The Constitutional Court found No 39 / 2013 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 9 January 2013 sp. zn.
Valid
39
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
The Constitutional Court decided on the subject-matter on 9 January 2013 in plenary composed of the President of the Court of Pavel Rychetský and the Judges Stanislav Balík, Vlasta Formánková, Pavel Holländer, Ivana Janů, Vladimir Kránek, Jiří Muchy, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodým, Miloslav Excellent and Michaela Židlická on the proposal of the Regional Court in Hradec Králová, the branch of Pardubice to establish the unconstitutionality of the provisions of § 1 (g) and § 10a Act No. 565 / 1990 Coll., on Local Charges, as amended by Act No. 115 / 2001 Coll., Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll.
as follows:
The proposal to establish the unconstitutionality of the provisions of § 1 (g) and § 10a of Act No. 565 / 1990 Coll., on local charges, as amended by Act No. 183 / 2010 Coll., before the amendment made by Act No. 458 / 2011 Coll., in the event that the Constitutional Court made a declaration stating the inconstitutionality of Part Three of Act No. 183 / 2010 Coll., amending Act No. 115 / 2001 Coll., on the promotion of sport, as amended, Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll., on the transition of certain other items, rights and obligations of the Czech Republic to the regions and municipalities, and Act No. 20 / 1966 Coll.
Reasons
Definition and recap of the proposal
1. By a proposal delivered to the Constitutional Court on 2 February 2012, the Regional Court in Hradec Králové - a branch in Pardubice (hereinafter referred to as the "promoter"), with reference to the provisions of Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the "Constitution"), sought to establish the inconstitutionality of the provisions of § 1 (g) and § 10a of the Act No. 565 / 1990 Coll., on local fees and on the amendment of Act No. 157 / 2000 Coll., before the amendment of Act No. 458 / 2011 Coll., on the transition of certain other acts, rights and obligations of the Czech Republic to the county and to the Civil Association, amending Act No. 115 / 2001 Coll., on the Law No. 157 / 2000 Coll.
2. According to the appellant, the contested provisions are to be used in the resolution of the case brought by the appellant under sp. zn. 52 Af 9 / 2011, in which the applicant gate seven, a.s. ("the applicant ') seeks judicial review of the decision of the Regional Office of the Pardubice Region (" the Regional Office') of 10 May 2011 No 37795 / 2011.
3. According to the content of the application lodged on 30 September 2010, the applicant paid a local fee for a gaming machine or other technical equipment authorised by the Ministry of Finance under another legislation of CZK 1630. On 15 February 2011, the applicant submitted a request to the Municipal Office of Moravia Třebová ("the tax administrator ') for the refund of the refundable overpayment pursuant to the provisions of § 155 of Act No. 280 / 2009 Coll., Tax Code, since in its view the local fee for" other technical gaming equipment' cannot be fixed and levied at all. The fee manager issued a decision on 14 March 2011 under No. MUMT 6942 / 2011 / OMM3, stating that the application could not be met, because the fee was paid in accordance with the generally binding Moravská Třebová Decree No. 2 / 2010 on the local fee for the operated gaming instrument or other technical gaming equipment and is currently registered in a personal tax account with an underpayment of CZK 84560. On the basis of an appeal lodged by the applicant, the Regional Office of the Pardubice Region, by Decision of 10 May 2011 No 37795 / 2011, rejected the appeal and confirmed the contested decision. The Regional Authority concluded that each Ministry of Finance (IVT), which is connected to the central unit with other components of the system, is the subject of a local fee and is therefore able to implement the game from the very beginning to the end of the game. The local fee is collected at each end point of this system (IVT), i.e. at the place where the player participates in the betting game. In general, it can therefore be concluded that the local charge is the subject of all technical gaming equipment within the meaning above, which cumulatively fulfil the second condition set out in Section 10a of Act No. 565 / 1990 Coll., on Local Charges, as amended ("the Local Charges Act '), i.e. are also authorised by the Ministry of Finance.
4. As is apparent from those decisions of the two administrative bodies in the administrative procedure in which the two decisions were given, the two administrative bodies acted pursuant to Act No. 183 / 2010 Coll., amending Act No. 115 / 2011 Coll., on the Promotion of Sport, as amended, Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll., on the Transfer of Certain Other Things, Rights and Obligations of the Czech Republic to the Counties and Municipality, Civil Association Act No. 20 / 1966 Coll., on the Care of People, as amended, and Act No. 157 / 2000 Coll., and Act No. 565 / 1990 Coll. By this Act No. 183 / 2010 Coll., in Part Three, an amendment was made to the provisions of Sections 1 (g) and 10a of Act No. 565 / 1990 Coll. as effective at the time of the administrative decisions and a new fee was introduced for other technical gaming equipment authorised by the Ministry of Finance under another legislation.
5. The appellant contends that the administrative procedure in which both decisions of the administrative authorities were taken is the decision on this charge for other technical gaming equipment and therefore had to address the applicant's objection to the inconstitutionality of the contested legislation.
6. The appellant is of the opinion that the provisions of the Act to be applied in the resolution of the case [namely the provisions of § 1 (g) and § 10a of Act No. 565 / 1990 Coll., on Local Charges, as amended by the Act No. 183 / 2010 Coll., which was introduced by the fee for other technical gaming equipment authorised by the Ministry of Finance under another legislation, were not adopted in a constitutional manner.
7. The appellant stated that the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, in 2010, discussed as Senate Press No. 259 a draft law amending Act No. 115 / 2001 Coll., on the Promotion of Sport, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "Act on the Promotion of Sport ') and Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll., on the transition of certain other items, rights and obligations of the Czech Republic to regions and municipalities, civil associations active in the field of physical and sport and on related changes and on the amendment of Act No. 157 / 2000 Coll., on the transition of certain items, rights and obligations from the property of the Czech Republic, as amended by Act No. 10 / 2001 Coll. The original bill amending Act No. 115 / 2001 Coll., on the promotion of sport, as amended, was submitted as House Press No. 756 to the Chamber of Deputies on 27 February 2009 by a group of Members of the Chamber of Deputies (namely Members Jiří Paroubek, Karel Šplouchal, David Rath and František Bublan). As is apparent from the explanatory memorandum presented by the amendment, the provisions of § 7a to 7f of the Act on the promotion of sport inserted into it in connection with the adoption of Act No. 273 / 2008 Coll., on the Police of the Czech Republic were to be deleted. As part of the first reading (29 September 2009), the draft law was discussed by the Security Committee, which recommended approving the draft law as amended. The various provisions in question were amended and therefore the original intention to abolish those provisions was waived. In the second reading (on 11.3.2010), Member Vladimir Šoltys proposed to change the title of the Act to" Act amending Act No. 115 / 2001 Coll., on the Promotion of Sport, as amended, and Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll., on the transition of certain other items, rights and obligations of the Czech Republic to regions and municipalities, civil associations active in the field of physical and sport and on related changes and the amendment of Act No. 157 / 2000 Coll., on the transition of certain items, rights and obligations from the property of the Czech Republic, as amended by Act No. 10 / 2001 Coll., and Act No. 20 / 1966 Coll., on the care of people, as amended by Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll. The amendment was then also made by Members Jiří Čepelka and Karel Šsplěchal. The bill was approved by the Chamber of Deputies as amended on 19 March 2010. The final content of this rather brief proposal after passing through the Chamber of Deputies was, de facto:
(a) setting out the obligations of the owner or operator of a sports facility to ensure the safety of persons and property in that sports facility and to this end possible cooperation with the Czech Police;
(b) the waiver of the obligation to offer unnecessary property to civil associations active in the field of sports (within the ten-year period following their acquisition) free of charge and in preference to State ownership.
8. The Senate was served on 29 March 2010. The Senate discussed the proposal at its 18th meeting on 23 April 2010 and returned it to the Chamber of Deputies as amended on 27 April 2010. She voted on the returned proposal at her 79th meeting on 18 May 2010 and adopted the law. The President of the Czech Republic then signed the Act on 2 June 2010. The Act was published in the Collection of Laws in the amount of 64 under No 183 / 2010 Coll. and became effective on 16 June 2010.
9. In the context of the discussion of the draft law on 23 April 2010 (at the initiative of Senator Kubera), the Senate added an amendment to it by its resolution No 487 without a reasoned report and even without a previous debate. The content of this amendment was an amendment to the title of the draft law and the insertion of the new part three after part two of the draft law. This new part of the third concerned the amendment of the Local Charges Act, namely the adaptation in the provisions of Sections 1 (g) and 10a (1), (2) and (3) of the Local Charges Act, and was that the provisions of Section 1 of the Local Charges Act set out a exhaustive list of local charges to be collected by municipalities. In total, there are nine types of local fees (e.g. dog fee, spa or holiday fee, accommodation capacity fee, licence fee for entering a motor vehicle to selected places and parts of cities, etc.).
10. The original text of the provision of § 1 (g) of the Law on Local Charges before the amendment made by Act No. 183 / 2010 Coll. reads: "(g) the fee for the winning instrument operated," The new text of the provisions of § 1 (g) of the Local Charges Act reads as follows: "(g) a fee for an operational gaming instrument or other technical gaming equipment authorised by the Ministry of Finance under another legislature15."
11. The original text of the provision of § 10a of the Law on Local Charges before the amendment made by Act No. 183 / 2010 Coll. reads: "(1) The fee for the winning instrument operated is subject to each authorised instrument. 15) The municipality is not obliged to grant exemption from this charge. (2) The fee for the winning player is paid by its operator. (3) The rate of charge for each three-month slot player is from CZK 1,000 to CZK 5,000." The new text of the provisions of Section 10a of the Local Charges Act reads: "(1) The fee for an operational gaming instrument or other technical gaming equipment authorised by the Ministry of Finance is subject to any authorised gaming instrument or other technical gaming equipment authorised by the Ministry of Finance. The municipality is not obliged to grant exemption from this charge. (2) The fee for the gaming instrument or other technical gaming equipment authorised by the Ministry of Finance is paid by its operator. (3) The rate of charge for each winning player or other technical gaming device authorised by the Ministry of Finance for three months is from CZK 1,000 to CZK 5,000."
12. According to the original and new legislation, the content of index 15) and the footnotes remained the same and means the reference to Act No. 202 / 1990 Coll., on Lottery and other similar games, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "Lottery Act ').
13. From the stenon recorded on 23 April 2010 from the Senate's deliberations, it follows how Senator Jaroslav Kuber introduced the Senate with his amendment to the amendment to the Act on the Promotion of Sport:... "I will not talk about this law, I have no problem with that, but I would like to introduce an amendment. I'm sure you know that there will be an amendment to the Lottery, Betting and Other Games Act next week. We are in a difficult situation with the fear that if we return the law now, it will not be possible to discuss it for time reasons. That is why I have decided to table an amendment to this law. In advance, I report to the opponents of the stickers that this is not the true affiliation that we approved yesterday in the Education Workers Act, but is the so-called false affiliation. It would be true if we tried to connect him to the garden law under the impression that betting is like betting, but it's not. This law is about promoting sport and is very much related to lotteries and betting, because part of the proceeds are used to support sport."
14. His concerns about the fact that it is indeed a genuine attachment in this case were subsequently expressed by Mr Jiří Čepelka (see the stenoprotocol from the 79th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Parliament of 18 May 2010):... "I am very sorry that, in the Senate, the law, which is otherwise pure, has been managed to essentially supplement the attachment that I really think can lead to the President's decision and in some way question it, returning the bill, that it will no longer have anyone to deal with..." In defence of his amendment to the amendment to the Act on the Promotion of Sport, Senator Kubera again appeared before the Chamber of Deputies, who reiterated that his original intention was to assign an attachment to the bill on gardening activities and to modify some of the conditions of its operation (gardening law), see the quote from the same stenoprotocol: "We originally wanted to add the attachment to the law that you had just approved. We used to think that betting like betting. (Cheering) Whether it's gambling on vending machines or planting plants... Why did we decide to put it in the Sports Act? First of all, he already contained an adhesive, and the adhesive was from you, the so-called one that you incorporated. We embossed the so-called" fake "because the law is closely related to sports. You know well, it is not only the state that supports sport, but the municipalities, in particular, support youth sport very strongly, and of course they are now in a situation where they do not have enough resources. This law does nothing but unify the fee for regular slot machines with the charge for video terminals, regardless of the fact that the Ministry of Finance is licensing video terminals. There's nothing else in the law. The money goes directly to the municipalities and goes directly to the municipalities, where there are also problems with vending machines and video terminals.... So I'm asking you to support this bill, which is not risking anything. If anyone has any legal studies, we've also treated all the other triplexes, quartlexes and other vending machines that will be lost in the future, which we don't even know what the technicians will think of yet."
15. As is apparent from the above, in the appellant's view, Senator Kubera's amendment did not amend the proposed amendment to the law on the promotion of sport, but concerned a fundamentally different subject matter. In this context, the appellant pointed out the finding of plenary at the Constitutional Court sp. zn.
16. The appellant considers that Senator Kubera's amendment did not amend the current legislation of the Law on the Promotion of Sport and neither the law on the Promotion of Sport in any way related. Moreover, the content and purpose of the amendment to the Act on the promotion of sport and the amendment to the Law on Local Charges were not directly related to each other, according to the appellant's claim, and certainly not closely, as the Constitutional Court defined in its caselaw. It was not even about sports. It follows that Senator Kubera's amendment did not concern the same subject matter of the proposal that was discussed in the legislative process. As is apparent from the stenographer of 23 April 2010, Senator Kubera himself declares that he has no problem with the proposed text of the amendment to the Sport Support Act. In that case, however, he should not have proposed any amendments to it at all. It also follows from his other observations (contained both in the stenographer of 23 April 2010 and in the stenoprotocol of 18 May 2010) that he was essentially merely seeking an appropriate legislative regulation under consideration (the Gardening Act, the Sport Support Act) to which he could add his intention to amend the Local Charges Act, because he was not himself entitled to submit a draft law. In this way, it has thus circumvented the classic legislative initiative within the meaning of Article 41 (1) and (2) of the Constitution, namely that the bill is essentially presented to the Chamber of Deputies (not to the Senate) and that the proposal can only be made by the entire Senate, but not by one senator.
17. The appellant also disagrees with the alleged other, in his view, unfounded arguments put forward by Senator Kubra before the Chamber of Deputies. According to the rule laid down in Article 2 (3) of the Constitution and Article 2 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Charter '), the State is bound by the rules which it has laid down and it follows that the legislator is obliged to comply with certain legislative rules when adopting laws. The appellant argues that the legislator should not support the' unfortunate practice of stickers' when Senator Kubera evaluates in his statement that it is a 'false attachment because the law is closely linked to sport', he reiterates what his amendment actually consisted of. Therefore, according to the appellant's conclusion, it cannot be concluded that the sport is completely and totally unrelated. It concerns only lottery operators and other similar games and the introduction of the possibility of a further financial contribution from this operation, this time to the municipal budget. There is no link to sports or sports activities. Moreover, from what Senator Kubera said before the Senate and before the Chamber of Deputies, it is clear that he sees the connection he saw with the promotion of sport in different ways. On 23 April 2010, he stated before the Senate that the Act on the promotion of sport was very much related to lotteries and betting, as part of the proceeds were used to promote sport. However, the amendment to the Act on the promotion of sport had nothing to do with the financial support of sport activities and the amendment attached thereto. While it is true that under the Lottery Act, lottery operators and other similar games are obliged to pay part of the proceeds from the operation of these games to public utility activities, and those activities include sports activities (in particular sport practised by children and youth), even if the appellant were to accept this argument (which he certainly does not, because he does not agree with it), he has to evaluate that the amendment does not concern the amendments to the Lottery Act and the contribution to the part of the proceeds when it is only governed by the Local Charges Act and the possibility of municipalities to apply a new type of local fee. On 18 May 2010, Senator Kubera, in his speech before the Chamber of Deputies, finds a link between the proposed regulations and the promotion of sport in something else - this time not only does the State support sport, but also to a very significant extent the municipality. However, the question of how the municipalities will deal with the local levy is irrelevant; In any case, they need not be used to promote sport at all, as such a condition is not provided for in the legislation in force.
18. In the present case, according to the appellant, there was a purposeful circumvention of the Institute of Legislative Initiative under Article 41 of the Constitution and a breach of the right of the Government to comment on the draft law within the meaning of Article 44 of the Constitution. It is the Chamber of Deputies, which always deals with bills as the first in the order of both chambers. Senator Kubera's amendment was such a separate proposal and, as such, it should have been submitted to the Chamber of Deputies, not to the Senate (but not to the only Senator), and it should also have contained a explanatory report addressing the expected economic and financial impact of the proposed regulation, including claims on the state budget, regional and municipal budgets and an assessment of the consistency of the proposal with international treaties under Article 10 of the Constitution and the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. The absence of a reasoned report in this case is, according to the appellant, particularly sensitive.
19. According to the appellant, it is clear from the above that the content and purpose of the present regulation of the Law on the promotion of sport are different from the proposed amendment of the Law on Local Charges and even from the content and purpose of the Law on Local Charges in general so far that they are not related. However, such a procedure is completely unexpected for the addressees of the legal standard. At the same time, a materially perceived rule of law requires that the law be a predictable, consistent source of law in both form and content.
20. The appellant therefore concludes that the legislation contained in the contested provisions adopted by the amendment to the Act on the promotion of sport No 183 / 2010 Coll. was contrary to the constitutional order. Although the provisions of § 1 (g) and § 10a of the Law on Local Charges were repealed with effect from 1 January 2012 by Act No. 458 / 2011 Coll., on the amendment of the laws relating to the establishment of a single collection point and other amendments to tax and insurance laws, this legislation was in force at the time of the defendant's decision given by the public authority and the court in this court must take account of it, since according to § 75 (1) of Act No. 150 / 2002 Coll., the administrative rules of the Court of First Instance, when examining the administrative decision, are based on the facts and legal situation which was at the time of the administrative decision. According to the order of the Constitutional Court of 9 February 2011 sp. zn.
21. The appellant therefore does not object to the content of the non-compliance of the contested legal provisions with the constitutional order, but made a proposal that the Constitutional Court should declare by a declaratory statement that the contested provisions, as amended by Act No 183 / 2010 Coll. before the amendment by Act No 458 / 2011 Coll. were not adopted in a constitutional manner which infringed the provisions of Article 2 (3) of the Constitution and Article 2 (2) of the Charter.
Recital of the essential parts of the observations of the parties
22. The Constitutional Court, in accordance with the provisions of § 42 (4) and § 69 (1) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the Law on the Constitutional Court) delivered the proposal in question to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.
23. The Chamber of Deputies stated in its observations of 24 February 2012 that, in its view, Law 183 / 2010 Coll. was adopted by the Chamber of Deputies in a constitutional manner.
24. In its observations of 24 February 2012, the Senate stated that Law 183 / 2010 Coll. was referred to the Senate by the Chamber of Deputies as a draft of the Act on 29 March 2010, and the Senate Organising Committee designated it as Senate Press No. 259 (7th term of office) to discuss the Committee on Education, Science, Culture, Human Rights and Petitions, which recommended the Senate plenary to approve this Senate Press, as referred to by the Chamber of Deputies. The Senate Plenum discussed the bill contained in Senate Press No. 259 at its 18th meeting on 23 April 2010. The recommendation of the Committee on Education, Science, Culture, Human Rights and Petitions to approve the draft law, as referred to by the Chamber of Deputies, was rejected when, on May 27, only 5 legislators of the Upper House voted for it. As amendments have already been predicted in the general debate, the President of the meeting has opened a detailed debate, in which the proposal to extend the draft law to Part Three - the amendment of the Local Charges Act, which has also been reflected in the law's title. The appellant of these amendments has justified their acceptance both in substance and in terms of their constitutional conformity in the way they are adopted. Following a brief debate, which also touched on the procedural side of the matter, the amendments in vote 72 were approved (out of the 53 senators, 47 voted in favour, against none, six abstentions). In a subsequent vote in the presence of the same number of senators, 51 of them voted in favour of returning the bill to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments (no one was against it, 2 senators abstained). The Chamber of Deputies approved the bill in the version returned by the Senate and the law containing, inter alia, an amendment to the Local Charges Act was published in the Collection of Laws under No. 183 / 2010 Coll. As is apparent from the above-mentioned plenary session of the Senate, amendments concerning the amendment to the Law on Local Charges have been discussed, inter alia, in terms of their compliance with the constitutional procedure for their adoption. Not only the draftsman of these amendments, but also the rapporteur of the Committee on Education, Science, Culture, Human Rights and Petitions himself did not see the proposals as a 'true attachment'. In this context, the rapporteur has even pointed out the already problematic link between the material "property of physical unity" and the material "security on stadiums" - that is, the form of the bill as passed on to the Senate by the Chamber of Deputies. The Senate has largely identified with the conclusions of the appellant of amendments that the material of the bill referred to relates to the proposals submitted. His belief that the bill, including the amendments adopted, was approved in the constitutional context of the legislative process, was also expressed in the final vote on the proposal to return the bill to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments, where not a single senator opposed it.
25. The Senate further draws attention to the fact that Amendment No 565 / 1990 Coll. is not the only amendment to that Act. The content of Act No. 183 / 2010 Coll. includes amendments to three other laws. In this context, therefore, there is no doubt a relevant question as to whether, within the framework of the declaratory statement, an infringement of the constitutionally prescribed method of adoption of only certain provisions of Act No. 183 / 2010 Coll., or one of the amendments contained therein - amendments to the Law on Local Charges - not "the whole 'of the Act. After all, Law 183 / 2010 Coll. was adopted under one legislative procedure and was voted on both in the Senate and in the Chamber of Deputies after its return by the Senate with one final vote. For the sake of completeness, the Senate adds that the relevant provisions of the Act on Local Charges are to be cited in the version of Act No. 305 / 1997 Coll., amending and supplementing the Act of the Czech National Council No. 368 / 1992 Coll., on Administrative Charges, as amended, and amending the Act of the Czech National Council No. 551 / 1991 Coll., on the General Health Insurance Corporation of the Czech Republic, as amended, and Act No. 565 / 1990 Coll., on Local Charges, as amended by the Act No. 202 / 1990 Coll., on Lottery and other similar acts, as amended by Act No. 70 / 1994 Coll., and by the amendment of the Act No. 149 / 1998 Coll. It should also be pointed out in the opinion of the Senate that the provisions of Part Three of Act 183 / 2010 Coll. have not yet touched all the others (see, before 15 June 2010) of the provisions of Sections 1 (g) and 10a of the Law on Local Charges, more precisely, only partially affected Section 10a (1) [the word" instrument.15' has been deleted and replaced by the words "apparatus or other technical equipment ', in other cases the word" instrument' has entered into the words "or '], and that the appellant does not make any substantive or procedural argument in the proposal against the existing parts of those provisions (i.e. the words relating to the gaming instruments), and there may be serious doubts as to whether the provisions so unaffected. If the appellant makes a procedural error to the Parliament of the Czech Republic and refers to the decision of the Constitutional Court sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 77 / 06 (see above), the proposal to declare the inconstitutionality of § 1 (g) and § 10a of Act No. 565 / 1990 Coll., as amended by Acts No. 305 / 1997 Coll., No. 149 / 1998 Coll. and No. 183 / 2010 Coll., appears to be effective on 31 December 2011 and thus impracticable. In the above context, the Senate also considers that the decision of the Constitutional Court sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24 / 07 of 31.1.2008 (N 26 / 48 CollU 303; 88 / 2008 Coll.) in the tax section of sub X, in which the Constitutional Court also addressed the issue of the inconstitutionality of the legislative process when adopting amendments and rejected the proposal for annulment because it did not consider the amendments adopted to be unrelated to the issue. It can be concluded that it cannot be entirely mechanically referred to earlier decisions of the Constitutional Court as the appellant does in his argument. It is the decision of the Constitutional Court in the case of Act No. 260 / 2006 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets, (Note: probably Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets) that shows that each such case has its specificities and unique character and is to be assessed from all aspects and that it is not always possible to reach the same conclusion in seemingly identical cases. At the end of its observations, the Senate pointed out that it had sent such observations, knowing that it was entirely up to the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of the procedure for adopting the contested law.
26. The applicant did not submit a reply to the comments received by the parties.
Expression of amicorum curiae
27. The Constitutional Court received on 9 March 2012 the submission of SPELOS, the interest association of legal persons, and on 17 July 2012 the submission of the Union of the gaming industry of the Czech Republic, o. s., named as the expression of amicorum curiae. The Constitutional Court notes on those submissions that the two parties are not parties or interveners within the meaning of Sections 28 and 69 of the Constitutional Court Act and that the Constitutional Court did not request their observations. Therefore, the Constitutional Court could not take these observations into account.
Abandonment of oral proceedings
28. After the above-mentioned course of the procedure, the Constitutional Court concluded that there was no need for oral hearing in the case, as it would not have brought any further, or better and clearer clarification of the case than the fact that it was informed of the written acts of the appellant and the parties to the proceedings, and the parties did not insist on oral hearing. In view of the wording of Article 44 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 404 / 2012 Coll., effective as of 1 January 2013, the parties no longer had to ask whether they had agreed to abandon the oral hearing. In the proceedings initiated before the entry into force of this amendment, the Constitutional Court will continue, as regards procedural procedures, according to the new rules, the Constitutional Court alerted all parties to the proceedings and the general public in its Notice of 18 December 2012, published under No 469 / 2012 Coll.
Derogation of the provision of the contested legislation and its history
29. Clause § 1 (g) and § 10a was incorporated into the Law on Local Charges by Act No. 305 / 1997 Coll. with effect from 1 January 1998 and was worded as follows:
The municipalities may levy the following local charges (hereinafter referred to as "fees'):
(g) the fee for the gaming instrument operated.
(1) The fee for the playing instrument operated shall be subject to each instrument authorised. 15) The municipality is not obliged to grant exemption from this charge.
(2) The fee for the winning player is paid by its operator.
(3) The rate of charge for each three-month slot player is from CZK 5,000 to CZK 20,000.
30. By Act No. 149 / 1998 Coll. with effect from 1 September 1998, the provision of Paragraph 10a (3) was amended by saying:
(3) The rate of charge for each three-month slot game is from CZK 1,000 to CZK 5,000.
31. Act No. 183 / 2010 Coll. has been amended with effect from 16 June 2010:
1. in § 1 (g), the word "instrument" was replaced by the words "apparatus or other technical gaming equipment authorised by the Ministry of Finance under another legislation (15),"
2. in § 10a (1), (2) and (3) after the word "apparatus" the words "or other technical gaming equipment authorised by the Ministry of Finance" were inserted.
The contested provisions of the Act on Local Charges as amended by Act No. 183 / 2010 Coll. therefore read:
The municipalities may levy the following local charges (hereinafter referred to as "fees'):
(g) a fee for an operational gaming instrument or other technical gaming equipment authorised by the Ministry of Finance under another legislation15),
(1) The fee for an operational gaming instrument or other technical gaming equipment authorised by the Ministry of Finance is subject to any authorised gaming instrument or other technical gaming equipment authorised by the Ministry of Finance. The municipality is not obliged to grant exemption from this charge.
(2) The fee for the gaming instrument or other technical gaming equipment authorised by the Ministry of Finance is paid by its operator.
(3) The rate of charge for each winning player or other technical gaming device authorised by the Ministry of Finance for three months is from CZK 1,000 to CZK 5,000.
32. Act No 300 / 2011 Coll. amended the contested provisions with effect from 14 October 2011, so the new text was:
The municipalities may levy the following local charges (hereinafter referred to as "fees'):
(g) the fee for the operated gaming instrument, the end interactive videoloterer terminal and the gaming site of the local gaming system;
(1) The fee for an operational game player is subject to each authorised game player as defined in § 2 (e) of Act No. 202 / 1990 Coll., on lotteries and other similar games, as amended ("Lottery Act"), hereinafter referred to as "the winning game player"), each end-end interactive video-loter terminal as defined in § 2 (l) of the Lottery Act (hereinafter referred to as "the final interactive video-game terminal") and each point of the local game system as defined in § 2 (n) of the Lottery Act (hereinafter referred to as "the gaming site of the local game system"). The municipality is not obliged to grant exemption from this charge.
(2) The fee for the winning player, the end interactive video-loter terminal and the gaming site of the local gaming system are paid by its operator.
(3) The rate of charge for each winning player, each end interactive videoloterer terminal and each game site of the local gaming system for three months is from CZK 1,000 to CZK 5,000.
33. Act No. 458 / 2011 Coll. with effect from 1 January 2012 then the two contested provisions were repealed.
Conditions for the applicant's active legitimacy
34. From the file of the appellant kept under Sp. 52 Af 9 / 2011 The Constitutional Court has verified that, by an action brought on 18 July 2011, the applicant gate seven, a. s., seeks annulment of decisions given in administrative proceedings in connection with its application for reimbursement of the alleged overpayment of the local charge paid on 30 September 2010 for a winning player or other technical equipment authorised by the Ministry of Finance in the amount of CZK 1,630 under the Lottery Act, pursuant to Section 155 of the Tax Code.
35. The applicant sees the basic defect in the decision of the administrator of the charge in that the administrative body, although it has been paid a local fee for "other technical gaming equipment authorised by the Ministry of Finance under another legislation," although it cannot be established and collected under the Law on local charges in conjunction with the Lottery Act, has not recovered the amount paid on the local charge even at the applicant's request and has, in addition, decided against the procedural provision by rejecting it. On the ground that the applicant alleged infringement of the rules laid down by the law in the legislative procedure brought by the applicant's view that the amendment to the Law on Local Charges implemented by Law 183 / 2010 Coll. had been adopted in contravention of the prescribed procedure, i.e. in an unconstitutional manner, the applicant proposed that the appellant, in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 64 (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, submit to the Constitutional Court an application for annulment of the contested provisions. The appellant then took over the applicant's arguments in the application addressed to the Constitutional Court in the form of a verbatim copy of the application.
36. Pursuant to Article 88 (1) of the Constitution, the law lays down who, and under what conditions, is entitled to bring proceedings and other rules on proceedings before the Constitutional Court. At the same time Article 88 (2) The Constitution provides that the judges of the Constitutional Court are bound by the constitutional order and by the law referred to in Article 88 (1) of the Constitution, i.e. the Law on the Constitutional Court. The procedural condition of the active legitimacy of the General Court under Article 64 (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court is such a position of the Law, or of its individual provision, the abolition of which is proposed, on the subject of the tribal proceedings, which sets out the reasons for the General Court's assessment of the case. It can be concluded that the appellant is actively legitimised to submit a proposal as the proposal relates to its decision-making activities.
Assessment of the veracity of the termination of proceedings under Section 66 of the Constitutional Court Act
37. Article 66 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court makes the application inadmissible if the law, other legislation or individual provisions which are proposed to be repealed have ceased to apply before the application is served on the Constitutional Court. The Law on the Constitutional Court, as is apparent from the nature of the case, allows the procedure for checking the standards only in the case of the legislation in force. In the present case, the contested provisions were amended with effect from 14 October 2011 and repealed with effect from 1 January 2012.
38. In the present case, the appellant is to apply the contested provisions in its decision on the action, which are, however, no longer in force but with an alleged overshoot of effectiveness. The Constitutional Court has already repeatedly stated the possibility of reviewing legislation which has expired (paragraphs 66 and 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court) in its caselaw. As a general rule, this possibility was recognised in the Sp. zn. However, if it is concluded that the law to be applied in the resolution of the case (i.e. not only at that time valid but also at that time no longer valid but still applicable law) is contrary to constitutional law, it is obliged to bring the case before the Constitutional Court (Article 95 (2) of the Constitution). From that provision, the Constitutional Court added its obligation to decide on the application. 'This rule was later specified by the decisions given under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 42 / 03 of 28.3.2006 (N 72 / 40 CollU 703; 280 / 2006 Coll.), sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 38 / 06 of 6.2.2007 (N 23 / 44 CollU 279; 84 / 2007 Coll.), sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 14 / 09 of 25.10.2011 (22 / 2012 Coll.), sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 1 / 10 or sp. Pl. ÚS 23 / 11 of 24.4.2012 (234 / 2012 Sb.), also available at http: / nalus.ujud.cz, so that the Constitution of the Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Tribunal of 24 April 2012 (234 / 2012 Sb.) will be subject to the law. In the case of vertical relations (between an individual and a State or a municipality), priority should be given to protecting fundamental rights over legal certainty and trust in law; in the case of such relations, the Constitutional Court has therefore made clear that the declaration of unconstitutional will also have an impact on rights based on unconstitutional law.
39. The contested provisions govern the legal relationship in which the addressee of the alleged unconstitutionality is the public authority and not the private law body. In the present case, the conditions for the procedure for the specific control of the standards provided for in Article 95 (2) of the Constitution are fulfilled in the sense of the Constitutional Court's legal opinion expressed in the cited findings and there is therefore no reason to terminate the procedure under Article 66 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Constitutional conformity of the legislative process
40. The Constitutional Court has examined the proposal and for the reasons set out below concluded that there is no reason to declare the unconstitutional nature of the contested provisions of the Local Charges Act.
41. The Constitutional Court, having regard to the arguments put forward by the appellant, dealt with the question of whether Law 183 / 2010 Coll. was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down by competence and by the constitutional procedure (§ 68 (2) of Act 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act 48 / 2002 Coll.).
42. The draft Act amending Act No. 115 / 2001 Coll., on the Promotion of Sport, as amended, Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll., on the Transfer of Certain Other Things, Rights and Obligations of the Czech Republic to Regions and Municipality, Civil Associations Working in the Field of Physical and Sport and on Related Changes and Amendment to Act No. 157 / 2000 Coll., on the Transfer of Certain Things, Rights and Obligations from the Property of the Czech Republic, as amended by Act No. 10 / 2001 Coll., and Act No. 20 / 1966 Coll., on the Care of the People, as amended, was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies by a group of Members such as Prints 756 / 0 and the draftsmen were Member Jiří Paroubek, Member of Karel Šplechal, Member David Rath and Member of František Bublan. The amendment to the Local Charges Act was not part of the original proposal submitted to the Chamber of Deputies.
43. The bill was circulated to Members as press 756 / 0 and it was proposed to the House to discuss the bill so that the House could agree with it at first reading (Section 90 (2) of Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll., on the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, as amended by Act No. 47 / 2000 Coll.). Furthermore, the bill was sent to the Government for an opinion. The Government sent an opinion to the Chamber of Deputies on 1 April 2009, which was circulated to Members as press 756 / 1.
44. the first reading took place in the Chamber of Deputies on 29 September 2009 at the 62nd meeting; The Chamber of Deputies did not agree to the discussion so that it could agree to the bill at first reading. The negotiations of the law continued at the 62nd meeting on 29 September 2009 and the draft law was ordered to discuss the committees (Resolution 1402). On 23 November 2009, the Committee on Science, Education, Culture, Youth and Sports discussed the draft law and issued a resolution to Members as press 756 / 2 (suspends the hearing). The Committee on Security discussed the draft law and issued a resolution to Members on 25 November 2009 as press 756 / 3 (suspends the hearing). The Committee on Science, Education, Culture, Youth and Sports discussed the draft law and issued on 21 January 2010 a resolution to Members as press 756 / 4 (suspends the hearing). The Committee on Security discussed the draft law and issued on 26 January 2010 a resolution to Members as press 756 / 5 (amendments). The second reading took place on 11 March 2010, when at the 75th meeting the draft law passed both a general and a detailed debate, the amendments tabled were processed as a 756 / 6 printing, which was circulated at 10.00 on 12 March 2010. The third reading took place at the 75th meeting on 19 March 2010. The bill was approved by the Chamber of Deputies (vote 313, resolution 1645).
45. The Chamber of Deputies passed the law on 29 March 2010 to the Senate as press 259 / 0. On 31 March 2010, the Organising Committee set up a Committee on Education, Science, Culture, Human Rights and Petitions, which discussed the proposal on 13 April 2010 and adopted Resolution No 107, which was distributed as print 259 / 1 (approved). The bill was discussed by the Senate on 23 April 2010 at the 18th Senate meeting. The Senate returned the proposal to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments (Resolution 487). The amendment included a proposal to amend the Local Charges Act.
46. The draft law, as amended by the Senate, was circulated to Members on 28 April 2010 as press 756 / 7. The Senate document was delivered to the Chamber of Deputies and was sent on 28 April to Members as press 756 / 8. The bill returned by the Senate was voted on by the Chamber of Deputies on 18 May 2010 at the 79th meeting. The Chamber of Deputies adopted the law as approved by the Senate (vote 18, resolution 1685).
47. The President of the Republic signed the Bill on 2 June 2010 and the Act was published in the Collection of Laws on 16 June 2010 in the amount of 64 under the number 183 / 2010 Coll.
48. In the present proposal, the appellant seeks to state the unconstitutional nature of the contested provisions on the ground that the amendment to the Local Charges Act implemented by Law 183 / 2010 Coll. was not adopted in a constitutional manner. The violation of the Constitution sees that part of the third Act No. 183 / 2010 Coll., containing an amendment to the Act on Local Charges, was incorporated into the draft Act only during the legislative process in the Senate plenary. The appellant considers this part of Act No. 183 / 2010 Coll. not related to other parts of the Chamber of Deputies referred to by the draft law with reference to the previous decision of the Constitutional Court sp. v. Pl. ÚS 77 / 06 of 15.2.2007 (N 30 / 44 SbNU 349; 37 / 2007 Coll.). Furthermore, the appellant disputes compliance with the legislative rules, arguing that only one senator and not the entire Senate submitted the proposal for a "sticker."
49. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly interpreted, in a number of its findings concerning the control of decisions of public authorities, the principles for which, inter alia, from the aspects of the rule of law, respect for procedural (procedural) rules is necessary; 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.
50. The Constitutional Conformation of the Legislative Process was mainly addressed by the Constitutional Court in its findings issued under sp. zn. Pl. Pl. ÚS 56 / 05 of 27.3.2008 (N 60 / 48 SbNU 873; 257 / 2008 Coll.), sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 77 / 06 of 15.2.2007 (N 30 / 44 SbNU 349; 37 / 2007 Sb.), sp. zl. ÚS 24 / 07 of 31.1.2008 (N 26 / 48 SbNU 303; 88 / 2008 Sb.), sp. Pl. Pl. ÚS 39 / 08 of 6.10.2010 (N 207 / 59 SbNU 3; 294 / 2010 Sb.), sp.
51. In the find sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 56 / 05 The Constitutional Court found that the assessment of the manner in which the contested provisions of the Law were proposed, discussed and approved was part of the assessment of whether such a law was adopted in a constitutional manner (Section 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll.). In the view of the Constitutional Court (on this point, the finding of point (b) of the ÚS 77 / 06), the departure from the restricted space reserved for amendments may take the character of an excess of the intensity of the proposal or an extension of the subject-matter defined by the draft law. This requirement of a close relationship or the immediate context of the content and purpose of the proposal and the amendment thereto is part of the foundations of parliamentary technology and reglement law. It brings to mind the laws and parliamentary procedures at all necessary order. However, every State and within it, often every House of the legislature, seeks its own means of ensuring that this requirement is respected, or it lays down special rules for staying out of their limits (e.g. increased qualified majority, support for a number of other Members, expression or consent of the petitioner, renegotiation of the proposal). Similarly, the intensity of judicial review of compliance with these rules varies between Member States. There is therefore no universal opinion on this issue. The right to make amendments is part of the constitutionally consistent creation of the will by the parliament of a democratic state. However, the amendment is, by its nature, a proposal of accessorial nature to a proposal which has been submitted in the form of a constitutional initiative under Article 41 of the Constitution. Therefore, Paragraph 63 (1) (5) (a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies requires that certain parts of the "original proposal 'be deleted, extended or amended by it. The basis of the parliamentary debate is this original proposal, to which the Government is referred pursuant to Article 44 (1) of the Constitution, the committees to which the draft law has not been given, or individual Members pursuant to Article 91 (4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies. If that is not the case, the Constitutional Court may consider that there is a breach of the division of power. This has implications for the principles of the creation of a consistent, transparent and predictable law, which the Constitutional Court has already linked to the attributes of a democratic rule of law. In addition, this may circumvent the Institute of Legislative Initiative under Article 41 of the Constitution and violate the right of the Government to comment on the draft law under Article 44 of the Constitution.
52. The Constitutional Court, in relation to the legislative "stickers' (drivers) and their constitutionality in paragraphs 51 and 52, has held that the departure from the restricted space reserved for amendments may be the nature of the exceeding of the intensity of the proposal or of the extensive exceeding of the subject-matter defined by 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. 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. 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.
53. The Constitutional Court, in the decision of sp. zn. He stated that "one practice, when several different laws are being amended simultaneously, is relatively common in legislative practice... this practice is in principle constitutionally conformal, but only if the amended laws are correlated meritantly." However, even in this case, the complaint did not constitute a derogatory reason but merely obiter dictum. In this finding, the Constitutional Court also noted that substantial changes to the rule of law in the field of public and private law are an essential part of social development and there is a democratic legislature in place to determine the structure of the law and to define the subject matter of legal regulation by law - in this context also consider the extent to which substantial changes to a particular segment of the rule of law are made partly by amending the laws in force and partly by adopting new legislation.
54. In the decision sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 39 / 08 of 6.10.2010 (N 207 / 59 SbNU 3; 294 / 2010 Coll.), the Constitutional Court expressed its views on the constitutionality of the so-called complex amendments in such a way that legislative practice in the form of so-called complex amendments is not contrary to the constitutional rules of the legislative process, since it is still the subject of the legislative initiative, which has the proposal as a whole. The Constitutional Court recalled that, on the basis of a comprehensive amendment, two key parts of the constitutional order themselves were approved, i.e. the law of incorporation on the Charter of Fundamental Rights in 1991 and the Constitution in 1992. The Institute of Comprehensive Amendments is not regulated by the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, it is merely an institution of parliamentary practice, but it is within the limits of constitutional order. In paragraph 39 of the cited finding, the Constitutional Court stated that it was not the task and competence of the Constitutional Court to examine all the details and procedures of the adoption of laws, unless this is contrary to the constitutional rules of the legislative procedure (cf. It did not find this even in the case of a comprehensive amendment, which was used by the Senate in its proceedings [Findings sp. zn.
55. In the sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 5 / 02 of 2.10.2002 (N 117 / 28 SbNU 25; 476 / 2002 Coll.) The Constitutional Court stated that political decisions in parliamentary democracy are based on the will of the majority expressed by free voting; However, the terms and conditions that the Constitution expressly states that guarantee the constitutional legitimacy and legality of the decision adopted and that create the relevant majority in the course of the legislative process are different and almost always clinging not only to the material which is the subject of the negotiations and the subsequent decision, but are themselves affected, in particular, by the creation of the majority of ad hoc decisions, also by the time and circumstances that arise therefrom. However, the majority thus established for the adoption of a decision (the approval of a draft law) are (may be) relevant, and this is often so that, over time, they may lose their numerical relevance and become a minority which would, however, be exposed to the risk of reversing the decision previously adopted. Therefore, the protection of the factors that have arisen, more precisely their decisions, is necessary not only in terms of the stability of legal acts, but as a result of the consensus reached at a given time (compromise political will), but also one of the guarantees of constitutionality, which excludes insolence, for which there is naturally no place.
56. In the sp. zn. However, the adoption of the law is a multifaceted and complicated process, which is only partially regulated by constitutional regulations. The Constitutional Court also concluded that the Constitutional Court's task is not to interpret the results of the vote on the various amendments and their consequences for the draft law as a whole in relation to other provisions of such a proposal and the rules of legislative technology. Its task is to interpret the constitutional text in relation to the laws published in the Collection of Laws. The way in which the law was adopted and declared is subject to the cognica of the Constitutional Court only within the framework which sets out constitutional order. The subject of the review activity of the Constitutional Court is therefore the approved text of the law, which serves as the main means of proof in the evaluation of one component of the tripartite evaluation, i.e. compliance with the constitutional procedure for the adoption of the law.
57. In resolution sp. zn. The Constitutional Court considers that Article 1 (1) of the Constitution, which explicitly refers to the Czech Republic as a democratic rule of law based on respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, contains the normative principle of a democratic rule of law. This implies that the legislator cannot proceed in any way, but is bound by the procedural rules of the legislative process in its activities. The addressees of legal standards have no doubt the right to legitimately expect that any restrictions on their fundamental rights imposed by the law are the result of a discourse conducted across the political spectrum in which all participants have been given the opportunity to get to know the material in question in detail and to express their views in an informed manner. Therefore, they are at the forefront of procedures ensuring both the hearing of the parties and the formal quality of the legislative work. In paragraph 72, the Constitutional Court stated that the right to submit amendments to draft laws during the parliamentary debate derives from the law of the legislative initiative, but is not identical with it, since it is naturally limited by the sphere reserved precisely for implementing the law of the legislative initiative. It can already 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 indeed 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, respectively. Absence from the restricted space reserved for amendments may be a nature of exceeding the intensity of the proposal, which, although considered undesirable, is still a constitutional conformist form of amendments, or of exceeding the subject-matter defined in the draft law, which constitutes an infringement of the so-called "close relationship 'rule and thus of the constitutional limits. In the context of the review by the Constitutional Court, it is necessary to assess whether the amendment was indeed an amendment in the material sense, i.e. whether it was not an inadmissible extension in interpreting what the amendment is. In doing so, the Constitutional Court assesses whether there is a close relationship between the content and purpose of the original draft law and the content and purpose of the amendment under consideration.
58. In the present case, the Constitutional Court, on the basis of the written documents annexed by the appellant to the motion from Senate House Press No. 259, has verified that the Senate, following the examination of the proposal amending the law on the promotion of sport and other laws, decided by resolution No 487 in the vote of the 18th meeting of 23 April 2010 to return the draft law to the Chamber of Deputies, as amended by the amendments annexed to this resolution, and mandated the Senators Marcel Chládek and Jaroslav Kuber to justify the Senate resolution at the meeting of the Chamber of Deputies. On 27 April 2010, the Senate then returned the bill as amended to the Chamber of Deputies to complete the legislative process. The bill returned by the Senate was voted on in the Chamber of Deputies on 18 May 2010 at the 79th meeting and the law was adopted. In the present case, only the constitutional rules of the legislative procedure are binding criteria for the Constitutional Court. After assessing the content and purpose of both the original draft law and the amendment in question, and after assessing the constitutionality of the legislative process, the Constitutional Court concluded that the contents and the purposes of the two subjects examined did not differ substantially, and it can be concluded that the amendment in question did not deviate from the restricted scope reserved for amendments.
59. The Constitutional Court did not find a reasoned or other objection by the appellant that only one Senator had tabled the draft amendment and not the whole Senate. This is confirmed not only by Senate Resolution 487 of 23 April 2010, but also by the Senate's stenonography of the draft law amending the law on the promotion of sport and other laws stating that the bill was received by the Senators as press 259, the committee rapporteur was Senator Marcel Chládek, who informed the Senators of the news report. In the general debate there were three senators who dealt with the predicted amendment, Jaroslav Kubera, Petr Vícha and Sonia Paukret. Then the Senate voted on the whole bill, including the amendment and the return of the bill to the Chamber of Deputies as amended. The amendment was therefore discussed in full compliance with the Senate legislative rules.
60. In light of the above, it is clear that both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate have complied with the constitutional rules of the legislative process, namely the procedure of the legislative process provided for by Act No 90 / 1995 Coll., on the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, as amended, by Act No 107 / 1999 Coll., on the Rules of Procedure of the Senate, as amended, and Article 1 (1), Article 2 (3), Article 41 and Article 44 (1) of the Constitution, including Article 2 (2) of the Charter. In this context, it should be pointed out that the provisions of Section 60 (2) (e) of Act No. 107 / 1999 Coll., on the Rules of Procedure of the Senate, which declares that the proposal put forward for the present case is also an amendment. The binding of the law on the promotion of sport and the amendment amending the law on local charges is then laid down in Paragraph 6 (d) of the Act on the promotion of sport, which imposes on municipalities the task of securing the financial support of sport from their budget. It is therefore not possible to refer to the words of Senator Jaroslav Kubera, who informed the Senate of the amendment and said, inter alia, that... "the law is about promoting sport and is very much related to lotteries and betting, because part of the proceeds are used to support sport." Here it is also worth pointing out that the amendments concerning the amendment to the Local Charges Act have been discussed in the Senate, particularly from the perspective of their compliance with the constitutionally prescribed way of adopting them.
61. If the appellant then argues that the conclusions reached by the Constitutional Court in the finding of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 77 / 06 are that, in the case of the finding of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 77 / 06, a group of Senators sought the annulment of part of the second part, namely Articles II and III of Act No. 443 / 2006 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 assets of the Czech Republic (Act on the abolition of the National Property Fund), and Act No. 319 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 21 / 1992 Coll., on Banks, as amended. The Constitutional Court found that, in the light of the Court of First Instance Decision 77 / 06, the question of whether Mr M. Doctor's proposal, marked as an amendment and processed into Parliament's press No 1222 / 3, was, in a material sense, in the assessment of the legislative procedure for the adoption of the contested provisions was, or was, removed from the restricted scope reserved for amendments (paragraph 66). 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 purposes of the two subjects examined differed substantially and that this was only a so-called amendment, which could perhaps only be a formal amendment, but not a material one (paragraph 69). This is a different situation in the present case, as this is not the case. It can therefore be concluded that, in the present case, neither the unconstitutional affiliation within the meaning of the Constitutional Court case-law nor the situation is similar.
62. The Constitutional Court on the Senate's objection to the proposal (cf. paragraph 25), which draws attention to the fact that the amendment to Law No 565 / 1990 Coll. is not the only amendment adopted in that Act, notes that it is impossible to agree with that statement, since Law No 183 / 2010 Coll. was adopted under one legislative procedure and was voted on both in the Senate and in the Chamber of Deputies after its return by the Senate with one final vote. Therefore, a possible declaratory statement on a breach of the constitutionally prescribed method of adoption of only certain provisions of Act No. 183 / 2010 Coll., or one of the amendments contained therein - amendments to the Law on Local Charges - could have an impact on the finding of the unconstitutionality of the legislative process, as well as on the finding of the unconstitutionality of the entire law.
63. The procedural errors relating to the contested provisions, which are seen by the appellant in the absence of a close relationship between the amendments to the subject of the proposed law, in exceeding the legal framework for the submission of legislative technical proposals and in the fact that Senator Kubera's amendment was a separate proposal and, as such, should have been submitted to the Chamber of Deputies and not to the Senate, were not found. Therefore, a finding of the unconstitutional nature of the contested provisions in its consequences would mean a fundamental and surprising change in the caselaw.
64. On the basis of all the grounds set out above, the Constitutional Court notes that, in the present case, the appellant's argument raised cannot be assessed in the sense of the deregulation leading to a breach of the constitutional conformity of the legislative process and therefore rejected the proposal as unfounded in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 70 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v. r.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found no 39 / 2013 Coll., on the application for the establishment of the inconstitutionality of § 1 (g) and § 10a of Act No. 565 / 1990 Coll., on Local Charges, as amended by Act No. 458 / 2011 Coll. |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | - |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 18.02.2013 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0