The Constitutional Court found no 384 / 2009 Coll.

Paragraph 23 (c) of Act No. 329 / 1999 Coll., on travel documents and amending Act No. 283 / 1991 Coll., on the Police of the Czech Republic, as amended, is deleted on 31 December 2010.

1. In accordance with Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, the appellant requested by its proposal that the Constitutional Court repeal the provisions of § 23 (c) of Act No. 329 / 1999 Coll., on Travel Documents and amending Act No. 283 / 1991 Coll., on Police of the Czech Republic, as amended, (Act on Travel Documents), as effective from 1 January 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act on Travel Documents, as amended by 1 January 2005 ').

2. In its statement of reasons, he stated that the decision of the Regional Office of the Králové Hradec Králové Region ("the Appellate Body ') of 30.6.2005 No 10687A / Z / 2005 rejected the appeal of Ing. M. H. to the decision of the Municipality of Hradec Králové (" the Board of Appeal') of 10.3.2005 No OS3 / DV / 2005 on the refusal to issue a passport under § 23 (c) of the Travel Documents Act, as effective as of 1 January 2005. The top appointed to the decision of the appellate administrative body brought an action under Part Three, Title II, Part 1 of Act No. 150 / 2002 Coll., Administrative Rules. From the administrative files, in particular from the decision of the institution of the first instance as well as from the authority of the appellate Regional Court in the preparation of the hearing, he found that the issuance of a passport on the basis of the applicant's application for a travel document of 31.1.2005 was refused without the implementation by the applicant of the evidence proposed with reference to § 23 (1). (c) that travel documents act, as effective from 1 January 2005, whereby the administrative authority is not entitled to examine the reason for the application if it is established that the applicant is being prosecuted for the commission of a criminal offence involving an accessory, that is to say an intentional offence for which a custodial sentence of up to 12 years may be imposed. The administrative authority does not have the possibility of having a separate assessment of the reason for the refusal of a passport and is merely in favour of examining the law enforcement authorities whether the refusal to issue a travel document is unavoidable. The appellant added that in paragraphs V and VI of the action (No 1. 4 and No 5 of the judicial file), the applicant detailed the objections for which he considered the provisions of Paragraph 23 (c) of the Travel Documents Act, as effective from 1 January 2005, to be contrary to constitutional order. Therefore, their transcription in the application by the Regional Court was considered to be unnecessary duplication and, since the applicant shares the doubts raised, it referred to the arguments put forward by the applicant and proposed to repeal the contested provision.

3. The Constitutional Court called on the appellants to complete their proposal with sound constitutional arguments; This is also so that the consolidated proposal (without reference to the content of the court file) can be sent to both chambers of Parliament of the Czech Republic for comments.

4. In addition to the proposal in question, the appellant stated that the reasons for which he considered the contested provision to be contradictory to the constitutional order coincided in principle with the grounds for which the Constitutional Court found the anticonstitutional provision of § 23 (b) of Act No. 329 / 1999 Coll., on travel documents and amending Act No. 283 / 1991 Coll., on the Police of the Czech Republic, as amended (Act on travel documents), as effective until 31.12.2004; he did so in his finding of 20 May 2008 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 12 / 07 (published under No 355 / 2008 Coll.). In particular, the Regional Court, as the appellant, pointed out that the contested provision of the Travel Documents Act, as in force from 1 January 2005, does not provide any possibility of reflection to the administrative authority deciding to withdraw the travel document or to refuse to issue a travel document for a request to a criminal authority under the condition that interference with rights must be unavoidable or necessary in a democratic society. If a legal reason is fulfilled - a request by a criminal authority if a citizen is being prosecuted for a criminal offence for at least three years - the administrative authority has no room for administrative discretion as to the necessity or proportionality of such a measure, and the travel document has to be withdrawn or refused to issue it, which, in consequence, significantly limits the possibility of review by the administrative court. Thus, the provision cited limits the right of the travel document holder or travel document applicant to seek recourse to a court or other authority to protect his rights in such a way as to avoid a constitutional, guaranteed assessment of the interference with his rights in terms of the necessity or necessity of restricting freedom of movement. According to the appellant, the contested provision thus does not allow the general courts to fulfil their obligations in the protection of the fundamental rights or freedoms of the individual if they examine requests from an authority acting in criminal proceedings for the withdrawal of a travel document or for the refusal to issue a travel document to a person against whom criminal prosecution is sought for an offence punishable for at least 3 years; This constitutes a failure to respect the principles enshrined in Articles 2 (2) and 4 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. This gives the individual concerned the right to effective judicial protection pursuant to Article 36 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which ultimately results in an infringement of Article 14 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Article 2 of Protocol 4 to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. For this reason, the Regional Court followed § 95 (2) of the Czech Constitution.

5. The Constitutional Court requested a statement from the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.

6. In the observations of the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Parliament, it is stated that the contested provision contained Press No. 605 IV of the parliamentary term - a government bill amending Act No. 328 / 1999 Coll., as amended, Act No. 329 / 1999 Coll., on Travel Documents and Amendment to Act No. 283 / 1991 Coll., on the Police of the Czech Republic, as amended, (Act on Travel Documents), as amended, Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on Transfers, as amended, Act No. 153 / 1994 Coll., as amended, and Act No. 326 / 1999 Coll. In the explanatory memorandum, the Government explicitly states that the proposed amendment to the Act is in line with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, in particular fully respecting the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms where the right to freedom of movement and residence is laid down. Furthermore, the whole draft amendment is in accordance with the law of the European Communities and the international treaties that bind the Czech Republic, which govern the legal relations in question and in relation to them. The first reading of this press took place on 7 April 2004. The bill was ordered to discuss the Committee on Public Administration, Regional Development and the Environment. The Committee on Public Administration, Regional Development and the Environment discussed Press No. 605 on 14 April 2004 at its 33rd meeting, with no amendment to the draft amendment to Act No. 329 / 1999 Coll. was tabled. The second reading of press 605 took place on 16 June 2004 and the amendment was not tabled on the contested provision. The third reading took place on 30 June 2004. The Chamber of Deputies approved the bill, as out of 185 Members present in favour of the bill, 171 Members voted against, two Members opposed. The approved bill was forwarded to the Senate on 15 July 2004. The Senate returned the bill to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments which did not, however, relate to the Travel Documents Act. The Chamber of Deputies on the bill returned by the Senate again voted on 24 September 2004. For the bill as amended by the Senate, there were 96 Members out of 194 present, 38 against. The proposal was not accepted as the quota prescribed was 98 votes. The Chamber of Deputies then approved the bill in the text in which it was referred to the Senate, which, out of 194 Members present, was for 130 Members against 14 Members. The Act containing the contested provision was signed by the President of the Republic on 18 October 2004. The amendment to the Act was approved by the necessary majority of Members of the Chamber of Deputies, signed by the relevant constitutional officials and was duly declared in the Collection of Laws on 9 November 2004 under the number 559 / 2004 Coll.

7. The Chamber of Deputies concluded that the legislature acted in the belief that the laws adopted were in accordance with the Constitution of the Czech Republic and our Rules of Law and it is up to the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of these laws in the context of the proposal of the Regional Court in Hradec Králové to repeal the provisions of § 23 (c) of Act No. 329 / 1999 Coll., as amended on 1 January 2005, and to decide (note: Chamber of Deputies - unlike the Senate - did not comment on the procedure for the adoption of the original text of Act No. 329 / 1999 Coll.).

8. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic stated in its observations that the draft contested provision of the Travel Documents Act was the result of legislative action completed by the Decree of the Act cited on 27 December 1999. The draft law in question was referred to the Senate by the Chamber of Deputies on 26 October 1999. The Senate, which was referred to the bill (Senate Press No. 109), discussed in the prescribed manner in its committees and then at its 11th meeting of 2 November 1999. On the recommendation of the three committees to which the proposal was ordered, the Senate returned to the Chamber of Deputies the law in question with amendments by its Resolution No 185 of 12 November 1999. The resolution was adopted by a strong majority, as out of the 60 senators present, 56 senators voted in favour, no one opposed it and four senators abstained. The amendments adopted by the Senate did not refer to the provision of Paragraph 23 on the refusal to issue and withdraw a travel document; However, when discussing this bill in the Senate committees, it was expressly recalled to the representatives of the Government as the appellants (in the debate) that the Government did not use the submission of a new law to amend the existing legal structure, according to which the administrative body will decide on the withdrawal of the travel document at the request of the various state authorities, for reasons which are also factually non-organically included in the travel document law. It was noted in the Senate committees that the reasons for not issuing or withdrawing a travel document should be included in the procedural legislation in which this instrument would follow the adjustment of the relations for which it is intended. The power to decide not to issue or withdraw a travel document should be exercised by the national authorities whose jurisdiction is legally defined for such relations, since, under such legislation, a system of appropriate guarantees for the proper conduct of the case, including the standard rights of the party concerned, and the possibility of subsequent judicial review is also established. However, the Senate was not recommended by the resolutions of its committees to adopt amendments in the sense of the comments made above, with the fact that it is a solution that needs to be prepared by the government's care in order to achieve a comprehensive and comprehensive legislative process.

9. The Senate continued and added that the draft contested provision was amended only once by Act No. 559 / 2004 Coll. However, this amendment did not change the substance of this adjustment. The amendment of Paragraph 23 (b) of the Travel Documents Act until 31 December 2004 was merely that the condition of not issuing or withdrawing a travel document should not, in the future, be a criminal prosecution for an intentional offence but for an offence for which a custodial sentence of at least three years may be imposed. By introducing a new point (b) into Paragraph 23, the formal designation of the provision in question changed from the former point (b) to the current point (c). The above mentioned amendment was referred to the Senate by the Chamber of Deputies on 14 July 2004. The Senate referred to the bill (Senate Press No. 392) discussed in its committees in the prescribed manner and then, at its 17th meeting of the 4th term of office on 22 July 2004, returned to the Chamber of Deputies, following the recommendation of the committees by Resolution No 493 of 22 July 2004. The resolution was adopted unanimously in vote 32, because of the 57 senators present, 57 senators voted in favour of the proposal. It follows that the Senate was in a quorum and its resolution was adopted by the necessary number of votes. However, the amendments adopted by the Senate did not go towards the provision in question to refuse the issuance and withdrawal of the travel document, nor did the proceedings of the committees and the Chamber of Deputies affect the contested provision. In the case of amendments, the interests of the legislature are mainly confined to those provisions in which the amendment has a major effect, which, according to the Senate, was not the case with the amendment of that provision. The Senate stated that it had discussed the draft law in the majority belief that it was in line with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and international commitments; leaves it to the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of the draft contested provision.

10. The Constitutional Court first, in accordance with § 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., examined whether the law, the unconstitutionality of which the appellant objects, was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution of the Czech Republic by a specified competence and by a constitutionally prescribed manner. He found (from the observations of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, as well as from the House of Deputies, the reports, the relevant resolutions and data on the voting process of the two chambers) that both the original law on travel documents and its amendment amending the contested provisions (Act No. 559 / 2004 Coll.) were adopted and issued by the Constitution of the Czech Republic in the prescribed manner and within the limits of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, in compliance with the provisions laid down in Article 39 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic. The amendment to Act No. 329 / 1999 Coll. was signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and published in the Collection of Laws under No. 559 / 2004 Coll.

11. Paragraph 23 of the Travel Documents Act, as amended by Act No 559 / 2004 Coll. effective as of 1.1.2005, reads (the contested part is underlined by the proposal):

(a) the court, where the enforcement of a judgment is ordered against a citizen,

(b) the court executor responsible for the execution of the execution where there is a clear risk that the citizen of the execution would thwart travel abroad;

(c) a criminal justice authority where criminal prosecution is brought against a citizen for an offence for which a custodial sentence of at least 3 years may be imposed; or

(d) the authority which exercises the decision or its enforcement shall, in accordance with specific legislation, arrange for the execution of a citizen's prison sentence; That is not the case if he has been pardoned or has been barred.

12. The Constitutional Court has concluded that the application is justified.

13. In particular, the Constitutional Court, when assessing the constitutionality of the contested provision, found that the substance of the case was in principle identical to the case dealt with by the Constitutional Court on 20 May 2008 under sp. zn. At that time, the Constitutional Court stated in that finding that the provisions of § 23 (b) of Act No. 329 / 1999 Coll., on travel documents and amending Act No. 283 / 1991 Coll., on the Police of the Czech Republic, as amended by Act No. 217 / 2002 Coll. and Act No. 320 / 2002 Coll., were contrary to Articles 2 (2), 4 (1), 14 (1) and 36 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Protocol '). Paragraph 23 (b) of the Travel Documents Act, as in force and effective until 31 December 2004, stated that" the issuing of a travel document shall be refused or the issuing of a travel document shall be withdrawn at the request of the criminal proceedings authority to a citizen against whom criminal proceedings are brought for a criminal offence'. A change - from the effectiveness of Act No. 559 / 2004 Coll. - in the possibility to withdraw or refuse the issue of a travel document only if a criminal prosecution is against a citizen for an offence for which a custodial sentence may be imposed for at least 3 years is not such as to establish the constitutional conformity of the provision under examination.

14. The Constitutional Court can therefore only repeat that the freedom of movement guaranteed by Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms is one of the fundamental human rights and is protected by judicial authority under Article 4 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic. Rights arising from freedom of movement can be sought directly, immediately, and not only through the laws implementing this provision. However, the constitutional guarantees are not unlimited; Freedom of movement is limited by constitutional limits. As a general rule, these restrictions may be summarised in such a way that they must be laid down by law for the reasons set out in paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, if necessary. The Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Protocol 4 guarantees freedom of movement for citizens of the State concerned and foreigners in a different way (cf. "who is staying legally") and provides for its restriction only in the cases provided for in Article 2 (3) of the Protocol, provided that "it is necessary in a democratic society." No other limits on the Charter of Fundamental Rights or the Protocol shall be laid down; Therefore, freedom of movement must be understood as a right which includes not only the right to move and settle freely anywhere in the Czech Republic, but also the right to travel freely abroad and return.

15. As already stated by the Constitutional Court in the find of the sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 12 / 07 (see above), in relation to the citizens of the Czech Republic, the constitutional regulation allows the exercise of their freedom of movement to be restricted by public intervention. In order for this intervention to be regarded as constitutionally permissible, it must be provided for by law, must be directed towards a legitimate objective and must be inevitable or necessary in a democratic society. The legal objectives are defined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, as well as in the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, by so-called "harsh concepts such as state security, national security, public policy, public security, crime prevention, health or morality, protection of the rights and freedoms of others, protection of nature. Some of these concepts are defined by law, some of them, although widely used, such as" public policy ', do not clearly define the rule of law and are therefore interpreted by the case-law of the courts or decisions of other public authorities. From a constitutional point of view, it is irrelevant whether these terms are fulfilled by the legislator or interpreted by the case-law, which is decisive that they must not be extended further. The contested provision may limit the freedom of movement of an individual outside the territory of the Czech Republic as a result of his criminal prosecution for an offence for which - de Hotlata - the sentence of imprisonment may be imposed for at least 3 years. The criminal proceedings leading to the proper detection of criminal offences and the fair punishment of their perpetrators (§ 1 (1) of the Criminal Code) in order to protect the interests of society, the constitutional establishment of the Czech Republic, the rights and legitimate interests of natural and legal persons (§ 1 of the Criminal Act) are generally of legitimate public interest. However, as regards the further condition that interference in rights must be inevitable or necessary in a democratic society, the Constitutional Court stated that, although these concepts are not further defined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights or in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, it is clear that it involves a certain urgent social need, the establishment of which constitutes an area of discretion and justification by the legislator. If this is not provided for by law, the characteristics of this need can be derived from the caselaw.

16. The Constitutional Court, in the context of assessing the necessity of intervention by a public authority in the rights and freedoms of an individual, has stated that it has introduced a breakthrough in the constitutional order of the Czech Republic in the protection of rights, "it is only and exclusively in the interests of the protection of democratic society, possibly in the interests of the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms of others; This includes, in particular, the necessity given by the general interest in protecting society from criminal offences and in the detection and punishment of such acts. '; Therefore, only such intervention of State authority in the fundamental right or freedom of a person is permitted, which is necessary in that sense." In order not to exceed the limits of necessity, there must be a system of adequate and sufficient guarantees, consisting of adequate legislation and effective monitoring of compliance with them.' [cf. the find sp. zn. II. ÚS 502 / 2000 of 22.1.2001 (Collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, Volume 21, page 11, p. 83]]]. It also follows from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights that, in assessing the intervention leading to an infringement of the freedom of movement of an individual, that court, within the framework of the principles laid down in Article 2, Protocol 4 to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms takes note, for example, of the outcome of the investigation or development of a particular case and, in this context, considers whether the intervention was appropriate in relation to the intended objective [see, for example, Case No 33592 / 96 Baumann v France, Case No 33592 / 96 Iletmis v Turkey, Case No 29871 / 96, Case No Luordo v Italy, Case No 32190 / 96, Court case-law, Review of the ECHR judgments, p. 6 / 2003, p. 317 (324) and Others].

17. The purpose of the contested provision is to withdraw or refuse the issue of a travel document, to ensure that a person prosecuted for a particularly qualified (serious) offence cannot avoid, make it difficult for him or her to escape altogether. It is therefore clear that the proportionality of this measure in terms of its necessity or necessity can only be considered on the basis of the state and development of the prosecution of the person concerned by the measure and that this assessment is for the law enforcement authority. However, the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide the person being prosecuted with a procedural means of effectively reviewing the adequacy of the proposed measure, as the request of the criminal authority to withdraw the travel document from the person being prosecuted is decided in a non-criminal procedure.

18. The Constitutional Court therefore - once again - examined in particular the question of whether a standard limiting the scope of the facts under which the freedom of movement of the travel document holder may be restricted is contrary to the constitutional order, namely Article 36 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, according to which anyone may seek the established procedure of his right with an independent and impartial court and, in specified cases, with another authority. The purpose and purpose of this provision is to lay down the obligation of the State to grant protection to everyone, since there cannot be a situation in the rule of law in which the right-holder cannot obtain protection (in a court or other body). In general, the democratic state is here to protect its citizens (but also those who are present in its territory) and to provide guarantees that their rights will be protected. As already explained by the Constitutional Court in its judgment of 29 January 2008 in sp. zn. such a law, issued under constitutional authority, is, however, limited by Article 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and cannot therefore derogate from its content. The purpose and purpose of the "ordinary" law referred to in Article 36 (4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms is merely to determine the conditions and details of implementation as regards its content (already) by the legislator in Article 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the freedoms of the enshrined rights, that is, conditions and details of a procedural nature only. If, pursuant to Article 36 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, every right is to seek the protection of its rights in a court or other body, the conditions and rules for the exercise of that right are laid down by law, such a law, issued on the basis of constitutional authority, cannot deny the right of "everyone" to seek the protection of its rights in a court or other body in which the situation is completely negated and thus a constitutional fundamental right, even in certain cases only. In accordance with Article 36 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, any constitutional guarantee of the possibility of seeking the protection of its right in a court or other body in all situations of infringement (there is no constitutional restriction). No person can be completely excluded by law from the possibility of seeking protection of his right by - even if only in a certain case - that his right under Article 36 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights would be annulled. The opposite interpretation would also imply that the anchoring of everyone's right to appeal to judicial and other bodies to protect their rights as established by the legislator - that is, gifted by the highest legal force - would, in fact, lose meaning as it could be eliminated by the will of the legislator only for the situation.

19. In that finding, the Constitutional Court concluded that the contested provision of the Travel Document Act did not provide any possibility of consideration, in the context of the necessity or necessity of such intervention in a democratic society, to the administrative authority responsible for withdrawing the travel document for the application of the criminal offence in question, since, if the legal reason has been fulfilled, the administrative authority has no room for the administrative discretion of the necessity or proportionality of such a measure and must withdraw the travel document. He added that it is not essential, from a constitutional point of view, whether the power to consider the necessity or necessity of the use of a means of limiting the fundamental right or the freedom of an individual in order to protect other constitutionally protected value is conferred on one or the other public authority (the administrative or criminal authority); the decision must not be exempt from effective judicial control. However, the contested provision of the Travel Documents Act does not provide any possibility of consideration to the administrative authority, which, in consequence, significantly limits the possibility of its review by the administrative court. The right to refuse the issue of a travel document or to withdraw a travel document provided for by law and justified by a justified public interest (legitimate objective) may, in a particular case, be an unavoidable (necessary) measure; the decision on such a measure cannot, however, be excluded from actual judicial protection and replaced by illusory protection.

20. The notable reasons for the Constitutional Court's finding of 20 May 2008 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 12 / 07 (see above) express a binding legal opinion, which is now bound by the Constitutional Court itself (Article 89 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic).

21. The Constitutional Court (now) on the conclusions expressed above and contained in the already cited finding sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 12 / 07 therefore merely complements and reiterates that one of the fundamental conceptual assumptions of the constitutional right to a fair trial (Article 36 et seq. The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) is the decision-making of independent and impartial courts according to the specific principles laid down in the relevant procedural rules; However, in its individual provisions such a process must also allow and do not distinguish unreasonably between the different bodies whose fundamental rights are comparable. Such a procedure, even if the normal interpretation of the relevant legal provisions makes it possible, leads to direct interference in, and in the vast majority of, the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights or freedoms of the holders of public subjective law concerned; The core principles of a modern democratic legal and constitutional state (Article 1 (1) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic), which is understood and defined as the so-called material rule of law, bound by the highest constitutional principles and values, do not allow such a thing. Even the essence of legal certainty as one of the attributes of the rule of law - including the protection of trust in law - lies in the fact that everyone can rely on the State to provide effective protection in its rights and to help it to implement its subjective right.

22. While the Constitutional Court considers that it is not up to the legislator to give a detailed indication of the legislation to be adopted on the subject under consideration. Before adopting it, however, it will be up to the legislature to carefully and consistently consider whether it is really acceptable, whether the refusal to issue or withdraw a travel document should be decided by the administrative authorities and administrative courts and whether the question falls within their competence at all. It is in effect a reinsurance institution; the decision to apply it should be taken by those public authorities which conduct the proceedings in which such a means of reinsurance is to be used, namely the law enforcement authorities. The review of such a decision by a court in the same proceedings (i.e. in criminal proceedings) also carries a number of undisputed advantages. It is not only about operationality and greater knowledge of the reasons for which the competent public authority considered it necessary to provide collateral, but, above all, about the elimination of the unintended intermingling of various processes conducted by different authorities, i.e. the law enforcement authorities and administrative and administrative courts. This was also pointed out by the Senate in its observations on the subject, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 12 / 07. By repealing the contested provision of the Travel Documents Act, as effective as of 1 January 2005, the Constitutional Court does not intend to state that the broad discretion of the administrative authority, supplemented by a judicial review in full jurisdiction by administrative courts, is the way the legislator should and must go.

23. The Constitutional Court therefore considers that the provisions of Article 23 (c) of Act No. 329 / 1999 Coll., on Travel Documents and amending Act No. 283 / 1991 Coll., on the Police of the Czech Republic, as amended, (Travel Documents Act), as effective from 1 January 2005, do not allow the General Courts to fulfil their obligations in the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual when examining a request from an authority acting in criminal proceedings for the withdrawal of a travel document to a person against whom criminal prosecution is punishable for at least 3 years; This applies in the light of the limits on the condition that such intervention in a democratic society is necessary or unavoidable, which constitutes a breach of the principles enshrined in Articles 2 (2) and 4 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. This also deprives the individual concerned of the right to effective judicial protection under Article 36 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which ultimately also led to the infringement of Article 14 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Article 2 of Protocol 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

24. Therefore, the Constitutional Court fully complied with the appellant's proposal under Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic and annulled the contested provision. At the same time, however, it has put a reasonable delay in the enforceability of its finding in order to enable the legislator to react constitutionally to the situation.

25. The Constitutional Court concluded that further clarification of the case could not be expected from oral proceedings and therefore abandoned it with the consent of the parties.