on the one hand, the standards contained in the Rules of Procedure of the chambers of Parliament of the Czech Republic and, on the other hand, the resolution by which the chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic adjust their internal circumstances and more detailed rules for the conduct of their institutions. It cannot be overlooked that a significant part of our parliamentary law has not yet been adapted. No law has been adopted to establish, pursuant to Article 40 of the Constitution, the basis of the Rules of Procedure of the chambers and, in particular, the rules governing their contact with each other, as well as the external appearance. Therefore, parliamentary practices, interpretative resolutions and informal agreements between their representatives, by which the chambers define their relations from 1996 to now, are an important part of the relations of both chambers. However, only the constitutional rules of the legislative procedure are a binding assessment criterion for the Constitutional Court in the present case. But he didn't find a breach.

Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps, is a "ordinary" law which does not fall under the reservation of the consent of both chambers of Parliament under Rule 40 of the Constitution. It was therefore necessary to comply with all the rules of the legislative procedure as defined in Articles 39 (1) and (2), 41, 44 to 48 and 50 to 52 of the Constitution in order to be properly adopted. Those rules should be interpreted in the spirit of the basic provisions of the Constitution, in particular Article 1 (1), according to which the Czech Republic is a democratic legal State which, pursuant to Article 1 (2), complies with its obligations under international law. The Constitutional Court has not found a breach of the rules on the submission of a bill as a rule of law (Article 41 (2)) in relation to the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (Article 41 (1)). The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic approved the bill in accordance with Rule 39 (1) in the presence of 178 Members requested by a majority of 130 Members present (Rule 39 (2)). The approved bill was passed without undue delay in accordance with Rule 45 of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and it did the same to his request to send a flawless text. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic discussed the text of the draft law within a specified period of 30 days (Article 46 (1)), namely on 10 September 2003, so that it was not necessary to deal with the nature of the deadline and its calculation. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic accepted the proposal with the knowledge that it was a resent bill. He voted on this proposal in accordance with Rule 46 (2) by returning it to the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic pursuant to Rule 46 (2) with amendments which were approved in compliance with Rule 39 (1) in the presence of the required one third of the Senators (namely 73 Senators were present), with 51 Senators for the majority of the required Rule 39 (2). The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has renegotiated the bill thus returned. The representative of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, Senator F. K., noted that thanks to the willingness of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, this press was replaced and could be discussed with effect at the next meeting of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (Tysnopisek Report on the 20th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. Fourth term, p. 60). The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic voted on this proposal within the time limit prescribed by its Rules of Procedure in such a way that, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 47 (2), it did not adopt a draft law, as approved by the Chamber of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, because of the 182 Members present, the majority requested had not spoken for it when there were only 79 Members present for the proposal. Subsequently, pursuant to Article 47 (3), a total of 108 out of 183 votes, by an absolute majority of all its members, approved the draft law in the version in which, at the request of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, it was sent by the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic on 13 August 2003. The Law thus approved has been signed by the relevant constitutional authorities in accordance with Article 51 and duly declared in accordance with Article 52 of the Constitution in the Collection of Laws.

It is clear from this that the constitutional rules of the legislative process have been complied with. It follows from the documents submitted concerning the constitutional plane of the present case that both chambers were in agreement with the subject matter under discussion. The fact that the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has complied with the request of the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and has sent the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic a new text of the draft law, which opens a new deadline of 30 days to discuss it by the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, cannot be considered a breach of the constitutional rules of the legislative process. The President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic presented the opinion of the majority of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic expressed in vote 21 at the 9th session of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic on 7 August 2003. The fact that a group of 26 senators now considers this procedure unconstitutional is unfounded. The Senate of Parliament of the Czech Republic expresses its will by voting under the terms of Rule 39 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. The President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, who presents the majority opinion of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, not the opinion of an additional minority group of senators. The opinion of the majority reached in each House and the identity of the subject of the vote in the form of a draft law on the service ratio of members of the Security Corps are therefore undisputed by the Constitutional Court. For the evaluation of the Constitutional Court, the resolution of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic of 10 September 2003 under No 197 is decisive, not the resolution by which the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic states that the transposed text of the draft law is not identical to that approved in the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. This resolution, irrespective of its ambiguity, does not affect the validity of Resolution 197 by which the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic returns the draft law as amended.

The Constitutional Court underlines the principle of mutual autonomy in the decisions of the House. Each House takes its own decisions in the legislative process and it is up to it to decide what procedure it will take for their editorial processing to ensure the requirements of legislative technology. It is also a matter of the Rules of Procedure and of other Rules (Sections 1 (2) and 71 of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, Section 1 (2) of Act No. 107 / 1999 Coll., on the Rules of Procedure of the Senate), which the House will choose to check the text of its resolutions (objections to the President, verifiers, deadlines, etc.). It is not the responsibility of the second House to control or even modify its resolution from this point of view. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic must therefore respect the acts of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, which have been properly drawn up and signed by its President, as required by the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in § 29 (1) (f), (g), (h) and (i) and § 68 (2) (approval of the minutes within 15 days) and by the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (not just an apparatus) officially referred to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. However, it has a number of options as regards its content, if it does not agree with the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. Similarly, the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has constitutionally defined ways of dealing with the resolution on the bill which the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic returned to it. However, she cannot carry out the legislative-technical editorial work of changes with which the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic officially returns the bill to her through its President. This could be regulated by the law foreseen in Article 40 of the Constitution. However, it is not yet adopted, and the practice of a possible dispute is addressed by the parliamentary practices that have been established since 1996 in the relations of the House.

The accuracy of the text of the House resolution is confirmed by the signature of its President. However, it is necessary to distinguish between the constitutional material, which is the nature of the signatures of constitutional officials under the adopted law under Article 51 of the Constitution, where it is part of a constitutional legislative procedure, and the nature of the signature of the President of the House under the resolution of the House, where it is a reglement issue. Since such a House Resolution is also a public act, it is necessary that its correctness, as determined by the Authority's official, is confirmed by the fact that the proposal has been approved in accordance with the procedure laid down in the constitutional rules, the Rules of Procedure and the closer rules contained in the resolutions of the House concerned, and that it is a genuine resolution of the House. Its signature therefore has not only a notification but also an identification and verification function in relation to such a public act as the signature of a public act. The President cannot deny the signature (he does not have a residence right), just as he cannot correct the substantive errors and errors he has made in the vote of the House. This cannot be done by the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (cf. Found No. 476 / 2002 Coll.) by a new vote. Therefore, his signature does not have a confirmatory function, as could result from the observations of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. Its task, with the help of the other institutions of the House (rapporteurs, verifiers) and apparatus of the Chamber's office, is to ensure that the final expression of the House's will is also formulated in accordance with the requirements of the law in the conditions of a democratic rule of law (certainty, clarity, clarity, clarity, clarity, clarity, inconsistencies, linguistic and stylistic timeliness). To this end, the President is also served with a traditional instrument of reglement law, such as an entry which is made on the basis of § 68 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and § 86 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. The minutes shall serve as an official function, while the shorthand report shall serve only as an information function. At the end of 15 days, the minutes shall be an authentic record of the meeting and shall certify everything in it and its annexes. His questioning is an internal matter for the House, unless otherwise stated. As has already been stated, there is nothing else in this regard and the so-called liaison law has not yet been adopted.

In the present case, it was recognised that the amendment of the text of Paragraph 10 (2) of the draft law on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps was a substantive change, not just a legislative technical modification, and therefore the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has forwarded the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic a new version of the approved bill. This procedure initiated by the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic was also subsequently accepted by the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic was formally negotiated on such a draft bill. Similarly, this bill was accepted without reservation in the renegotiation of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. It is not the subject of this procedure to examine the procedure if the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic did not comply with the request of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, as this is not the case. Nor was it necessary to address the question raised by the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in his observations, i.e. whether it would have been necessary to repeal the law as a whole if the proposal had been complied with, or only the provisions concerning the non-compliance between the text approved and forwarded.

As regards the own problem of 13 amendments made in the text of the approved draft law on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps, it is, from the point of view of the Constitutional Court, a question to be interpreted in the spirit of the democratic rule of law enshrined in Article 1 (1) of the Constitution. On the one hand, this principle implies a general requirement of clarity, clarity, certainty and inconsistencies of the legal rules of conduct, which sets out the requirements for the final legislative-technical editorial regulation of the text of the draft law and, on the other hand, the requirement to respect the competence of the various constitutional bodies in the legislative process. Our reglement law in this respect does not respond quite adequately to these problems of legislative practice (cf. Section 112 (1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Federal Assembly, according to which if, after the final vote prior to the referral of the draft law to the Federal Council, the President of the Federal Assembly is able to correct it in accordance with the guarantee committee). In this context, the Constitutional Court notes that, in the context of the review of the constitutionality of the law, it is also required to deal with compliance with the constitutional procedure for the adoption and extradition of the law. However, the idea that the Constitutional Court, to the same extent that it regularly assesses compliance with quorum and majority requirements under Article 39 of the Constitution, would begin to review the minutes of meetings and evaluate the location of the apparatus of chambers, their verifiers, rapporteurs and Presidents on which the Chamber has actually decided, would be unacceptable and impractical, would go beyond the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 87 of the Constitution and would involve interference in the division of power which the appellant otherwise invokes. Such adjustments are made to virtually every draft law in both chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and the Constitutional Court could be made to a number of proposals in which it would address issues which, by their nature, fall within the competence of someone else and which are otherwise a normal matter for the legislative services of parliaments, under the supervision of the officials of the House (more specifically Philip, J.: Comments on the issue of the correction of irregularities in the resolutions of the House. Legal Science and Practice Magazine, 2003, No 4). This is a matter expressly entrusted by the Constitution to a decision which can only be reached by the agreement of the two chambers by the adoption of a law on the rules of contact. It is a matter of reglement law to ensure that the review of the text of the approved resolutions and any legislative technical arrangements will be carried out by those with a mandate based on choice. A different procedure would be contrary to the requirements of a constitutionally prescribed law within the meaning of Article 68 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, in which case it would be for the Constitutional Court to examine any objections, whether the content compliance of the law with the constitutional order is also contested. It must be stressed that this would have to happen on the basis of the minutes of the sitting of the House (Section 68 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, Section 86 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic), not only on the basis of a short-term report. In the present case, however, this is not the case when no contradiction has been found between the will of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and its outcome.

At the same time, a more substantial aspect of this matter cannot be overlooked. The Constitutional Court's accession to the autonomous resolution area would open up wide scope for the Constitutional Court to explain, by its decisions, what the Chamber of Parliament of the Czech Republic has actually decided without becoming part of the rule of law. By doing so, it would replace its autonomous decision-making while at the same time undermining the principles of power sharing. As a result, there would not only be a danger that the Constitutional Court would become the third chamber of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, but also a danger that it would begin to take over the tasks of officials and legislative apparatus of both parliaments. It follows from the provisions of paragraphs 66 to 68 of the Law on the Constitutional Court that the legislation which is declared by law is the subject of scrutiny, not the resolutions of the House which are yet to be adopted. In order to ensure consistency between the will of the House and its resolution, the competences of the various constitutional bodies and constitutional officials, starting with the verifiers in the House and ending with those referred to in Article 51 of the Constitution, are laid down. The role of the Constitutional Court is not to interpret the results of the vote on individual amendments and their implications for the draft law as a whole in relation to other provisions of such a proposal and the rules of the legislative technique. Its task is to interpret the constitutional text in relation to the laws published in the Collection of Laws. The procedure for the adoption and publication of the law is subject to the cognica of the Constitutional Court only within the framework which sets out the constitutional order and which has been detailed above. The subject of the review activity of the Constitutional Court is therefore the approved text of the law, which serves as the main means of proof in the evaluation of one component of the tripartite evaluation, i.e. compliance with the constitutional procedure for the adoption of the law.

It was important for the Constitutional Court in the present case that the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic asked for a new referral on the way to its President, that it concluded that the new text could be discussed, discussed it and returned the amendments. The same text was voted on by the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, which also recognised it as voting and accepted it in its original form to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. The appellant's different opinion has thus already been refuted where there is a place - by voting both chambers. The Constitutional Court thus agreed with the views expressed by both the House as parties to the proceedings as well as the President of the Republic, who was asked to take an opinion in this context in view of his role in the legislative process.

During the oral hearing, the appellant's legal representative submitted to the Constitutional Court a press of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic No 1002 of 2005 containing an alleged new government proposal for further amendment to Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., which, according to the appellant, supports its arguments in favour of the annulment of this Act by the Constitutional Court. After examining this written material, the Constitutional Court notes that, in the light of the decision-making reasons already detailed, the document is irrelevant, ineligible to change anything to its decision on the need to reject the appellant's proposal.

In view of the above conclusions, The Constitutional Court did not find a proposal to repeal Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps, justified. It therefore rejected it under Paragraph 70 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.