The Constitutional Court found no 36 / 2012 Coll.

Motion denied.

1. On 7 July 2009, the Constitutional Court received a proposal from a group of 45 Members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant ') to abolish § 112 paragraph 2 of the first sentence in the wording" within 150 hours in the calendar year' of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps, as amended by Act No. 530 / 2005 Coll., and § 112 paragraph 4 of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll.

2. The appellant then amended the proposal by submitting to the Constitutional Court on 2 October 2009 by requesting "the annulment of the whole sentence of the first in the provision of Section 112 (2) of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps, as amended," which reads: "The member is provided with a service income, taking into account any overtime service of 150 hours in a calendar year."

3. As regards the proposal to abolish the provisions of § 112 paragraph 2 of the sentence of the first Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., as amended by Act No. 530 / 2005 Coll., the appellant first stated that, when discussing Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll. in the Chamber of Deputies, "the amendment to the part of the Act on the remuneration of members was amended, the classification of which led to the contradiction of part of the Act with the constitutional order." Paragraph 112 (2) of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., as amended by Act No. 530 / 2005 Coll., according to the appellant, "shows a contradiction with the wording of the first sentence of paragraph 1 of the same provision, which expresses the general principle that" The Member is entitled to a service income '. This is an indication of the possibility of ordering an overtime service of 150 hours to a member without being granted a replacement leave or equivalent remuneration. The very nature of this regulation, as well as the way it is anchored, leads to consequences that can be considered unfair. It creates an unequal position between members but also among other employees subject to other provisions governing entitlement to pay or salary with an overtime allowance of 150 hours (Act No. 262 / 2006 Coll., Labour Code, as amended).' The appellant pointed out that, contrary to the situation in 2000, when the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs submitted a report on the implementation of the European Social Charter, now that the provisions of Section 10 (2) of the Act No. 143 / 1992 Coll., on salary and remuneration for on-call time in the budget and in some other organisations and bodies, in the then version, hereinafter referred to as the "Salary Act," it cannot be concluded that an overtime allowance of 150 hours in the calendar year may be withdrawn for members.

4. The appellant points out that under the contested legislation, the "possible 'overtime service is taken into account and that, in contrast to previous legislation, the limitation of the overtime allowance is not linked to the reference to the value surcharge. It imports that the method of remuneration given to the contested provision contradicts the right to a fair remuneration for the work laid down in Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the" Charter'), as the amount of the service is set at the same level as the amount of the service to the member who performs the overtime 150 hours in a calendar year, as well as to those who do not perform the service at all. The appellant considers that the contested provision also contradicts Article 3 of the Charter and invokes the finding of the Constitutional Court sp. zn. I. ÚS 2007 / 08 (sic! correctly: order of 3.2.2009; Available at http: / / nalus.ujud.cz). The appellant submits, in accordance with it, that the service contribution itself and the severance payment cannot, however, be regarded in general as remuneration for the work, it is only the use of the "compensation 'of the significantly weakened position of the employee in the service relationship compared to that of the employee in employment covered by the Labour Code. It imports that 150 hours of overtime is equal to the size of almost the entire basic service fund per calendar month, and points out that while the overtime service is introduced without compensation, a remuneration is always provided for on-call duty. Finally, the appellant stated that" when it is stated that the service income is fixed taking into account any overtime service, it should also be determined how the overtime service is taken into account, or what component of the service income is intended for such compensation. However, this is not the case against the original arrangements (see Section 10 of the Salary Act above). "

5. In the supplementary proposal, the petit appellant changed the petit on the request for annulment of the full first sentence in the provision of Section 112 (2) of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., as amended by Act No. 530 / 2005 Coll., points out that, in the event of cancellation only a limit of 150 hours a year without overtime surcharge, nothing would prevent "even more hours of overtime over the current limit."

6. The application for annulment of the provision of Article 112 (4) of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll. justifies the appellant's argument with Article 2 of the European Social Charter. It also points out a conflict with previous legislation and disputes that "compensation for the performance of a service on a public holiday or not counting a public holiday into a working time fund (therefore 7,5 hours must be worked on a different day, unless the worker has worked on a public holiday) for members who have an unevenly distributed service period, is already replaced by a 10% increase in the basic tariff '. It points out that those members of the security corps to whom the day of service is due on a public holiday do not derive from the service thus declared any surcharge or replacement leave for work on a public holiday, and argues that a 10% increase in the basic tariff within the meaning of § 114 of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., as amended by Act No. 530 / 2005 Coll., is not an adequate compensation for the twelve holidays for which a paid leave should be granted. The appellant argues that the European Social Charter's non-compliance as an international contract published under No 14 / 2000 Coll., with the contested law within the meaning of Article 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) has not been resolved and states that the members of the Security Corps of the Czech Republic feel that this fact is discriminatory as it does not create fair working conditions among all members. The appellant also points out the divergence of legislation for members of the security corps of the Czech Republic and for employees working under a continuous working regime with unevenly structured working hours. The appellant contends that that difference cannot be justified by any substantive nature of the work or other grounds referred to in Article 2 of the European Social Charter, Articles 28, 41 (1), 4 (3) and 3 (1) of the Charter. It points to the finding of the Constitutional Court sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 37 / 93 of 22.3.1994 (N 9 / 1 SbNU 61; 86 / 1994 Sb.) with reference to the finding of the Constitutional Court of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic sp. zn. Finally, the appellant states that' discrimination, as established by the Staff Act in this case, strengthens social and economic inequalities, distorts cohesion between members. Discrimination at work is a violation of human rights, resulting in a waste of human talent with harmful consequences for productivity and economic growth. Discrimination breeds social and economic inequality that undermines social cohesion and solidarity and acts as a brake in an effort to reduce poverty."

7. In accordance with Article 69 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the Law on the Constitutional Court '), the Constitutional Court invited the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as" the Chamber of Deputies') and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Senate ') to comment on the proposal.

8. The Chamber of Deputies, through the President of the Chamber of Deputies, said that the Government had submitted a bill to the Chamber of Deputies on 18 March 2003 and the proposal was circulated to Members as Press 256 / 0 on 20 March 2003. In the explanatory memorandum, the Government explicitly stated that the draft law was in accordance with the constitutional order and legal order of the Czech Republic and does not conflict with the international treaties by which the Czech Republic is bound. The bill was submitted to the Committee on European Integration for preliminary consultation. The first reading of the bill took place on 16 April 2003 at the 14th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies. The bill was ordered to discuss the Committee on European Integration and the Defence and Security Committee. The Committee on European Integration discussed the draft law and issued a resolution on 18 June 2003 recommending that the draft law be approved by Members as press 256 / 1. The Committee on Defence and Security discussed the draft law and issued on 11 June 2003 a resolution delivered to Members as Press 256 / 2 with amendments which did not concern the contested provisions. A second reading took place at the 18th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies on 24 and 25 June 2003. The draft law has undergone a general and detailed debate, the amendments tabled have been processed as press 256 / 3. The amendment to Section 112 (2) of the draft law by Mr Petr Ibl was also included in the amendments. The third reading took place on 2 July 2003 at the 18th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies. The draft law was approved as amended. The Chamber of Deputies also adopted the proposed amendment to Paragraph 112 (2) of the Law in question. Voting No 260 in favour of this proposal was from 178 Members 130 and 7 Members opposed this amendment. The bill was passed on 17 July 2003 to the Senate. At its 10th meeting on 10 September 2003, the Senate returned the bill to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments which did not concern the contested provisions (Resolution 197). The bill returned by the Senate was voted on 23 September 2003 at the 20th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies. The Chamber of Deputies remained on the original bill, with vote 21 against the motion of 183 Members 108 and 41. The President of the Republic signed the Act on 13 October 2003 and the Act was published on 31 October 2003 in the Collection of Laws in the amount of 121 under the number 361 / 2003 Coll.

9. The Chamber of Deputies further stated that the amendment to the contested provision of Paragraph 112 (2) contained also Press No. 1002 - Government Bill amending Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps, as amended, Act No. 362 / 2003 Coll., on the amendment of the laws relating to the adoption of the Law on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps, as amended, Act No. 586 / 1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended, and Act No. 153 / 1994 Coll., on the intelligence services of the Czech Republic, as amended. In the explanatory memorandum, the Government explicitly stated that the proposed amendment to the Act was in accordance with the legal order of the Czech Republic, its constitutional order, as well as the international treaties by which the Czech Republic is bound. The Government further stated that the amendment to the Act was also fully compatible with European Community law. The Government submitted a bill to the Chamber of Deputies on 1 June 2005. The bill was distributed to Members as press 1002 / 0 on 1 June 2005. The first reading took place on 1 July 2005 at the 45th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies. The draft law was ordered to discuss the Defence and Security Committee, which discussed the draft law and issued on 21 September 2005 a resolution to Members as press 1002 / 1 with amendments which did not, however, concern the contested provision. A second reading took place at the 48th session of the Chamber of Deputies on 13 October 2005, the bill passed a general and detailed debate, the amendments tabled (did not concern the contested provisions) were processed as print 1002 / 3. The third reading took place on 26 October 2005 at the 48th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies. The bill was passed as amended by the Chamber of Deputies, and in vote 498, the bill of 177 Members 128 and 5 opposed the proposal. The Chamber of Deputies referred the draft amendment to the Senate Act on 3 November 2005 as press 169 / 0. The Senate discussed the proposal at its 8th meeting on 30 November 2005 and issued Resolution No 251, where the Senate expressed the will not to deal with the bill. The law in question was delivered to the President of the Republic for signature on 2 December 2005, the President of the Republic signed the law on 13 December 2005. The Act was published on 29 December 2005 in the Collection of Laws in the amount of 180 under the number 530 / 2005 Coll. The laws containing the contested provisions were published in the Collection of Laws under numbers 361 / 2003 Coll. and 530 / 2005 Coll. Both laws have been passed by the necessary majority of Members of the Chamber of Deputies, they have been signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and have been duly declared. In this state of affairs, the Chamber of Deputies cannot but express the view that the legislature acted in the belief that the laws adopted comply with the Constitution and our rule of law. It is up to the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of the contested provisions in the context of a proposal submitted by a group of Members and give an opinion.

10. The Senate, through its President, MUDr. Přemysl Sobotka, informed that the Senate Chamber of Deputies passed the draft bill on 13 August 2003. The Senate discussed the bill (Senate Document 135) as prescribed. The Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security, which was ordered as a guarantee, recommended the Senate to return this amendment to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments. The Committee called into question one of the grounds for the release of the member and requested several interventions to limit the high service rights after the termination of the service. The Committee on Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Transport, to which the proposal was further ordered, agreed with the Guarantee Committee to return the Act for similar reasons. At its 10th meeting of the 4th term of office on 10 September 2003, the Senate complied with the recommendations of the Committees and decided by its Resolution No 197 of 10 September 2003 to return the Act on the Service Ratio of Members of the Security Corps to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments. The resolution was adopted by a strong majority in vote No 27, with 73 of the senators present voting in favour of the proposal of 51 senators, with 5 and 17 abstentions. It follows that the Senate was in a quorum and its resolution was adopted by the necessary number of votes. The Senate decided on the draft law in the Constitution. The amendments adopted by the Senate did not affect the proposal in question to repeal the provisions of paragraphs 112 (2) and (4) of the Act on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps (i.e. the service income for overtime and services on holidays), but in the debate of the Senate itself, the issue of overtime was, after all, open and an amendment was tabled in the detailed debate in this substantive direction. In the debate, it was said that the 300-hour overtime limit for shift workers is discriminatory compared to the other members, and an amendment was tabled, which was intended to bring the limit for all to 150 hours, except for the performance of the service to which a member is called from a duty-free period which is specifically paid. At the same time, the debate expressed the view that the double "burden" of overtime without a surcharge, introduced for translators, is not common in Europe or the US and is not comparable to the situation of professional soldiers. The Government's representative rejected the proposal for a change, with the fact that, when adjusting the submitted solution in the Chamber of Deputies, the maintenance of a balance between the significantly increased basic tariff (service income) for the corresponding categories (types of service) of the members and their obligation to serve a certain number of overtime hours without any specific remuneration was monitored with general support. The representative of the government (the petitioner) also generally advocated a concept in which those who want to serve in the Security Corps will receive a very solid evaluation, but at the same time put a great deal of their rights and private life into (sacrifice). The abovementioned amendment was then rejected (there were only 28 votes in favour of the amendment in case 38). Paragraph 112 (4) of the second draft of the contested provision remained without further interest in the hearing. The Senate believed in the majority that setting the average level of pay of members of the Security Corps to one-fold the average level of pay in the non-business sphere, and many other advantages for members of the Security Corps, which also compensates for a number of tough demands and renunciations imposed by law on members. This system was also presented by the government as administratively very simple and flexible. The Act was introduced as a revolution in the personnel stabilisation and performance of the Security Corps, especially the Police of the Czech Republic.

11. Amendment to the Act on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps (Act No. 530 / 2005 Coll., amending Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps, as amended, Act No. 362 / 2003 Coll., on the amendment of the laws relating to the adoption of the service relationship of members of the Security Corps, as amended, Act No. 586 / 1992 Coll., on income taxes, as amended, and Act No. 153 / 1994 Coll., on the intelligence services of the Czech Republic, as amended) corrected the relevant provision of Paragraph 112 (2). The amendment was referred to the Senate by the Chamber of Deputies on 3 November 2005. The Senate discussed the bill (Senate Press No. 169) as prescribed. The Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security recommended the Senate not to deal with the bill. At its 8th meeting of the 5th term of office on 30 November 2005, the Senate adopted this recommendation to its Committee and decided not to deal with the draft law by Resolution No 251 of 30 November 2005. The resolution was adopted in vote 25 with the closest possible result, with 66 of the senators present voting in favour of the motion 34 Senators, with 2 and 30 abstentions. It follows that the Senate was in a quorum and its resolution was adopted by the necessary number of votes. The Senate decided on the draft law in the Constitution. In the opening speech, the representative of the promoter of the amendment to the Law on the Service Ratio presented its sole objective - to reduce the cost of remuneration of members of the Security Corps, before the new, disproportionately "generous," and the budget payment arrangements become effective in the framework of the Law on the Service Rates of the Security Corps, i.e. very urgent. With the overall reduction in service revenue, the adjustment of the overtime service has also partly changed in the applicant's logic. Members can now be ordered to include 150 hours of overtime in a calendar year without distinction (see Section 54 (1) of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., as amended by Act No. 530 / 2005 Coll.) and the same amount of overtime is to be taken into account when determining the employee's income (the overtime is therefore no longer paid on the basis of specific quantification; See Section 112 (2) of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., as amended by Act No. 530 / 2005 Coll.) The second draft of the contested provision § 112 (4) was not affected by the amendment to the Law on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps. The Senate stated that it had discussed the above mentioned Act on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps and the amendment to the Act on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps, in which the text of the draft of the contested provisions of paragraphs 112 (2) and (4) had also become valid, in the belief that it did so within the limits of the Constitution established competence and in a constitutional manner. The Senate concluded that it was up to the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of the draft contested provision and to rule.

12. The Constitutional Court verified that

- The contested text of Paragraph 112 (4) of Law No 361 / 2003 Coll. was included in the text on the basis of an amendment by Mr Peter Ible, and that, at the 18 session of the Chamber of Deputies held on 2 July 2003, the following members of the group voted in favour of this proposal: Vlastimil Aubrecht, Milan Bičík, Robin Böhlusch, Petr Bráné, Jiří Dolejš, Jiřina Fialova, Pavel Hojda, Pavel Kováčik, Stanislav Křicek, Zdeněk Maršíček, Ladislav Mlčák, Petr Rafaj, Antonín Sedya, Zdeněk Škromach, Karel Šplechal, Václav Votava and Petr Zgarba,

- at the 21st vote at the 20th meeting The House of Deputies, held on 23 September 2003 for the contested law, voted by the following members from the appellant's group: Vlastimil Aubrecht, Milan Biček, Robin Böhrunsch, Petr Braný, Jiřina Fialova, Pavel Hojda, Zdeněk Jichiná, Kateřina Konecná, Pavel Kováčík, Stanislav Křiček, Ivana Levá, Zdeněk Maršíček, Ladislav Mlčák, Petr Rafaj, Antonín Sedya, Zdeněk Škromach, Karel Špluchal, Václav Votava, Petr Zgarba. Jiøí Dolejš has been delayed, and that

- at the 498th vote at the 48th session of the Chamber of Deputies held on 26 October 2005 for the amended version of the contested law, including the amendment of the contested provision § 112 paragraph 2 of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., the following Members voted from the group of draftsmen: Vlastimil Aubrecht, Robin Böhrunsch, Václav Grüner, Zdeněk Jichinsky, Antonín Kratočne, Stanislav Kříček, Břetislav Petr, Petr Rafaj, Antonín Sedea, Zdeněk Škromach, Václav Votava. The vote was abstained in the same vote from the author's group: Milan Bičík, Petr Braný, Jiří Dolejš, Ladislav Mlčák, Jiřina Fialová, Pavel Hojda, Kateřina Konkonečná, Pavel Kováčik and Zdeněk Maršíček. She voted against by the appellant Ivan Levý. The vote was unsigned by Karel Špláchal and Petr Zgarba.

13. The Constitutional Court also found, from a short-term report from the first day of the 8th Senate meeting held on 30 November 2005, that the representative of the group of petitioner František Bublan, as the then Minister of Government of the Czech Republic, said, inter alia: "The amendment itself certainly provides room for further discussion and application of your proposals to amend its text. I would not object to this debate in any other situation, because I know that this is an area that is important to us all, but I cannot ignore the time pressure that I was talking about at the beginning. Therefore, I ask you to apply any suggestions for a change of service legislation when discussing another amendment that I expect next year, which will be resubmitted to the Chamber of Deputies... In view of what I have said, I ask you to approve the draft amendment in a way that is not linked to the need to return this text to the Chamber of Deputies."

14. The Constitutional Court of the House of Prints No. 675 / 0-3 and the close-up reports on the following meetings of the Chamber of Deputies and its committees found that a group of Members represented by František Bublan had submitted a draft law on 3 December 2008, which was to be adopted as an amendment to Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., in the version in force at that time. The bill was distributed to Members as press 675 / 0 on 4 December 2008. The proposal was then sent to the Government for an opinion on 5 December 2008. The revised version of the proposal was delivered on 15 December 2008 to Members as House Press No. 675 / 1. This proposal was sent to the Government for an opinion on 17 December 2008. The Government sent an opinion on 13 January 2009. The Government's disapproval was distributed to Members on 14 January 2009 as press 675 / 2. The Organizing Committee recommended the discussion of the bill on 15 January 2009 (Resolution 333). He appointed rapporteur Mgr. Zdenk Boháč and proposed a proposal to order the Security Committee to discuss it. The first reading took place on 2 October 2009 at the 62nd meeting of the Chamber of Deputies. The bill was ordered to the committees (Resolution 1441). The Committee on Security discussed the bill and issued a resolution delivered to Members as press 675 / 3 on 2 December 2009. The law was not passed, the legislative process did not end by the end of the 5th parliamentary term of the Chamber of Deputies. The draft law concerned, inter alia, the provisions of Paragraph 112 (2) of the first contested law, the amended version of which was intended to read: "A member is provided with a service income, taking into account any overtime service of 150 hours in a calendar year when declaring a state of crisis under a specific legislation." Paragraph 112 (4) of the contested law did not affect the draft law. The following Members were among the group of Members who submitted this bill on 3 December 2008: Vlastimil Aubrecht, Jan Babor, Robin Böhlisch, Zuzana Brzohtová, František Bublan, Josef Čerňanský, Kosta Dimitrov, Václav Grüner, Zdeněk Jichín, Gabriela Kalábková, Václav Klučka, Karel Kratočen, Jan Látka, Vladimir Lesenský, Zdeněk Maršíček, Marcel Merin, Bříslav Petr, Jiří Petru, Petr Ploc, Petr Rafaj, Antonín Sedya, Miloslav Sousek, Petr Sunkovský, Zdeněk Škromach, Václav Šlajs, Karel Šplechal, Jeroných Tejc, Václav Votava, Cyril Zapletel.

15. The Constitutional Court is aware that for its current term of office, members of the Chamber of Deputies were elected: Vojtěch Adam, Jan Babor, Robin Böhlisch, Petr Bráný, František Bublan, Jiří Doleše, Milada Halíková, Pavel Hojda, Václav Klučka, Kateřina Konkonečná, Pavel Kováčík, Stanislav Křiček, Jan Látka, Vladimir Lesenská, Ivana Levá, Jiří Petru, Petr Ploc, Antonín Sedá, Ladislav Šincl, Zdeněk Škromach (Member), Jerových Tejc, Václav Votava and Cyril Zapletal.

16. The Constitutional Court has verified that, in the current parliamentary term of the Chamber of Deputies, a draft law has not been tabled which envisages the amendment of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps, as amended.

17. The proposal was submitted by a group of 45 Members of the Chamber of Deputies, which formally appears to be a requirement of the relevant number of proposing Members under Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution and Article 64 (1) (b) of the Law on the Constitutional Court.

18. The Constitutional Court notes that, on this issue, the proposal is made by an actively legitimate appellant, although it did not fail to see that the group of appellants is partly composed of Members who voted in favour of the contested legislation in the Chamber of Deputies.

19. The proposal to abolish the provisions of Section 112 (2) of the first sentence of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., on the service relationship of members of the Security Corps, as amended by Act No. 530 / 2005 Coll., which reads: "The member is provided with a service income taking into account any overtime service of 150 hours in the calendar year."

20. The Constitutional Court, aware of the history of the adoption of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., its amendments by Act No. 530 / 2005 Coll. and the attempt to make another amendment in 2008-2009, dealt first with whether the proposal brings about a significant change in the constitutional system, international commitments or legal series of the Czech Republic. It is clear that this is not the case. The appellant refers to the European Social Charter (No 14 / 2000 Coll. s.), which has been valid and effective since 2003, makes comparisons with the status of employee under Act No. 262 / 2006 Coll., the Labour Code, as amended, which has not fundamentally changed as regards the status of employee in the field since 2003, and argues that it is not possible to change the provisions of Paragraph 112 (2) of the Act No. 361 / 2003 [2005]. This fact, too, has to a certain extent led to the appearance of the effectiveness of the proposal's argument, which does not even provide any explanation of the change of opinion of a group of Members of the appellant.

21. The Constitutional Court then, bound by the petition of the proposal, but not by its extensive justification, focused on the issue of remuneration of members of the Security Corps from a visual angle of its existing case law.

22. at the finding of 28 June 2011 sp. zn. The Constitutional Court recalled that "one of the essential features of the democratic rule of law is the principle of proportionality, which, in particular, assumes that measures restricting fundamental rights or freedoms must not, by their negative consequences, exceed the pros which constitute a public interest in such measures. Although restrictions on fundamental rights or freedoms may exceptionally also occur in the event of a collision with one of the public goods (public interest); In this context, however, the maximum is that fundamental right or freedom can be limited only in the event of an extremely strong and duly justified public interest, in a careful examination of the substance and meaning of the restricted fundamental right. Thus, the first condition is that there is a conflict between fundamental law and public interest (so-called false conflict, unlike the conflict between two fundamental rights); the second is the requirement to investigate the substance and meaning of the restricted fundamental law or freedom (Article 4 (4) of the Charter). As usual, the measurement of conflicting fundamental rights is mainly based on the following criteria: the first is the criterion of suitability, seeking an answer to the question whether an institution limiting a fundamental right allows it to achieve the objective pursued, followed by the criterion of necessity, consisting of a comparison of a legislative instrument limiting fundamental right or freedom with other measures enabling it to achieve the same objective, but not affecting fundamental rights, and the criterion of comparison of the relevant fundamental rights continues [cf. (49) However, when considering the applicability of the principle of proportionality (proportionality), it cannot be seen that, in the practice of the Constitutional Court, this principle may not always be the main criterion of consideration of the constitutionality of any legal provision. This is because the principle of proportionality applies in particular to human rights and fundamental freedoms (Title II of the Charter); However, in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, it is precisely Article 41 (1) of the Charter which opens wide scope for legislators to choose various solutions. In view of Article 41 (1) The Charter does not need to be a legal regulation in the strict relationship of proportionality to the objective pursued by the regulation, i.e. it does not need to be a measure in a democratic society, such as other rights which can be relied upon directly from the Charter (see, however, Article 27 (1), (2) and (3) of the Charter and rights which are not limited by Article 41 (1))). The constitutional test in this sense will be passed by such legal regulation as can be established to pursue a legitimate objective and in such a way as to do so in a way that can be seen as a reasonable means of achieving it, even if it may not be the best, most appropriate, most effective or most wise [the find sp. zn. In other words, Article 28 The charter is issued primarily to the legislator to fill it with specific content (cf. the second sentence of the provision itself, which refers to the details provided for by the ordinary law). Social and economic rights, which include the right to pay for work and satisfactory working conditions, differ from the classic fundamental rights in that they do not exist as and priori unlimited fundamental rights, which can only be restricted by the legislator for reasons foreseen in the Charter, but instead the legislator gives them the relevant content and scope. (50) In the case of economic and social rights, therefore, constitutional guarantees constitute the constitutional protection of institutions (employment, wages, social security, family, parenting, etc.), not the protection of specific public subjective rights. Therefore, they can only serve as criteria for constitutional review where the legislator would completely ignore or negate the constitutional protection of these institutions. The same applies in relation to the interpretation of laws containing the adjustment of these institutions. If the general courts interpret and apply such a law, their activities are, from the point of view of constitutional control, only from the point of view of the possibility of performance of libel, but not from the point of view of Article 28 of the Charter itself. The interpretation of economic and social rights belongs only to the legislator, not to the Constitutional Court [Resolution sp. zn. II. ÚS 1372 / 07 of 19.6.2007 (not published in the SbNU); cf. Findings sp. zn.

23. The Constitutional Court recalls, in the context of the appellant of the finding of the Constitutional Court sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 37 / 93, referring to the finding of the Constitutional Court of CSFR sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 22 / 92, "that the complainant's complaint in this regard is fully affected by the legal opinion expressed in the finding in the case of sp. z. z. pl. ÚS 4 / 95 (Judgment Reports, Volume 3, Found No 29; cited under No 168 / 1995 Coll.), according to which" inequality in social relations, if it should affect fundamental human rights, must achieve intensity, doubting, at least in a certain sense, already the substance of equality. "The Constitutional Court takes the view that equality is a relative category which requires the removal of unjustified differences. The principle of equality in rights must be understood as meaning that legal discrimination in access to certain rights must not be an expression of pleasure, but it does not imply that anyone should be granted any right, whereas a certain legal provision which favours one group or category of persons over others cannot, in itself, be regarded as a breach of the principle of equality without further action. The legislature has some scope to consider whether such preferential treatment will anchor. In doing so, it must ensure that the favourable approach is based on objective and reasonable grounds (legitimate objective of the legislator) and that there is a relationship of proportionality between that objective and the means of achieving it (legal advantage) (cf. the finding in Case No. [cf. found by the Constitutional Court of 16.9.2004 sp. zn. III ÚS 288 / 04 (N 132 / 34 SbNU 331)].

24. The Constitutional Court dealt in detail with the issue of inequality in the finding of 18 August 2004 sp. zn. Here he said: "The Constitutional Court dealt with the issue of equality in the decision sp. zn. It has been identified [in particular in the findings sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 16 / 93 (see above), sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 36 / 93 (Reports of Decision, Volume 1, Found No 24; Dec. No. 132 / 1994 Coll.), sp. zl. ÚS 5 / 95 (Reports of Decision, Volume 4, Found No. 74; Dec. No. 6 / 1996 Coll.) and Pl. ÚS 9 / 95 (Reports of Decision, Volume 5, Fact No. 16 / 1996 Sb.)], with a view to the constitutional principle of equality, as expressed by the Constitutional Court of the CSFR (Opinion No. 22 / 92). But even here, he can't go any further... If the law determines the benefit of one group and thereby imposes disproportionate obligations on another, it can only happen on appeal to public values." The Constitutional Court thus rejected the absolute understanding of the principle of equality, stating that "equality of citizens cannot be understood as an abstract category, but as a relative equality, as all modern institutions mean it" [sp. zn. The content of the principle of equality has thus shifted into the area of constitutional acceptance of the aspects of the distinction between entities and law. The first aspect, which can be marked by the term "non-interventional inequality," thus defined by the exclusion of libel (insolence) in a given distinction. The second point of view is based on the legal opinion expressed in the decision in the case sp. zn. This is usually the case when a breach of another fundamental right is also linked to a breach of equality... "[concurrently sp. zn. The second point of view in assessing the unconstitutionality of a law establishing inequality is that inequality based on a fundamental right and freedom (an inequality of accesoric). '

25. In the present case, the Constitutional Court, when it found that the creation of the material conditions of members of the Security Corps was left to the legislature, therefore focused on the question of whether the contested provision of the law constituted inequality, or whether or not it was a manifestation of its desire or manifestly irrational behaviour by the legislator. The Constitutional Court also took into account the explanatory memorandum to Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., according to which "the proposed legislation will strengthen the social security of members of the Security Corps. It is expected to bring about stabilisation of the members of these corps and, as a result, a reduction in the expenses of the security corps for providing basic equipment and training for new members. In the context of the adoption of the draft law, savings linked to the reduction of the administrative burden of decision-making in matters of service, the rationalisation of the structure of individual security corps, etc. '

26. The argument that the contested provision is unfair and constitutes an inequality between individual members of the Security Corps according to how many of them serve overtime hours does not stand up. Before the law, all members of the security forces, after the amendment of Act No 530 / 2005 Coll. have a level playing field, inequality, for example due to discrimination, could only occur in specific cases if the same commander, for example, had allocated two members of the overtime service diametrically different in number of hours served.

27. The contested provision § 112 paragraph 2 of the first sentence of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., as amended by Act No. 530 / 2005 Coll., cannot be considered in isolation from the whole Act. The contested provision is based on the principle of ut facias. Already when discussing Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll. at the 10th meeting of the Senate on 10 September 2003, according to the relevant shorthand record of Deputy Prime Minister Stanislav Gross expressed this idea of the law as follows: "In other words, this law does not know the overtime fee, does not know the service fee at night, Sunday, Saturday, holiday and divided shift. If someone simply wants to serve in the security corps, they have a solid rating, but at the same time it means that he will have to put in a lot of his rights, or his private life."

28. The Constitutional Court dealt in detail with the comparison of the remuneration of the various professional groups in its finding of 28 June 2011 sp. zn. It should be added that in 2009 the average wage in the Czech Republic was CZK 23 598 per month, for civil servants a total of CZK 24 994 per month, for health care, CZK 26 879 per month, for security corps a total of CZK 33 313 per month and only for central government authorities a total of CZK 34 136 per month. It is clear from the figures above that the remuneration of the security corps, taking into account the complexity of their work, was well above the average in relation to the remuneration of civil servants in total, including, where appropriate, those members of the security corps who did not serve a limit of 150 overtime in a calendar year.

29. The Constitutional Court takes the view that even part of the Members of the Group of Members who is the appellant, in the framework of the draft law in 2008-2009, the proposed amended version of the contested provision in the form referred to in paragraph 14 of this decision would not fully comply with the appellant's views as regards the alleged inequality in relation to workers under the Labour Code. It must be added that even the Labour Code is not a uniform regulation for all categories of employees and employers. It follows from the nature of the profession that, in the case of security corps, the establishment of a labour code regime in its consequences would cripple the functioning of such corps, and therefore, both historically and from the point of view of comparative work, legislation on the conditions of members of such corps is traditionally and naturally separate and specific.

30. The comparison brought by the appellant in relation to overtime employees under the Labour Code regime lacks reminders of important, synallagmatically in the current version of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll. against the Labour Code established by the Institut, namely the severance and service allowance. In his position as Minister of Government František Buslan at the 8th Senate meeting held on 30 November 2005 when discussing the amendment, i.e. Act No 530 / 2005 Coll. stated, inter alia, that "in the field of remuneration, the proposal provides for the growth of professional income to correspond to the increase in the salary of other categories of civil servants in the public administration. Another saving, which was also a thorn in the eye, took place in the area of severance and in the area of payout. The amount of the severance pay has decreased from eight to six times the monthly salary... The payment curve has been changed in the House, in such a way that it does not have a rising tendency, on the contrary, the highest increase - three percent - is between 15 and 20 years of service, then the next five years are reduced to two percent and the last five years to one percent. I initially had a bit of a problem with this proposal, and finally, after discussing it with the police president, I accepted it, because it seems more convenient for this very time. We need to have working-age policemen, who are now a little upset about whether or not to stay on duty, to be motivated in some way. And these are people who have been served for 15 or more years. I identified myself with this opposite curve and I quite liked it personally that it could be such an incentive element."

31. The Constitutional Court did not even find any expression of desire by the legislator when adopting the valid wording of the provision § 112 paragraph 2 of the first sentence of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll. It concluded that, by abolishing the contested provision, it would avoid minimising the intervention. In the decision of 16 October 2007 sp. zn. Moreover, the Constitutional Court has stated that "in the area of economic, social, cultural and minority rights, in which the State is often obliged to take active action, the legislature has logically much greater space to assert its idea of the permissible limits of actual inequality within it. They therefore choose preferential treatment much more frequently. '

32. If the appellant finally objects to the infringement of the European Social Charter, then the Constitutional Court notes that the issue of the provision of § 112 paragraph 2 of the first sentence of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., as amended by Act No. 530 / 2005 Coll., was not the subject of questions for regular reports by the Czech Republic on compliance with the European Social Charter submitted by the Government of the Czech Republic to the Council of Europe. The Constitutional Court took into account the fact that the Czech Republic is bound by the European Social Charter, as ratified by the international treaty. He also took note of the decision taken by the Committee on Social Rights on the complaint of the European Council of Police Unions against France (complaint No 38 / 2006) or the European Council of Police Unions against Portugal (complaint No 37 / 2006), although the appellant did not argue with those decisions in the proposal. In the present case, this is not a specific control of the standards; in the cases discussed by the Committee on Social Rights, the complainant was a completely different applicant who did not file a complaint against the Czech Republic against the Committee on Social Rights. It is not for the Constitutional Court to assess the circumstances of policemen in other Contracting States of the European Social Charter and to deal with broader remuneration arrangements for policemen in France or Portugal, nor to evaluate in any way the decision of the Committee on Social Rights. The Constitutional Court then concludes, for the reasons set out above, that it did not find any contradiction between the contested legislation and the European Social Charter or Article 4 (2) thereof, as explained above, that the remuneration for overtime of 150 hours per year was included or taken into account in the basic salary of members of the Security Corps.

33. For similar reasons, the Constitutional Court did not find the provision of § 112 (4) of Act No. 361 / 2003 Coll., which reads: "A member who did not perform a service because his normal day of service was a holiday shall not be reduced." Nor did he agree with the appellant's argument that "a 10% increase in the basic tariff within the meaning of Article 114 of Law No 361 / 2003 Coll. is not an adequate substitute for the twelve holidays for which paid leave should be granted." Even in this case, the legislator did not act irrationally and the Constitutional Court did not find the legislator's libel.

34. As regards the regulations governing the remuneration of members of the Security Corps on a general basis, the Constitutional Court recalls that it is primarily up to the legislators and the institutions of power to propose and adopt, according to the situation and possibilities, legislation which would ensure the proper functioning of these components and their material security.

35. The Constitutional Court found, on the basis of the above, that the contested provisions of Paragraph 112 (2) of the First Law No. 361 / 2003 Coll., as amended by Act No. 530 / 2005 Coll., and Section 112 (4) of Law No. 361 / 2003 Coll. do not conflict with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and therefore rejected the proposal under the provisions of Section 70 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court.