The Constitutional Court found no 37 / 2007 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 15 February 2007 on the application for annulment of Part Two of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll., amending Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 21 / 1992 Coll., on Banks, as amended
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
02.03.2007
Contents
I.
I. A) Rekapitulace návrhu
I. B) Vyjádření účastníků řízení
I. C) Vyjádření amici curiae
I. D) Důkazní materiály získané Ústavním soudem z veřejných zdrojů
I. E) Ústní jednání před Ústavním soudem
II.
III.
III. A) Princip právního státu a demokratického legislativního procesu
III. B) Princip ústavně konformní interpretace pramenů práva upravujících legislativní proces
III. C) Pojistky ústavně konformního výkonu legislativního procesu
IV. Vlastní přezkum
37
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic
On 15 February 2007, the Constitutional Court decided in plenary in the composition of František Duchoň, Vojen Güttler, Pavel Holländer, Ivana Janů, Vladimir Korek, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jiří Mucha, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodém, Pavel Rychetský, Miloslav Excellent, Eliška Wagner (Judge Rapporteur) and Michaela Židlická on the proposal of a group of senators of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic to repeal part of Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., which became part of its transitional provisions under Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll., in eventum on the annulment of Part Two Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll., Article II and Article III,
as follows:
Part Two, Articles II and III of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll., amending Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 21 / 1992 Coll., on Banks, as amended, shall be deleted from the date of publication of this finding in the Collection of Laws.
Reasons
1. A group of 23 Senators of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic with a proper proposal [cf. Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") and § 64 (1) (b) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the Law on the Constitutional Court"), called for the annulment of part of the transitional provisions of Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., which became part of Act No. 21 / 1992 Coll., on Banks, pursuant to Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll.
2. By the submission received by the Constitutional Court on 10 January 2007, the appellants specified the petit of their proposal as follows: the appellants propose that the Constitutional Court for the Conflict with the Constitutional Order of the Czech Republic annul the contested provisions cited in Article I of their submission, namely part of Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., which became part of its transitional provisions under Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll., in event they propose to repeal part of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll., Article II and III.
3. The nature of the objections was summarised by the appellants themselves by the fact that, by exceeding the powers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and the incorrect (although the appellant further objects to retroactivity by the right) retroactivity of the contested provisions, Articles 1 (1) and 2 (1) and 2 (3) of the Constitution could be infringed. They may also, as a result, infringe property and property rights and the right to judicial protection, namely Articles 11 and 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Charter '), as well as constitute a breach of the principle of regularity and clarity of legislation constituting one of the principles of the material rule of law (as interpreted by Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution and Articles 1 and 4 of the Charter) and the prohibition of arbitrage in the legislative procedure (as provided for in Articles 1 and 2 (3) of the Constitution and Article 2 (2) of the Charter as well as from Articles 37 (2, 41 and 44 of the Constitution). Last but not least, according to the appellants, the contested provisions are contrary to Directive 94 / 19 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, on deposit guarantee schemes and, therefore, to Articles 87 and 3 (1) (g) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, in breach of the international obligations of the Czech Republic arising from EU membership, and hence Article 1 (2) of the Constitution.
4. According to the appellants, the contested provisions of the above law and the intention of the legislature are contrary to the principle of division of power, that is to say, contrary to one of the fundamental rules of the democratic rule of law, as defined in Articles 1 (1) and 2 (1) of the Constitution, where it is established that the people exercise all state power through the authorities of power legislative, executive and judicial. According to the Constitution, the Parliament of the Czech Republic is governed by legislative power, while the law is a legislative act that obliges an unspecified range of entities and regulates the situations that arise in the future. In the case of the contested provisions, the situations which occurred in the past and specifically known operators are concerned. Here the appellants pointed out the findings [sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24 / 04 or sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 55 / 2000 (Note: Collection of finds and orders of the Constitutional Court, Volume 37, Found No. 130, Declared under No. 327 / 2005 Coll.; same collection, Volume 22, Found No. 62, Declared under No. 241 / 2001 Coll.)], in which the Constitutional Court stated that "to the fundamental principles of the material rule of law the maximum of law (requirement of the general rule of law). The universality of content is an ideal, typical and essential feature of the law (or even the law at all)." In its decision sp. zn. The Constitutional Court stated, inter alia, that the law which regulates a unique case 'also deviates from one of the fundamental material features of the concept of the law, which is universality. Let us remember that the requirement of the universality of the law is an important part of the principle of the rule of law and thus also of the rule of law (...). A particular argument against the laws on unique cases is the principle of division of power, i.e. the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers in a democratic rule of law. "In this case, according to the applicants, the Parliament of the Czech Republic made an exception to the rule for specific cases of clients of beneficiary banks, or for one particular entity - the Czech Insurance Company, a. s., (Article III (4) of the contested law). And when he had already made this exception to the rule of Parliament of the Czech Republic in the previous case, he had made it legislative cleaner in a way that was without the advantage of an individual particular entity, without fulfilling any further unconstitutional action, and at a time when this exception was socially and morally justified (protection of the bank's client as a consumer at the time of adjusting to the market environment).
5. The Parliament of the Czech Republic, according to the appellants, also violated Article 2 (3) of the Constitution by adopting the contested provisions, since it applies power in a way which the law or the Constitution does not impose or allow; The Parliament of the Czech Republic has acted beyond the powers laid down in Title II of the Constitution.
6. According to the appellants, the contested provisions have anti-constitutional genuine retroactive effects and, as such, are contrary to the principles of the democratic rule of law, even more precisely to the principle of the protection of the citizen's trust in law and the principle of the prohibition of genuine retroactivity, namely Article 1 of the Constitution, since the contested provisions change the legal consequences which, under law, occurred long before the date of application of the contested provisions. The legislature even amends transitional (intertemporal) provisions to one of the previous amendments to Act No. 21 / 1992 Coll., on Banks, (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank Act '), which should have been consumed with this amendment. If the legislator intended to solve the problem by means of transitional provisions to Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., he should have done so, according to the applicants, when accepting them. Since the adoption of this law, the legislator has implemented several further amendments to the Bank Act with its own transitional provisions and is now intervening retroactively in the transitional provisions by several amendments back. The depositors' relations between the Bank of Plzeň, the Bank of Pilsen and the Union of the Bank were established in accordance with the Banking Act as amended. According to Section 41d of the Banking Act, entitlement to payment of compensation is acquired on the day on which the Fund receives a written notification from the Czech National Bank (hereinafter referred to as" the CNB ') on the bank's inability to comply with its obligations towards the beneficiaries or by receiving a similar written notification concerning the branch of the foreign bank. The notification must be sent within a relatively short period of 21 days from the finding that the bank is unable to honour its commitments. The relationship resulting from the deposit guarantee to the three bankrupt banks, or the Fund, was therefore evidently established by the applicants not later than May 2003 (the Union Bank's bankruptcy on 29 May 2003, the bankruptcy of the other two banks was declared earlier). The appellants also referred to the decision of the Constitutional Court, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 33 / 01 (NB: Collection of finds and orders of the Constitutional Court, Volume 25, Found No 28, published under No 145 / 2002 Coll.), according to which "the true retroactivity in the rule of law does not have a place where the legislator could" get a word "before, but did not." According to the appellants, the contested provisions extend the range of beneficiaries, change the procedure and enter into already legal relations. The regulation gives rise to a relationship between newly defined beneficiaries and the Fund on the same date as the similar relationships of beneficiaries under previous arrangements (i.e. no later than May 2003). It is precisely in these aspects that, in the appellants' view, this is already clearly an unacceptable true retroactivity.
7. In the appellants' view, in the case of the contested provisions, the State first establishes a general rule on how to compensate the clients of failed banks, which balances the protection of the consumer of banking services and the responsibility of the citizen as an investor of his funds, who has the free will to choose a profitable risky investment or to give priority to a safe less lucrative deposit of funds. However, at the expense of the hedge fund, which manages funds surrendered by private entities, it then treats such funds in contravention of the generally established rules and consequently favours a group or entity over others. In this regard, they see a breach of the principles of the proper functioning of the material rule of law, guaranteed by Article 1 of the Constitution, both in order to protect legitimate confidence in the stability of the rule of law.
8. The applicants also stressed that the contested provisions lead to private funds paid by banks and collected from the clients of banks which are intended to compensate the clients of banks contributing to the Fund being granted in excess of the rules which were in force at the time when the banks contributed to the Fund, thereby interfering with the protection of private ownership and legitimate expectations under Article 11 of the Charter and may be seen as expropriation in the wider sense. If ownership of the Fund as such would not be interpreted as having the ownership of the bearer of fundamental rights and freedoms, the ownership and the legitimate expectations of commercial banks contributing to the Fund are moderately reduced, since, in view of the contested provisions, their contribution to the Fund may increase or damage their clients.
9. According to the appellants, the fund is limited and discriminated against as a creditor on its rights and protection of the assets under management, because given the time shift, the Fund would be deprived of the possibility of applying for bankruptcy in the bankruptcy of the banks concerned in the event of an additional payment under the contested provisions. Similarly, the appellants claimed that its rights of judicial protection are also limited to the possibility of claiming its claims arising from the payment of compensation to the insolvency debtors. Under Section 41h (2) of the Banking Act, which remains in force, the Fund becomes the creditor of the Bank's entitlement to the Fund on the date of the start of the payment of compensation to beneficiaries. This also implies his legal obligation to apply his claims in bankruptcy proceedings, which were already initiated (1998 and 2003 respectively). However, the retroactive arrangements implemented by the contested provisions make it impossible for him to exercise that right, since the forfeited deadlines for the bankruptcy claims against the banks concerned have already expired. Therefore, in the situation described, there is a refusal of justice - denegatio iustitiae, thereby violating the rights of the Court Protection Fund under Article 36 of the Charter.
10. As a further argument, the appellants argued that the contested provisions are both unconstitutional and their direct conflict with EC law, which can be found in two main levels. According to the appellants, the contested provisions are contrary to Directive 94 / 19 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit guarantee schemes designed to ensure a minimum harmonised level of deposit protection for all deposits in the Community. The harmonised Czech deposit guarantee scheme contained in the amendment to the Bank Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll. provides for a maximum refund limit of EUR 25 000, which is EUR 5 000 more than the directive itself envisages as a minimum level of insurance for all EU Member States, where the average amount of the contribution per citizen is usually higher than in the Czech Republic. The maximum refund limit of up to CZK 4 million, as introduced by the contested provisions, goes completely beyond the protection of small depositors and thus passes with the purpose of the directive. The appellants further stated that, in accordance with Article 249 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the directive was binding on each State to which it is addressed in respect of the result, leaving the choice of form and means to the national authorities. The directive in question is intended to protect small bank depositors and prevent the payment of anonymous deposits in connection with the protection against money laundering. The contested provisions amend the harmonised legislation already in place, whereby, by extending the scope of the authorised persons and to the holders of the deposit certificates to the bearer and the "guarantor 'certificates, their legal successors make it possible to pay compensation even for anonymous deposits, which goes directly against the meaning of the Directive and is therefore directly contrary to EC law.
11. The dispute with Directive 94 / 19 / EC is, according to the appellants, not the only plane in which the contested provisions infringe EC law and thus the obligations arising from Article 1 (2) of the Constitution. According to the appellants, the contested provisions break the existing principle that only the depositors are the recipients of the Fund's compensation. The proposal provides for compensation of the Czech Insurance Corporation, a.s., which in the past voluntarily and entirely in accordance with its business plan paid compensation to depositors of the Credit Bank Plzeň in the amount of CZK 1.78 billion. This unprecedented advantage of the business operator infringes the principle of non-granting so-called unlawful public aid within the meaning of Article 87 (1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, whereby the Czech Republic is bound. Public aid is defined as any aid granted by a State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain entities. The funds deposited in the Fund are not State budget funds, but public funds, the use of which is decided by the State. The compensation of CZK 1.78 billion to be paid from the Fund of the Czech Insurance Corporation is an illegal public aid within the meaning of Article 87 (1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, since it cannot be subordinated to the exceptions referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article.
12. Following the above arguments, the appellants also pointed out that the same advantage conferred by the Czech Insurance Corporation, a. s. (resulting from Article III (4) of the contested provisions) is not even in line with the general principle of equality of conditions of competition as set out in Article 3 (1) (q) of the Treaty establishing the European Community. The contested provisions unjustifiably favour a private business entity - the Czech insurance company, a. s., and its private owners.
13. The appellants also noted that the contested provisions often do not make sense, prevent any interpretation or allow several possible interpretations. For example, the fact that the contested provisions are incomprehensible in the matter of the running of time limits (it is not clear which time limits begin and end) or that the contested provisions contain non-legally existing terms (the "guarantor of the claim 'cannot exist, they can only be guaranteed by commitments). According to the appellants, the fact that the contested provisions are an amendment to the transitional provisions to the law adopted five years ago is very problematic from the point of view of clarity of the text, and these transitional provisions have actually been consumed with the relevant amendment, and the Bank Act has since been amended again several times since the individual amendments had their own transitional provisions. The amendment of the transitional provisions repeatedly amends the regime for banks that were already included in a certain derogation from the law five years ago and are now included in a new exemption under the contested provisions. In this regard, the appellants see a discrepancy with the character of the material rule of law, in the Constitution explicitly unspecified, however, by the interpretation of Article 1 and 2 of the Constitution and Article 1 and Article 4 The Charter, which is the principle of legal certainty, where everyone can have confidence in the law and its transparency and clarity, and thus the principle of the regularity and clarity of legislation.
14. The applicants also pointed out that the rule laid down in both the Constitution (Article 2 (3)) and the Charter (Article 2 (2)) for the rule of law is also very important for the State, when the State (state body) is limited by the rules which it has laid down. It follows from this rule that the legislature is obliged to comply with certain legislative rules when adopting the laws and referred to the decision of the Constitutional Court [sp. zn. The subject of the review activity of the Constitutional Court is therefore the approved text of the law, the minutes of the House's proceedings serve as the main evidence in the evaluation of one component of the tripartite evaluation, i.e. compliance with the constitutional procedure. "The legislature is therefore bound by the Constitution and the laws (e.g. the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies) during the legislative procedure. If the legislator infringes the rules laid down by law in the legislative procedure, the appellants may, as a result, infringe Article 2 (3) of the Constitution and Article 2 (2) of the Charter. Under the law, the amendment is limited by the item of the meeting, whereby the amendment of the Member of the Doctor, on the basis of which the contested provisions became part of the Bank Act, was not included in the agenda of the relevant meeting of the Chamber of Deputies, thereby violating the legislative procedure provided for by Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll., on the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies. According to the appellants, it is contrary to the prescribed procedure, namely the constitutional legislative rules, to vote on the law in the context of the item of the meeting of the Chamber of Deputies, which is dedicated to another law and where it is not stated that it should deal with the law. The content and procedural errors of the legislator in the case of the contested provisions are, in the appellants' view, so numerous and serious that, together in their totality, they may already lead to a finding of conflict with constitutional order, namely the principle of the regularity and clarity of legislation forming one of the principles of the material rule of law, and the prohibition of arbitrary procedure.
15. The Constitutional Court, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 42 (4) and 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, has sent the application for annulment of the contested provisions to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
16. The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, represented by President Ing. Miloslav Vlček, in its observations of 7 November 2006, stated that the above draft Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll., also amending Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., was tabled by a group of Members. The proposal of the Chamber of Deputies was first discussed in the fourth parliamentary term as House Press No. 965. After its non-approval at its third reading on 21 December 2005, the bill in question was proposed to House Press No. 1222 at the Chamber of Deputies plenary on 19 April 2006 at 2nd reading. The Chamber of Deputies voted on Parliament's press No. 1222 as a whole at its 3rd reading on 23 May 2006 and the 156 votes for the proposal (of 176 Members present) approved the bill. On 21 June 2006, the Senate expressed its willingness not to deal with the bill. The President of the Chamber of Deputies signed the bill on 21 August 2006 and the President of the Republic made the 15-day period which the Constitution provides for it without the law being returned to the Chamber of Deputies or signed. On 8 September 2006, the bill was signed by the Prime Minister and duly declared in the Collection of Laws.
17. In the view of the petitioners mentioned in the explanatory memorandum, the draft law ensures that the bankruptcy clients of the banks have been partially equalised, which have in the past been settled only at the level of the law on the banks, while in other cases beyond this framework, thereby mitigating the fundamental inequality that arose as a result of non-systemic steps to compensate for past compensation. The requirement of equal treatment of the clients of all banks in bankruptcy, as well as the requirement of equal adequate compensation for such clients, must be considered to be entirely legitimate. The Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll. introduced a double compensation system, a discriminatory part of banking clients. Such a situation is completely undesirable in terms of legal certainty, predictability of law and democratic principles of equality of citizens of the Czech Republic. According to the petitioners, the principle of the protection of deposits of bank clients in the form of contributions from bank entities to the Deposit Guarantee Fund is based on the solidarity of all banking market entities. The promoters therefore followed the bill's proposal to further heal the original hardness and inoperability of the compensation scheme carried out in relation only to certain clients of banks currently in bankruptcy, rather than to all clients of banks currently in bankruptcy, as well as compensation to those who participated in the resolution of the crisis situation at the time, instead of the Fund. According to the petitioners, it is therefore necessary that the principle of solidarity of all banking market entities in the Czech Republic and the related and logical follow-up compensation of the participating non-bank entities participating in instead of the Fund for the resolution of the situation is maintained and respected. In conclusion, the Chamber of Deputies stated that the legislature was convinced that the draft law was in line with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic when discussing and approving the draft law. It is up to the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of the draft contested provisions and to take a decision.
18. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic represented by President MUDr. The Senate. Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll. was referred to the Senate by the Chamber of Deputies as a draft act on 25 May 2006 and appointed by the Senate Organizing Committee as Senate Press No. 362 (5th term of office) for consideration by the Committee on Economy, Agriculture and Transport. At its meeting on 15 June 2006, the Committee discussed Senate Press No. 362 but did not adopt a resolution on the draft law. The Senate Plenum discussed the bill contained in Senate Press No. 362 at its 12th meeting of 21 June 2006. Following the reporting report, in which only reference was made to the record of the negotiations of the Committee on Economic, Agriculture and Transport, stating that the Committee had not reached a majority position, it was proposed that the Senate express its willingness not to deal with the bill. Before the vote on this proposal, the President of the Club of Open Democracy, Senator S. Paukret, who called on the Senate plenary to have a bill for the disapproval of the Government of the Czech Republic, the Ministry of Finance in particular and the Czech National Bank to go to the general debate. The Vice-President of the Senate, Senator P. Pithart, also asked for a bill to be transferred to the general debate on the ground that it is a "standard in its own way of retroactive, unfair and degrading banking houses." However, when voting on the Senate motion for a resolution "not to deal with the bill" the 69 senators present were 39 senators in favour, 18 against.
19. The Senate also stated on the Senate's proposal that it could not be pointed out that the petition in the proposal to repeal the transitional provisions was to some extent inaccurate and incomplete. Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., is not the "Bank Act ', as stated in the proposal, but its title is:" Act amending Act No. 21 / 1992 Coll., on Banks, as amended'; nothing changes this fact even the erroneous heading of Part Two of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll. (formally, the law under the title "No 319 / 2001, on banks" does not exist), since the introductory phrase of Article II of Law No 443 / 2006 Coll. is undoubted which law is amended. It is clear that the amendment of Article II of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll. was incorporated into Article II of Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., but the following Article III remains only part of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll., and does not take place in another law; amendment of Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll. is limited to Article II of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll. It should be pointed out that Article III of Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll. still contains after further amendments only provisions on its effectiveness, but in no case does Article III of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll. as a separate provision of the latter Act not be incorporated into Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll. This view was maintained by the Senate in its written observations of 19 January 2007 responding to the submission of 9 January 2007 by which the appellants specified their petition.
20. The Senate further noted that it could be accepted that the legislature's obligation to compensate the clients of certain banks to the extent set out in Part Two of Act No 443 / 2006 Coll. is to some extent in private ownership and is in breach of the legitimate expectations of the parties concerned (see bank or deposit guarantee fund), since on the basis of these provisions private funds paid by the banks and collected from the clients of these banks will be paid out beyond their former obligations, all the more so as, in many cases, it will intervene in the legal proceedings which have already taken place or are pending, without the new facts being taken into account because of the deadlines. In the event of the collapse of other banks, the greater extent of the performance of the Fund could most likely entail increased claims on the other banks on the amount of the performance of the Fund, but it cannot be ignored that the compensation in excess of the general arrangements in the Bank Act took place, albeit to a lesser extent (both in terms of entities and subject matter), already on the basis of point 5 of Article II of Act No 16 / 1998 Coll. In the case of savings compensation, it is far from being an isolated form of compensation beyond the general rules: for example, on the deposit guarantee section for cooperative advances, compared to the current legal situation at the time of the collapse of the cooperative advances, the compensation was increased on the basis of point 1 of Article II of Law No 212 / 2002 Coll. and the State even issued to cover the needs of the Cooperative Reserve Guarantee Fund under Act No 215 / 2002 Coll., on the state bond programme to obtain the financial assistance from the State budget to cover the payment of compensation from the Cooperative reserve fund, bonds, since there was not enough in the Guarantee Fund to pay the compensation provided by the law.
21. In addition to the appellants' arguments that the contested provisions suffer from serious legal defects that could make it more difficult or even "impossible to interpret" or allow for different interpretations, the Senate stated that it is not clear at all what relation or relationship the new regulation referred to in Article II of Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., as amended by points 1 and 2 of Article II of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll., and the amendment referred to in Article III of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll. In fact, there is a situation under which two essentially independent procedures are established concerning the clients of the same banks, which are partly overlapping, both of which provide that "the depositors of banks or other persons in connection with the payment of the additional compensation under this transitional provision of the Act do not have rights other than those resulting from this transitional provision of the law '; Moreover, as regards the clients of the Pilsen Credit Bank, a. s., Pilsen Bank, a.s., and Union Bank, a.s., (all in bankruptcy), the procedures in force and effective from the same date, i.e. from 18 September 2006.
22. As regards the appellants' objection to the procedure, namely the violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness in the legislative procedure, the Senate noted that the amendments made at second reading (and approved at third reading), which included completely unrelated amendments to the law in the present law, were, in particular, quite common in the last parliamentary term of the Chamber of Deputies. It is a phenomenon which does not contribute to the clarity of the rule of law and to the legal certainty of the addressees of these changes, but it is clear from a formal point of view that the Member is not limited in the sense of the Constitution when submitting amendments.
23. The Senate further stated that other very serious aspects of the contested provisions must be taken into account in the assessment of the proposal, since, on the basis of these provisions, there is no doubt not only a new legitimate expectation has been created (compensation for clients of other failed banks in excess of the general arrangements has already taken place in the past), but in many cases even new rights have been established after the effectiveness of the law. It is up to the Constitutional Court to assess whether the appellants' objections to the contested provisions are so serious that it is appropriate to repeal those provisions and thus to allow for the waiver of the rights already acquired, which seems particularly problematic for the small depositors of failed banks who are not stages.
24. On 2 November 2006, the Constitutional Court requested the opinions of the Czech National Bank and the Czech Banking Association on the economic consequences of the opening of additional compensation for deposits from the Deposit Guarantee Fund on the basis of the adopted amendment to the Bank Insurance Act, both in general terms and in terms of the impact on the solvency and functioning of the Fund, as well as a statement on the compliance of the additional compensation arrangements adopted with EC law, where the field of deposit guarantee is governed by Directive 94 / 19 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.
25. The Czech National Bank, represented by Governor Zdeněk Tůma, stated in its opinion of 20 November 2006 that the financial reserves of the Deposit Insurance Fund as at 30 September 2006 represent about CZK 6.3 billion. Additional deposits will amount to about CZK 3.84 billion (the amount will only be specified after the payment of the compensation documents from all banks). The Fund reserves will be reduced to about CZK 2.46 billion. The implementation of the payment of additional allowances will not have an immediate direct impact on the contribution of banks to the Fund, but, in the event of a new insurance event, there could be a very real situation that the Fund would not have sufficient funds precisely because of the payment of additional allowances now enacted. This would result in a doubling of the bank contribution rate according to § 41k of the Banking Act. Of course, paying superstandard compensation significantly delays the moment of implementation of the Fund to the level allowing for the reduction of the levy rate to be enacted, or to completely stop the contribution. It should be noted that the current level of the levy constitutes a significant competitive disadvantage for domestic banks. The rate is relatively high mainly because of repeated amendments to the Bank Act enacting additional overcompensation.
26. The amendment of the Bank Act leading to above-standard compensation, according to the opinion of the Czech National Bank, significantly aggravates the position of the Fund as a potential borrower. Paragraph 41i of the Banking Act states: "If the Fund's funds are not sufficient to pay the legal compensation, the Fund will obtain the necessary funds on the market. The Fund shall ensure that the conditions under which the Fund's funds are provided are as favourable as possible. '; It is clear that potential creditors will not be willing to lend at low interest rates to a debtor whose future financial situation is unpredictable as a result of the real danger of parliamentary activities leading to repeated depletion of its resources. As a potential borrower, the Fund thus becomes illegible for investors, and therefore does not need to be accepted by the market as a borrower, or will only be accepted as a risk borrower, i.e. at interest rates significantly higher than that which the market could achieve under normal circumstances. In this context, it should be noted that, following the integration of financial market supervision, the deposit claims insurance scheme, enshrined in the Banking Act, also applies to savings and credit cooperatives. It is therefore only a matter of time before demands for four million-dollar compensation for members of previously failed savings and credit cooperatives are heard in the Chamber of Deputies.
27. The Czech National Bank stated in its opinion that it saw, in particular, the non-compliance in respect of the adjustment of additional refunds adopted with EC law (Directive 94 / 19 / EC):
(a) The conflict with Article 11 of the abovementioned Directive, which provides:
"Without prejudice to other rights which they may have under national law, insurance payment schemes shall have the right to enter into depositors' rights in winding-up proceedings up to the amount of their payments. '; As a result of the retroactive operation of the Act, the Fund will miss all the deadlines for applying for bankruptcy claims. This is a clear violation of Article 11 with negative effects on the Fund's management.
(b) The conflict with the spirit of the directive expressed in the preamble to the directive:
... "Whereas, on the one hand, the minimum level of insurance prescribed by this Directive should not leave too much of the deposits unprotected in the interests of consumer protection and the stability of the financial system; that, on the other hand, it would not be appropriate to provide for a level of protection in the Community which could, in certain cases, encourage the reckless management of credit institutions; it seems reasonable to set a harmonised minimum level of insurance of EUR 20 000; that limited transitional measures may be needed to enable existing systems to adapt to this amount. '; The contested part of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll. is, in the view of the CNB, contrary to the purpose of the directive, since its stated objective is not only to protect small depositors and strengthen the stability of the banking system, but also to combat the so-called moral hazard and unprudent behaviour of banks.
(c) The conflict with Article 9, which states in paragraph 1:
"Member States shall ensure that credit institutions provide current and potential depositors with the information necessary to determine the deposit guarantee scheme of which institutions and its branches are members within the Community or the alternative arrangements provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 3 (1) or in Article 3 (4). Depositors shall be informed of the provisions of the deposit guarantee scheme or alternative arrangement, if any, including the amount and extent of cover provided by the deposit guarantee scheme. '; It follows from that wording that all depositors must receive information before deposit and must be fully aware of the terms of insurance. As a result of a series of retroactive amendments to the Bank Act, depositors in the Czech Republic do not receive true information about the functioning of the deposit guarantee scheme in the long term and their possible investment decisions may be deformed due to information that subsequently proves false.
(d) In addition to the question of the CNB, it pointed out a possible contradiction of the contested provisions with the provisions of Article 87 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which provides:
"Any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market, unless otherwise provided for in this Treaty. 'In the case of the contested provisions, according to the ČNB, the aid granted to the Czech insurance company by the State, even if from the Fund. The compensation thus paid has no economic justification, since the previously granted performance of the undertaking to the depositors was in line with its business plan (elimination of the reputation risk), resulting from its position in the financial group and was voluntary.
28. The opinion of the Czech Banking Association was received by the Constitutional Court on 21 November 2006. In it, the Czech Banking Association, represented by the Executive Director, Ing. Petr Špaček, stated that it supports the opinion of a group of senators formulated in their submission, as it consistently considers that the provisions of the contested law are contrary to the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and to the rules on deposit guarantee laid down in EC law. At the same time, the retroactive establishment of unlawful public aid constitutes a serious infringement of the EC Treaty. It also described in detail in its opinion the development of insurance of deposit claims and above-standard compensation since 1994. It also pointed out the relevant Community law and its content in its observations.
29 / 12 / 2007 The Constitutional Court received unsolicited comments from the Union Bank's Civil Association (UB). It is stated in this statement that in the event of the repeal of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll. there will be "an unprecedented violation of the fundamental constitutional rights of members of the Civic Association of UB clients who feel so directly affected by the proposal." It also describes the creation of private banks in the Czech Republic during the period of creation of the private banking sector, the period of transformation of banking. It states that high-quality banking supervision did not work and there were no high-quality guarantees to create and maintain a level playing field for state-owned banks and emerging private banks. For this reason, the position of private banks as well as depositors in the banking services market has been very difficult. This situation, together with repeated crises in the economy, led to private banks getting into economic difficulties, resulting in a number of depositors subsequently losing their savings. It was a poor banking and money policy of the State, as well as an insufficiently consistent regulatory policy of the State in banking, and it was probably because of these reasons that it was subsequently decided to compensate depositors for impaired deposits by the State up to CZK 4 million for depositors. First it provided compensation to ČNB and Ministry of Finance, later it provided compensation to clients of failed banks on the basis of legal adjustments. In view of the above, the expectations of the depositors of the Credit Bank Pilsen, Plzeň Bank and Union Bank that their deposits will be paid to them under the same conditions and at the same amount as the previously compensated depositors. The contested law therefore eliminates the de facto discrimination against depositors of the Credit Bank of Pilsen, Plzeň Bank and Union Bank compared to depositors such as Pragobanka, Universal Bank, Moravia Bank and others, and is therefore in line with the requirement of equality in rights arising from the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. In its observations, UB's civil association completely rejected the arguments of the senators requesting the annulment of the contested law, which further justified. Finally, it proposed that the draft group of senators be rejected.
30. On 13 February 2007, the Constitutional Court received the submission of a client of the Union Bank, a.s., entitled as a statement on the application for annulment of part of Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., as amended by Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll. I. L. authorised the submission of the observations by the Advocate of the JUDr. P. D., LL.M., Ph.D., which was certified by the presentation of power of attorney. According to the settled case-law of the Constitutional Court (e.g. sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 52 / 03, Collection of Finals and Order of the Constitutional Court, Volume 35, Found No 152, published under No. 568 / 2004 Coll.), the number of parties to the proceedings on the annulment of laws and other laws cannot be extended by the Constitutional Court's decision. The purpose of the annulment of laws and other legislation is protection in the constitutional order of the principles and public goods contained, which implies that the Constitutional Court can accept the expression of "friends of the Court," i.e. those persons who are not merely pursuing their private interest, but are able by their very nature to take into account the public interest in the form of those principles and public goods. While, in the case of UB's UB client association as an interest association, the indicated quality could be traced, the same cannot be said of a private person who feels directly affected by the Senate proposal and is in a position to exercise only his private interest in relation to the Constitutional Court. However, this purpose is not served by proceedings for the abolition of laws and other legislation, and therefore the Constitutional Court could not accept the submission of I L. as an expression of the so-called "court friend."
31. The Constitutional Court also provided, as a basis for its decision, stenograms from the proceedings of the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate and their committees, their resolutions and parliamentary prints freely available in the digital library on the website of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic at www.psp.cz and www.senat.cz., as well as entries from 11, 12 and 13 meetings of the Standing Commission of the Senate for the Institute of the Czech Republic and parliamentary procedures available at www.senat.cz.
32. At the oral hearing before the Constitutional Court, held on 15.2.2007, the parties merely reiterated in their final observations and summarised their views on the content of their written submissions before the Constitutional Court.
Description of the legislative procedure for adopting the contested provisions of the law
33. From the observations of the two chambers of Parliament of the Czech Republic, annexed annexes and documents available by electronic means, the Constitutional Court found that the original draft law was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies by a group of Members on 21 December 2005 (House Press No. 1222 / 0 - Amendment to the Act on the abolition of the National Property Fund), so that the House could give its consent at first reading. This bill was submitted to the Government for an opinion on 22 December 2005. Her position, with comments on the proposal, was circulated to Members on 20 January 2006 as House Press No. 1222 / 1. On 25 January 2006, the Organising Committee recommended the discussion of the draft law, designated the rapporteur and proposed to order the budgetary committee to discuss it. The first reading took place on 16 March 2006 at the 54th meeting where the proposal was discussed in the general debate. The House did not agree to the discussion so that it could agree to the draft law at first reading and ordered the draft law to be discussed by the Budget Committee (Resolution 2321). The Committee on Budgets discussed the draft law and, on 10.4.2006, issued a resolution to Members as Press 1222 / 2 recommending the adoption of the draft. At second reading, the original draft law first passed a general debate on 19 April 2006 at the 55th meeting and then a detailed debate, in which the contested amendment, which was the content of Press 1222 / 3, was tabled. This amendment was circulated to Members on 21 April 2006. The third reading took place at the 56th meeting on 23 May 2006, where it was voted under serial number 16 on the contested amendment. For him it was expressed from 167 Members present, 142, against 3. Then the bill was passed (resolution 2470), after the Chamber of Deputies gave its consent when 156 of the 172 Members voted in favour of the motion voted against.
34. The Chamber of Deputies referred on 25 May 2006 to the Senate Bill as Press No. 362 / 0. The Organising Committee set up a Committee on Economic, Agriculture and Transport, which discussed the proposal on 15 June 2006 and adopted Resolution No 7, which was distributed as print No 362 / 1. The proposal was debated on 21 June 2006 at the 12th meeting of the Senate, where a resolution was adopted not to address the motion (Resolution 499), when of the 63 senators and senators present there were 39 in favour, 18 against and 6 abstention.
35. The Act was delivered to the President of the Republic for signature on 21 August 2006. The President has not signed or returned the law to the Chamber of Deputies within the legal period. The approved law was then delivered to the Prime Minister for signature on 11 September 2006. The Act was published on 18 September 2006 in the Collection of Laws in the amount of 144 under No. 443 / 2006 Coll. and became effective on the date of publication.
Reference aspects for the assessment of the proposal
36. in decision sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 21 / 01 The Constitutional Court stated that: "an undesirable phenomenon, which does not correspond to the meaning and principles of the legislative process, must be identified as a situation where one law is amended by laws which are directly unrelated to each other, for example in order to accelerate the legislative procedure, and this is often the form of amendments tabled. (As probably the most notable example, when the Chamber of Deputies did so, the adoption of Act No. 170 / 2001 Coll., on the Government of the Czech Republic, the Government of the Slovak Republic and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on the termination of mutual settlement in transferable rubles and the settlement of mutual liabilities and claims arising as a balance in transferable rubles for the benefit of the Federal Republic of Germany, on the amendment of Act No. 407 / 2000 Coll., on the State bond scheme for partial compensation of damage to agricultural entities affected by drought in 2000, and on the amendment of Act No. 424 / 1991 Coll.) Such a procedure does not comply with the fundamental principles of the rule of law, which include the principle of the predictability of the law, its clarity and the principle of its internal integrity. If one law (in the formal sense) is involved in a material governed by several other laws and these laws are not connected in substance and are not systematically linked, there is often a very unclear legal situation which no longer respects the principle of predictability, clarity and internal inconsistencies of the law." (Collection of finds and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, Volume 25, Found No 14, p. 97, published under No 95 / 2002 Coll.).
37. The normative principle of the democratic rule of law is contained in Article 1 (1) of the Constitution, which expressly refers to the Czech Republic as a democratic rule of law based on respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. The respect for the rights and freedoms of an individual is undoubtedly also one of the principles of the rule of law, as the preamble of the Constitution, or the purpose of the functioning of the state and of the state power, means. The same purpose is expressed in Article 2 (3) of the Constitution, according to which state power can only be exercised in cases, within the limits and in the ways laid down by law.
38. It follows that the Parliament of the Czech Republic, or both, cannot proceed in any way, but are bound by the law. In the exercise of their legislative activities, they are thus primarily bound by the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure, by the established practice of the parliamentary chamber and its institutions, which can be regarded as an unwritten part of the legislative procedure in the long term, if it can be found compatible with higher values of law making, democratic political system, etc. Compliance with the procedural rules contained in those sources of law should be required because, although private persons are not the addressee of these standards, their non-compliance may ultimately significantly affect their fundamental rights. The addressees of legal standards have no doubt the right to legitimately expect that any restrictions on their fundamental rights imposed by law are the result of a discourse conducted across the political spectrum, namely a discourse in which all the participants have been given the opportunity to get to know the material in question in detail and to make their views known. The process is therefore appropriate, which allows for an open debate between competitors, including minority views. Therefore, they are at the forefront of procedures ensuring both the hearing of the parties and the formal quality of the legislative work. The legal procedure in this optics becomes "a real source of legitimacy."
39. The requirement of predictability of the law as part of the rule of law ceases to be fulfilled when the amendment of the law is part of another law in a formal sense, the content of which is not related to the amended law. The orientation of the addressee of the legal standard in the legal order becomes completely impossible without the use of IT devices. However, Article 13 of Act No. 309 / 1999 Coll., on the Collection of Laws and on the Collection of International Contracts foresees that territorial authorities are obliged to allow everyone to consult the Collection of Laws. The law shall remain silent on the obligation to provide everyone with access to the information system containing the full text of the legislation in electronic form. It is clear that, without the possibility of using these systems, it is no longer possible to know the legal order of the Czech Republic, and thus the application of the general principle of legal law is problematic, according to which it does not excuse the ignorance of the law. Thus, the law becomes completely unpredictable for its addressees. While that principle is a necessary condition for the effectiveness of each system of applicable law, it cannot be interpreted only to the detriment of the addressees of the law, but also as a public authority's obligation to make the right identifiable at all, because only such a right can be governed. The prospective law is also a related issue, as I can only follow it in future action.
40. In this context, it is also important to talk - following the model of the right to good governance - also about the "right to good lawmaking ', which legal science, and not only Czech, combines with the principles of a democratic rule of law (Čebišová, T.: Right to good laws (?), in: Vostrá, L., Čermáková, J. (eds.): Questions about law making in the Czech Republic, Polish Republic and Slovak Republic. Plzeň, Ales Chenek 2005, p. 84).
41. According to L. Fuller, one of the basic models of decision-making in democracy is the judicial process and voting in the framework of the representative corps (Fuller, L.: Morálka právna, Prague 1998, cit. according to Kál, J.: Legislative process in the Czech Republic as a form of rational legal discourse?, Lawyer no. 6 / 2005). Parliamentary decisions shall concern cases of general concern; in its favour, the reservation of fundamental decisions taken in the parliamentary procedure, which ensures consideration of the subject matter to be decided on, with the participation of political parties representing the organised interests of the civil public. The law as a result of parliamentary resolutions is a compromise between the interests in which a social consensus is designed, which must be considered a criterion of the law's acceptance. Each of the institutions forming or applying the law shall be defined by formal features, including procedures that serve the purpose of the institution. The procedures also affect the forms of parliamentary proceedings, as well as the division of labour between its institutions, and are intended to guarantee democracy, legitimacy of authority, rationality of legislation, procedural justice (hearing of parties, debate) etc. (Acid, J.: Legislative process in the Czech Republic as a form of rational legal discourse?, Lawyer No 6 / 2005). Indeed, parliamentary procedures are also an important element of the completion of the form of division of power and conditions of political competition in the state (Cable, J.: From capitalism to socialism and back. Theoretical investigation of the rebirth of Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic. Praha, Karolinum 2005, p. 205).
42. Democratic lawmaking from a historical point of view can also be explained as a transfer of the idea of a judicial process to a political process in the form of lawmaking. As is known, the English Parliament had historical roots in Curia Regis, i.e. in an institution which had a function of caselaw and a function of law-building. His legislative function has always been understood as the completion of law in the wider context (Court of Parliament). The legislator thus performed the role of "accelerator," "rectifier" and "dictator" of further law making. Common law existed as a judicial law before and beside the laws. Thus, political power was forced to deal with power, opinion and interest contradictions in a process modified discourse, which led to a binding decision (Kriele, M.: Das zdratitische Prinzip im Grundgesetz, VVDStRL 29, WdeG Berlin 1971, p. 50 et seq.).
43. Finally, for C. Schmitt, Parliament as a form of government is an open argument debate, in which differences and views are confronted - political power is forced to debate that allows public control (Schmitt, C.: The Crisis of Parliamental Democracy, London 1994, cit. according to Akil, J.: Legal process in the Czech Republic as a form of rational legal discourse?, Lawyer No 6 / 2005).
44. Like in judicial decision-making, even in parliamentary decision-making, the idea of a 'fair decision', which is immune to the rule of law, requires all parties to be heard. While the court is about the parties to the dispute, it is about the possibility in Parliament of hearing the representatives of all the political parties involved. Transparent hearings of parties representing the public contribute to its identification with the product of the decision-making process, in this case the law. This is also the main reason for the preference of parliamentary legislation before adopting acts with the power of law within the executive.
45. In addition to material quality, however, the component of "right" or "good" right is also formal quality. These are the so-called formal values of law, which do not determine the content of legislation, but have the right to ensure the existence, acceptance and applicability: values of order, predictability, freedom from arbitrariness, legal equality or legal certainty (Summers, R. S.: Essays in Legal Theory. Dordrecht - Boston - London: Kluwer Publishing, 2000, p. 30). Similarly, N. MacCormick talks about the ethics of legalism, for which there are signs of regularity, predictability, certainty, endurance and unity (cit. according to Pribán, J.: Dissidents of Law, Prague 2001). The essence of these considerations is to know that it is a condition for the effective application of the law to be made subject to certain principles, which are also intended to resist the legislature's possible attacks, i.e. to bind it. In this context, Czech legal science underlines the requirements of inconsistencies, i.e. the consistency and unity of the rule of law (Shin, Z.: the creation of law and its rules. Olomouc 2000).
46. The importance of compliance with parliamentary procedures is also highlighted by Czech legal science, all the more so because the majority of it is governed by legal regulations. The starting point is the thesis by V. Knappa: "In an illegal way, law and no other law can arise," one example of illegality is the violation of the mandatory law-making rules (Knapp, V.: Law theory. Prague, C. H. Beck 1995, p. 107). If the legislative process is a legal process with formally defined rules, the compliance of which must be strictly maintained in the light of the consequences, "it is considered that the duration of the rules of the parliamentary procedure is far less than the respect of, for example, the rules of the court, although the outcome of the legislative process (law) has a far more social impact than the procedural errors in the issuing of the individual judgment." (Filip, J.: Repeated vote by the House as a constitutional problem or by a parliamentary majority cannot do everything that the Rules of Procedure expressly do not prohibit, Journal of Legal Science and Practice No 4 / 2001, p. 343). The Constitutional Court also, in its finding in sp. zn. Briefly noted: the established decision-making practice of the Constitutional Court concluded that only in a process without error (constitutional procedure) can a legal and constitutional consistency result (decision) be achieved and therefore the procedural purity of the decision-making process (procedure) needs to be given greater attention and given strong protection. Where the principles thus recalled relate to the constitutionality of the procedure before and the acts adopted by the public authorities (the procedure provided for in Article 36 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms), there is no reasonable reason to derogate from those principles in matters of the control of the legislative process and the acts adopted therein (the legal standards adopted therein), since, although the decision-making process in the legislative activity differs to a certain extent from the decision-making process in proceedings before other public authorities - and in this sense it can be seen as the sui generis the guiding principle of decision-making in which the final outcome is identical in both cases; Moreover, it cannot be forgotten that the consequences of legislative acts are certainly more important for their social impact than in cases of individual (defective) decisions by other public authorities. It is therefore - in the legislative process - at the forefront of the demand for stability, persuasion and the necessity of the legal acts on which the rule of law and, in parallel, the lives of citizens lie; However, such acts, as well as the necessary authority of the legislature, cannot be achieved by any other than respect for the rules (principles of legislative action) which the Chamber of Deputies, as an important holder of the legislative power for this activity, has established by law. "(Collection of finds and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, Volume 28, Found No 117, p. 25, published under No 476 / 2002 Coll.).
47. The principle of a materially understood rule of law also implies a demand for a division of power of value. The division of power is also a structural element of the Constitution. The following characteristics of the division of power were carried out by the Constitutional Court in the sp. zn. The Constitution is the source of all state power to the people, exercising it through the institutions of power legislative, executive and judicial. It can already be concluded from this initial statement that, in the very foundation of our constitutional system, the principle of division of state power is enshrined, the principle of the division of state power, the principle based on the idea that in the nature of man there is a tendency towards concentration of power and its abuse, which has become a guarantee against the pleasure and abuse of state power and, in essence, a guarantee of freedom and protection of the individual, a principle which is the result and reflection of the current historical, thought and institutional development on which, perhaps in the new ages, significant personalities such as John Locke and Charles de Montesquieu, and, institutionally, the British Parliament and British justice. It is not the task of the Constitutional Court to address more closely the evolution and causes of this principle in a situation which can be considered as being already given. However, it considers it necessary only briefly to state that, in the very foundations of that principle, the belief enshrined in empirical knowledge is that human thinking and social events could never be attributed to a rational nature, as they also contained obvious irrational elements, and moreover, the rationality of thinking was never fully covered with the rationality of the negotiations. As an expression of an existing state, the "government of all" is merely an ideological formula, often obscuring the opposite social situation. In a social situation characterised by internal and external deficiencies of both individual and society, basic human needs can be met and, at the same time, maintained at least towards the goal of democracy, only by the way of conflicting balancing of individual interests. "This aspect of the view of the division of power is also a reason for the constitutional definition of the synergy of individual powers, in this case specifically executive and legislature during the legislative process (Article 41 (2) and in particular Article 44 (1) of the Constitution, see below).
48. The lack of cooperation between the government and Parliament during the legislative process is felt very strongly in the case of the adoption of legal standards which have implications for the state budget. It is undoubtedly the government's responsibility to ensure that the state budget is respected as a key instrument of governance and, if the government is to fulfil that obligation, it must also have effective instruments to prevent subversive acts by Parliament. This requirement is closely linked to the division of power and the proper performance of the functions of individual constitutional bodies within it. The Constitutional Court only mentions that in other states this specific requirement is addressed by the constitutions or rules of procedure of the parliaments there. An example can be given by Germany and Spain, where government approval must be given for any draft law that affects the state budget.
49. A distinction between the term "amendment 'and the term" draft law' is crucial for resolving the case. While the draft law is amended in various contexts of the Constitution (Articles 41, 42, 44 - 48), the amendment refers only to Act No 90 / 1995 Coll., the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "JŘPS '), if we look from the Constitution to the modified relations between the two parliamentary chambers (the" amendment' is mentioned in this context - see Article 46 (2), Article 47 (2), (3) and (4), Article 50 (2). Paragraph 63 (1) of the JRC provides that a Member may, in the debate, make proposals for the present case. These proposals are intended to relate "to a particular item under discussion." Paragraph 63 (1) (5) of the JJPS authorises Members to submit an amendment deleting, extending or amending certain parts of the original proposal. The right to submit amendments to draft laws during the parliamentary debate derives from the law of the legislative initiative, but is not the same, since it is naturally limited by the sphere reserved for implementing the law of the legislative initiative. It can be concluded from the need to distinguish between the legislative initiative and the amendment, in order to respect the increased constitutional requirements of the former, that the amendment should in fact only amend the legislation presented, that is to say it should not change it substantially or extend it substantially, and the less so it should move beyond the subject matter of the legislative initiative or the draft law (similarly, Schorm, V.: Easy riding, Administrative Law No 2 / 2000, p. 65 et seq.).
50. Departure from the restricted space reserved for amendments may take the character of exceeding the intensity of the proposal or of exceeding the subject matter defined in the draft law. The first case is referred to as the so-called legislative riders ("legislative riders"), the use of which is often and excitedly discussed in the US, although it is considered undesirable, but a constitutional conformist form of amendments.
51. However, it is necessary to distinguish from this first case a second case called wild riders. In this case, it is a matter of exceeding the criteria of the test applied on the basis of the so-called germaneness rule, i.e. the rules of a close relationship. In other words, it is a question of testing whether, in a particular case, it is a proper amendment or a proposal for which, in the Czech environment, the name "stickers' has been used. In this case, the technique of the amendment to the draft law will be accompanied by an amendment to an entirely different law, with a non-related legislative proposal. It is clear that even the intensity of the changes contained in the adhesive could be a problem in itself, if it was presented to the related draft law (in this case, however, it would not be a classic adhesion, but rather an amendment that deviates from its intensity), which is, of course, not addressed in the process of adopting the 'adhesive amendment', because there is no room for debate in the third reading of the law-making process. This only multiplies and extends the risk of using adhesive technology.
52. The Germaneness Rule has been used in the US Congress since 1789 and is now contained in the Rules of Procedure of Congress and is recognised as a fundamental rule of the legislative process (similarly the classic Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, 1989, Article 402 / AMENDMENTS Must Be German /, p. 264 - 265). This rule expresses the requirement that the amendment must relate to the same subject matter of the proposal which is being discussed in the legislative process. It is based on the idea that at a certain time, the House can only discuss one matter of substance. Its purpose is to ensure proper procedures, in the sense of a properly informed and factually prepared debate, and to ensure the flexibility and effectiveness of the House's proceedings. If an amendment is tabled that is in conflict with this rule, this fact can be objected to by another member of the House. It is also the burden of proving the conflict of the amendment with the rule that lies with those who object. After objecting to this rule, the President shall first assess the nature and purpose of the provision of the draft law under consideration and then the relationship of the proposed amendment to that provision. It follows from this rule that the amendment must be closely related to the purpose of a specific provision of the draft law or part of it. The criteria under consideration include, in particular, the following criteria, with only one of them not complying with the rule being sufficient to establish a conflict of amendment:
• the amendment must relate to the subject matter of the draft law under consideration,
• the fundamental purpose of the amendment must be closely related to the fundamental purpose of the draft law,
• the adaptation of a specific article must not be amended by a general provision;
• the general subject may be changed by a specific proposal;
• an amendment containing a permanent amendment to the draft law, which foresees a temporary change to law, cannot be considered as having a close relationship.
53. However, the US presidential system is characterised by a high degree of autonomy of Congress, separated from executive power. It is therefore more inspiring to examine the circumstances of parliamentary or semi-presidential regimes. For example, the handling of amendments is very subtle in France, largely by the case law of the Constitutional Council (Schorm, V.: Legislative process in France. Rigorous work defended at the Law Faculty of MU in Brno, 2000, p. 124). It is assumed that the amendment (amendment) must be linked to the discussed text of the draft law (Accesorial relationship: content change, clarification, association with other related provisions of the legal order). In the event of a thought mismatch, it would be an inadmissible "legislative rider," i.e. an alien provision. The Constitutional Council began to assess the relationship of legislative initiative and the right to propose amendments separately in the 1980s, regardless of how the House assessed the admissibility of amendments. It was motivated by a particularly large increase in the number of amendments that Members and Senators wanted to circumvent the conditions of the legislative process (speed up, escape attention, etc.).
54. In New Zealand, the conditions for the admissibility of the amendment are clearly set out, on the one hand, by a distinction from the proposal to reject the draft, and, on the other hand, by the criterion of relevance (relation to the matter to be amended - the point given by the inclusion on the agenda, it is thematic to limit speakers and the applicants) (McGee, D.: Parliamental Practice in New Zealand. Wellington, 3rd edition 2005, pp. 216-217). Similarly, this is the case in the Australian Senate, when the amendment involves removing the word, replacing the word with another or adding a new word, while respecting the principle of the amendment's relationship to the amended proposal (Evans, H. (ed.): Odgers' Australian Senate Practice. Canberra, 11 December 2002, p. 184 - 185). German teaching, including the criticism of the so-called secret laws (Geheigesetzgebung), which are the result of unrelated parliamentary amendments that are not reflected in the title of the law, also pays comparable attention to this problem. Such practice violates the principles of transparency of law-making as well as of initiative law and confuses both Members and addressees of law (Klein, E.: Gesetzgebung will bend Parliament? Berlin, De Gruyter Recht, 2004, p. 16 - 17). The amendments are to be prepared primarily by expert committees, they are to amend only the draft submitted or be in direct connection with it, as the "additions' to the law would only circumvent the legislative initiative (Schneider, H.: Gesetzgebung. Heidelberg: C. F. Müller, 2nd edition 2002, p. 84).
55. As mentioned above, the Constitution of the Czech Republic regulates, to some extent, the issue of the draft law, in the head of the second legislature. It is therefore clear that the institute of draft law should be governed by the principles that are applied for the exercise of legislative power. These principles must be sought in conjunction with the functions of this power, as indicated above. The defining characteristics of Parliament are the free, equal, universal elections of its members, their free mandate, the principle of the public essentially applied in the negotiation of laws and the majority principle of decision-making. The principle of the public goes both inside and outside the parliamentary chamber. Intra-directional action serves the freedom of expression of members of the parliamentary chamber, outsourcing activities serve to inform the public. And, although literature is drawn to the infertility of parliamentary debates, these debates need to be protected because they provide public awareness.
56. Parliament also reflects the idea of pluralism, which is the basis and the mark of every free society. In the parliamentary debate and, naturally, in the work of the individual committees of Parliament, the opposition is taking the floor, which, at the same time, implements a control that can be seen as one of the fundamental features of the rule of law. Often only in Parliament are they given the opportunity to express so-called weak interests, i.e. those of social groups that do not have such capacity to assert themselves. It is these characteristics of parliamentary debates that show Parliament's particular role in balancing and in integrating interests. All of these principles must be taken into account in the regulation and implementation of the procedure relating to draft laws, and all the more so in interpreting what should be considered as a draft law.
57. First of all, the President of the Chamber of Deputies or the President should be regarded as a guarantee of compliance with the rules of parliamentary procedure. All proposals, including those identified as amendments, are delivered to those persons when discussing draft laws at the relevant legislative stage. Undoubtedly, it is the right of these persons to assess whether a proposal marked as an amendment is actually in the material sense of the proposal, as explained above. The duly interpreted provisions of Articles 59 (4) and 63 (1) of the JSPS justify this procedure. In the view of legal science, 'if an amendment is a proposal that changes the content or the external form of the proposed law, the President should not at all allow a vote on a matter unrelated, i.e. only an apparent amendment. Similarly, the government should insist on its right to comment on the draft law pursuant to Article 44 of the Constitution, because it is in fact a disguised new legislative initiative. "(Acid, J.: The creation of law in the Czech Republic: a truchlogame with a happy ending?, Legal Rapporteur No 7 / 2006).
58. The examination of the draft law in the second chamber of Parliament of the Czech Republic, i.e. in the Senate, is an insurance policy which is intended, among other things, to detect errors in the legislative process and respond adequately to them within the limits of the options given to the Senate, although it is clear that these are limited possibilities.
59. Another insurance policy in terms of checking the ordinary legislative process is the exercise of the right of the President of the Republic to return the adopted law to the Chamber of Deputies, as foreseen by Article 50 (1) of the Constitution. The function of President in the legislative process is certainly not a political function, as the function of President of the Republic does not consist in creating a competitive policy in relation to the government. The President of the Republic is conceived by the Constitution as an extra-party constitutional body. From the point of view of the concept of the Constitution, regardless of reality, it is intended by this characteristic to check compliance with the constitutionality of the legislative process by means entrusted to it by the Constitution, i.e. through the application of the presidential theorem.
60. If the insurance policy referred to above fails, the Constitutional Court may take the floor if it is addressed by an ordinary proposal made by an actively legitimate appellant, since Article 68 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act requires the Constitutional Court to determine, inter alia, whether the contested law has been adopted and issued in a constitutionally prescribed manner when deciding on compliance with the constitutional order. This provision obliges the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of the legislative procedure with the establishment of derogatory conclusions, which has been used by the Constitutional Court in the past - see sp. zn. In this finding, the Constitutional Court stated, inter alia: "In the legislative process, the requirement of stability, persuasion and the necessity of legal acts on which the rule of law and, in parallel, the lives of citizens lie at the forefront; However, such acts, as well as the achievement of the necessary authority of the legislature, cannot be achieved except by respect for the rules (principles of legislative action) which the Chamber of Deputies itself has set itself by law as an important legislator for this activity. '
61. The Constitutional Court first of all considers it necessary to define the way and the degree of constitutional review in the case under trial. In particular, the Constitutional Court notes that the appellants questioned not only the substance of the contested provisions of the law, but also the way in which they were adopted. In accordance with Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court is required, in addition to examining the content of the laws in terms of their compliance with the constitutional laws, to examine whether the law has been adopted and issued within the limits of the constitutional powers laid down and to examine whether the law has been given in a constitutionally prescribed manner. Since, in the present case, in the context of this tripartite (constitutional conformity of content, competence and procedure), compliance with the constitutionally prescribed procedure for the adoption of the contested provisions of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll., the Constitutional Court had first to deal with the constitutionality of the law-adoption procedure. It is clear that the wording of the provisions of Paragraph 68 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court does not give rise to the order of the points under examination, as it would not be logical follow-up. Instead of interpreting the grammatical or literal wording of this provision, its logical interpretation must be used, which is in charge of first examining competence, then the procedure and finally the content of the contested provision.
62. The Constitutional Court had no doubt about the competence of Parliament of the Czech Republic and therefore it was possible to review the procedure for adopting the contested provisions.
63. In order to review the constitutionally prescribed procedure for the adoption and issue of the contested provisions of the law, it is necessary to examine the course of the legislative process which preceded the adoption and the issue of the law of the contested provisions. As described in more detail above (see paragraph II), on 21 December 2005 a proposal was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies by Members M. Haška, M. Krause and J. Doleše for the issue of the Act amending Act No. 178 / 2005 Coll., on the abolition of the National Property Fund of the Czech Republic and on the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance in the privatisation of the Czech Republic (Act on the abolition of the National Property Fund), (House Press No. 1222 / 0). As is apparent from the stenographic minutes of the 55th session of the Chamber of Deputies of 19 April 2006, it was presented in a detailed debate by Mr M. Doctor at the second reading of the draft law which contained the contested provisions. After all, the author himself stated this amendment, which follows from the stenographic minutes of the 55th meeting, as well as from the annexes which the appellants added to the proposal, that a proposal which is identical to his amendment has already been submitted to the Chamber of Deputies at least once as a separate bill and discussed as House Press No. 965 - Amendment to the Bank Act. However, this separate proposal was not approved at the 51st meeting of the PS on 21.12.2005 at the third reading, after the Government gave its disapproval on 26 May 2005.
64. The amendment in question by Mr M. The Doctor was tabled at second reading and placed in print No 1222 / 3. This amendment accompanied the title of the original draft law on the words... "and Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 21 / 1992 Coll., on Banks, as amended." It also referred to it as Article 2 (2) of the Agreement. A new part of the Act was inserted, which included the title: "PART SECOND - Amendment to Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., on Banks, and which contained contested provisions amending and supplementing the arrangements for paying additional compensation from the Deposit Guarantee Fund. This amendment was then voted on at its third reading on 23 May 2006 at the 56th meeting under order number 16, when 167 Members and Members were voted against. Then the bill thus amended was approved by the Chamber of Deputies (Resolution 2470).
65. Then the Chamber of Deputies passed the Senate Bill on 25 May 2006 as Press No. 362 / 0. The proposal was discussed by the Senate at the 12th meeting on 21 June 2006, where a resolution was adopted not to address the proposal (Resolution 499). As is apparent from the stenographer of the 12th Senate meeting, the Vice-President of the Senate, Senator P. Pithart, made a proposal to refer the draft bill to the general debate, as it is serious. At the same time, he said "that what is glued to the original bill is against good manners, not only against the rules of correct banking (...). The timing of this sticker, which resembles blackmail, is particularly unfair." This statement by the Vice-President of the Senate should be added to the fact that elections were held in the Chamber of Deputies on 2 and 3 June 2006, and it was clear that if the Senate had returned the entire bill to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments, the bill would not have been adopted, since the Chamber of Deputies in its original composition should no longer have been held until the elections. Article 47 (1) The Constitution is a legal science (K. Klíma et al.: The commentary on the Constitution and the Charter, Plzeň, 2005) as well as the practice of being interpreted as referring to the parliamentary term of the Chamber of Deputies, which is active between the various electoral periods on the basis of the principle of discontinuity, according to which, which is not accompanied, it ends. Should the Senate (and similarly the President of the Republic) return the bill to the Chamber of Deputies, its resolution has the consequence of the so-called pocket theorem, as the new Chamber of Deputies cannot vote on the bill. The same is true if the bill has been rejected or returned by the Senate before the end of the parliamentary term by the Chamber of Deputies, but it no longer applies until the elections.
66. It is crucial for the Constitutional Court, when assessing the constitutionality of the legislative procedure for adopting the contested provisions in the present case, to examine whether the proposal in question, Mr M. Doctor, identified as an amendment and processed into House Press 1222 / 3, was indeed, in the material sense, as explained above (paragraph III (B)), to assess whether the amendment in question had deviated from the restricted space reserved for amendments, i.e. whether it was an inadmissible extension in the interpretation of the amendment. In this interpretation, the Constitutional Court, for the reasons set out in Part III of this finding, i.e. because of the consideration of the constitutional reference criteria set out here, has also dealt with the "Germaneness rule '(point III B).
67. For this purpose, however, it was first necessary to assess the content and purpose of the original draft law and the content and purpose of the amendment under consideration. The Constitutional Court found that from the House Press No. 1222 / 0 and from the explanatory report annexed to this proposal that the content of this original bill was the adoption of a law amending Act No. 178 / 2005 Coll., on the abolition of the National Property Fund of the Czech Republic and on the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance in privatising the assets of the Czech Republic (Act on the abolition of the National Property Fund). By its adoption, the promoters followed the effort to raise funds of CZK 2 billion to transfer them to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs for the construction of homes for seniors. The proposed adjustment was thus to at least partially address the lack of seats in these homes.
68. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court found that the content of House Press No. 1222 / 3, in which the wording of the proposed amendment was drafted, was amended by Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 21 / 1992 Coll., on Banks, and which specifically amends and supplements the arrangements concerning entities and the way in which the additional compensation for deposits is paid from the deposit guarantee fund. Since this is an amendment, it has not been accompanied by a explanatory report. However, as is apparent from the above-described findings made by the Constitutional Court, this proposal was in substance identical to the separate draft law under discussion by the Chamber of Deputies, which was naturally annexed to the explanatory memorandum. It follows from its wording that the purpose of this amendment, or the addition of the provision in question, was to ensure that the clients of banks currently in bankruptcy, which had in the past only been paid claims on banks were paid up to the amount laid down by the law, whereas in the case of other banks, the depositors' claims were paid even above this legal framework. Furthermore, the purpose of this amendment was to provide a guarantee to the Fund that the person, or his legal successor, or the stages of claims arising from the satisfaction of claims which, instead of the Fund in some cases, secured the claims of bank depositors, would not claim against him any other claim than the claim for payment of the funds used by that person to pay additional compensation to bank depositors up to CZK 4 million. Last but not least, the purpose of this amendment was to provide a guarantee to the Fund that, by satisfying the depositors of the banks referred to in the transitional provision, their claims on the banks would be met in full and that these depositors would not make any other claims on the Fund. The purpose of this amendment was also to guarantee the Fund that the payment of the additional compensation to bank depositors applies only to cases in the past where its purpose is to eliminate the above described inequality between bank depositors, whereas in the case of other banks, their depositors will not be entitled in the future to seek compensation from the Fund beyond the legal framework.
69. After assessing the content and purpose of both the original draft law and the amendment in question, the Constitutional Court concluded that the contents and the purposes of the two subjects examined differ substantially. For this reason, it had to be stated that the amendment in question had left the restricted space reserved for amendments. In other words, it is clear that it was only a so-called amendment, which could perhaps only have been in a formal sense, but not in a material sense.
70. The Constitutional Court is obliged to state that the amendment under examination by Mr M. Doctor did not relate to the subject matter of the original draft law (i.e. the transfer of funds to support the construction of pension homes) and also to its fundamental purpose (i.e. to ensure that the clients of banks currently in bankruptcy, to which bank claims were paid only up to the amount laid down by the law, and to provide a guarantee to the Deposit Guarantee Fund against certain claims and situations resulting from the provision of additional compensation) did not have a close relationship with the fundamental purpose of the draft law under discussion (i.e. to address the lack of seats in the retirement home). The two proposals under examination were not related in substance at all, which resulted in the annulment of the National Property Fund, and Act No 319 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No 21 / 1992 Coll., on Banks, amending the laws directly unrelated to each other (Act No 178 / 2005 Coll., on the abolition of the National Property Fund), and Act No 319 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No 21 / 1992 Coll., on Banks), which constitutes, for the reasons set out in Part III of this finding, a breach of the subprinciples of the democratic rule of law (division of power, democraticism of the legislative process, etc.). This situation, in which one law is amended by laws which are directly unrelated to each other, often in the form of amendments tabled, was, as mentioned above, the finding of the Constitutional Court sp. zl. Such a procedure does not comply with the fundamental principles of the rule of law, which include the principle of the predictability of the law, its clarity and the principle of its internal integrity. In fact, if one law (in the formal sense) is involved in a material governed by several other laws, and these laws are not connected in substance and in a systematic manner, there is often a very unclear legal situation which no longer respects the principle of predictability, clarity and internal inconsistencies of the law. "The Constitutional Court adds today that the law, in a formal sense, cannot be seen in the material rule of law as a mere carrier of various changes made across the rule of law. On the contrary, the materially perceived rule of law requires that the law be both a form and a predictable consistent source of law in terms of content. It is impossible to allow the communication of laws to be lost as sources of law with all the negative consequences mentioned above. Similarly, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, which sets out comparable requirements for the quality of the relevant law (accessible, predictable, accurate), although that court has stated this in connection with the hearing of complaints in specific legal matters (e.g. Berger, V.: European Court of Human Rights, IFEC 2003, p. 455 - 6, paragraph 4: Kruslin c. France, Huvig c. France, p. 502 - 503 point 4, Autronic AG c. Switzerland).
71. If the Chamber of Deputies, under the circumstances mentioned above, adopted a resolution (of 23 May 2006, No 2470) which gave its assent to the amended draft law, that is, if it has burdened the legislative process to the extent of the so-called amendment by a defect which cannot be overlooked, this fact is reflected in the assessment of the constitutionality of the entire legislative procedure. The situation is all the more serious that it is not an excel, but it is becoming an unfortunate practice, which is also recognised by the members of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, as evidenced by, for example, Senate critical resolution 303 of 25.1.2006, which states, inter alia: "The continuous amendment of the already numerous amended laws and the technique of implementing them by adding them to the content of unrelated bills makes it difficult to establish consciousness about what is in law '. Literature has highlighted this for years, on the one hand, as a violation of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, on the other, as a circumvention of the right of the Government to express itself on any draft law under Article 44 of the Constitution, which can also be seen as the right of other legislative participants to know the view of the Government (Hujer, M. The parliamentary amendments are often not related to the present draft law, Parliamentary Rapporteur No. 8-9 / 2001, Akila, J. in: Klíma, K. et al.: Comments on the Constitution and the Charter, Plzeň, 2005, p. 236, Voříšek, V.: Spářice Páter Lawgiver, Legal Divisions No. 16 / 2006). In addition to this, a reference must be made to the fact that the amendments lack a reasoned report, while the absence of a justification for a decision always implies an increased risk of libel. Moreover, in the specific case under consideration, the consideration of libel also shows that the separate bill was first rejected in order to be subsequently adopted in the form of an unrelated amendment in the close pre-election period.
72. However, the legislative process in the Czech Republic in general also suffers from other defects that the Constitutional Court could not deal with in this particular case (e.g. the increase in cases of the approval of laws with an effective date fixed before the date of adoption), but could not take them into account as evidence of the circumstances in law-making, especially as regards the limited functionality of the control mechanisms within the legislative process. This, of course, increases the pressure on external control, presented in relation to the constitutionality of the Constitutional Court (see also Filip, J.: Legislative technology and the case law of the Constitutional Court, Journal of Legal Science and Practice No 3 / 2005, on "legislative mischief or atrocities").
73. The Chamber of Deputies did not recognise that the proposed amendment could not be considered as such from a material point of view. The constitutional interpretation of the provisions governing the right to propose amendments to the draft law requires that the amendment should, in fact, only amend the legislation referred to, i.e. in accordance with the requirements of the so-called narrow relationship rule, according to which the amendment must relate to the same subject matter of the proposal currently under discussion in the legislative process, the amendment should not deviate from the restricted scope reserved for amendments in the form of an extensive overrun of the subject matter of the draft law under consideration. This corresponds, in the view of the Constitutional Court, to the constitutionally conformal interpretation of the introductory wording of Section 63 (1) of the JSPS. However, according to the Constitutional Court, this requirement was not met in the present case. This, among other things, was a breach of the division of power, with consequences for the principles of the creation of a consistent, transparent and predictable law, which the Constitutional Court had previously combined with the attributes of a democratic rule of law, and the circumvention of the Institute of Legislative Initiative under Article 41 of the Constitution and the violation of the right of the Government to comment on the draft law under Article 44 of the Constitution.
74. Therefore, the Constitutional Court has no choice but to state that the contested provisions of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll., amending Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 21 / 1992 Coll., on Banks, as amended, were not adopted by the Chamber of Deputies in a constitutional manner. This is enhanced by the absence of the signature of the President of the Republic, which should be, with the legal exception of the veto vote, in accordance with Rule 51 of the Constitution and according to teaching, by verifying the proper completion of the legislative process.
75. In its previous case-law (see, in particular, Case C-21 / 01 Pol.), the Constitutional Court made a strong appeal to the Parliament of the Czech Republic in the sense of compliance with the principles of clarity, clarity and clarity of the rule of law, which are part of the rule of law and respect for democratic principles in the legislative process (Article 1 of the Constitution). If he acceded to the annulment of Part Two in this case, Articles II and III of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll., he thus opened up, in particular, for a futuro derogatory ground under Article 1 (1) of the Constitution. Any consideration of similar violations of the principles of the legislative process in the past shall be linked by the Constitutional Court to the proportionality test in relation to the principles of protection of the legitimate trust of citizens in law, legal certainty and acquired rights, or to other constitutional order protected principles, fundamental rights, freedoms and public goods.
76. This conclusion, in itself, makes it impossible to review the constitutionality of the various provisions of the Law under consideration from the point of view of the content unconstitutionality being contested. Thus, the Constitutional Court does not, at the same time, prejudge this finding by a constitutionally conformal solution to the issues covered by the repealed provisions.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v. r.
Contents
I.
I. A) Rekapitulace návrhu
I. B) Vyjádření účastníků řízení
I. C) Vyjádření amici curiae
I. D) Důkazní materiály získané Ústavním soudem z veřejných zdrojů
I. E) Ústní jednání před Ústavním soudem
II.
III.
III. A) Princip právního státu a demokratického legislativního procesu
III. B) Princip ústavně konformní interpretace pramenů práva upravujících legislativní proces
III. C) Pojistky ústavně konformního výkonu legislativního procesu
IV. Vlastní přezkum
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No 37 / 2007 Coll., on the application for annulment of Part Two of Act No. 443 / 2006 Coll., amending Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 21 / 1992 Coll., on Banks, as amended |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 02.03.2007 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0