The Constitutional Court found No. 452 / 2006 Coll.

I. The proposal of the Regional Court in Prague to abolish the provisions of § 446 of the Commercial Code, as amended, is rejected.

II. The proposal by the District Court in Breclav to abolish the provisions of § 446 of the Commercial Code, as amended by Act No. 370 / 2000 Coll., is rejected.

1. On 20 December 2004, the Constitutional Court received an application for annulment of the provisions of § 446 of Act No. 513 / 1991 Coll., Commercial Code, as amended, as a proposal within the meaning of the provisions of § 64 (4) (rightly paragraph 3) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, and Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"), as the appellant - Regional Court in Prague - concluded that the law to be applied in the matter is contrary to the constitutional order.

2. In the present case, the plaintiff Ing. M. ø. brought an action against defendant Š., a.s., at the District Court in Mladá Bloslav, to determine that he is the sole owner of the passenger car Škoda Octavia Combi, which he purchased on 13.10.1999 for CZK 460 000 on the basis of a purchase contract concluded with the seller M. L., under the Commercial Code. On 1 November 2000, the Police of the Czech Republic, the criminal service of the Prague City Administration, invited the plaintiff's wife to issue the vehicle for a reasonable suspicion that it came from criminal activity; the vehicle was issued to the Police of the Czech Republic. The plaintiff's applications for the issue of a car by the Police of the Czech Republic were not granted because it was a car which was stolen on 13 August 1999 and the number of its bodywork was overpriced. The claimant relied on Article 446 of the Commercial Code, which allows the acquisition of ownership from the non-owner. By its judgment of 4 December 2001 No 9 C 210 / 2001-44, the District Court of Mladá Byslav dismissed the action on the ground that the provisions of Paragraph 446 of the Commercial Code relate to purely commercial relations, that is to say, it is applicable, for example, where goods which the buyer continues to sell are acquired, the applicant's business sheet shows that his business is the exercise of his agricultural activities and thus the vehicle is not the subject of resale. Paragraph 446 of the Commercial Code does not apply to that purchase agreement; If that were the case, it would legalize crime. By judgment of 15 May 2002 No 29 Co 159 / 2002-59, the Regional Court in Prague confirmed the first degree judgment when it reached the same legal conclusion. Since Article 446 of the Commercial Code is an exception to the general principle of the protection of property, it cannot be interpreted beyond what the legislator had in mind when the object of such a contract of sale is characterised as goods; This was not about the sale of goods, given the subject matter of the business. Respect for the agreement on the application of the Commercial Code would circumvent the law and legalise the crime. By judgment of 30 July 2003 No 32 Odo 964 / 2002-98, the Supreme Court annulled the judgments of the two courts and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings, since the conclusion that Paragraph 446 of the Commercial Code cannot be applied to the relationship between the applicant and the seller was found incorrect. Under Article 262 (1) of the Commercial Code, the parties may agree that their obligation relationship, which does not fall within the scope of Article 261 of the Commercial Code, is governed by this law; it is not decisive whether they are entrepreneurs and whether the obligation relationship concerns their business activities. In the case of the application of Paragraph 262 (1) of the Commercial Code, the concept of goods is also understood to mean a movable item which is not sold by the buyer because otherwise the possibility of an agreement foreseen by that provision would be eliminated. The Court of First Instance ordered the court to examine at the next stage of the procedure the issue of the validity of the contract of sale, whether it was concluded under the Commercial Code; If the answer to both questions is yes, it should consider whether the conditions of Article 446 of the Commercial Code for the acquisition of the right of ownership by the applicant are met. By judgment of 30 January 2004 No 9 C 304 / 2003-113, the District Court of Mladá Byslav established that the applicant was the owner of the car in question, since the purchase contract was valid, the sale of the vehicle took place under the Commercial Code regime and the applicant bought the vehicle in good faith that it was bought from the owner, since nothing indicated otherwise at the time the contract was concluded. The defendant appealed against the judgment, the plaintiff only until the statement on reimbursement of costs. The Regional Court in Prague, by order of 15 December 2004, sp. zn. 29 Co. 494 / 2004, suspended the appeal procedure and filed an application to the Constitutional Court for annulment of the provisions of § 446 of the Commercial Code, as amended.

3. First of all, the appellant explains that similar cases are multiplying in particular at the Mladá Bloslav District Court and that the contested provision of Paragraph 446 of the Commercial Code did not apply to the case described above in confidence that the law did not provide protection for legal relations arising after the offence. It believes that a distinction should be made between goods and other items of purchase and, in the context of goods, to make a distinction between items individually and those of a species, since for those of a species determined, the protection of the owner is not so important when the injured person is compensated by other items of the same kind. It relies on the Supreme Court Judiciaries No. 10784 of 1931 (Serious), according to which the buyer acquires ownership of the goods, if it has been acquired without fault and in return from a trader authorised to trade with them or from whom the owner has entrusted them; the current owner of the goods can only heal on who is responsible to him, and the claim to return what has been carried out without legal justification must be waived.

4. The appellant further argues that the application of the provisions of § 446 of the Commercial Code led to excesses which, however, were not removed even by its amendment by Act No. 370 / 2000 Coll., which tightened the requirements for the existence of good faith by the buyer by wordings "knew or knew and could." Evidence that malpractice persists is that the Constitutional Court had to deal with the interpretation of this provision in the finds sp. zn. IV. ÚS 112 / 01 and sp. zn. I. ÚS 437 / 02 (footnote.: under sp. zn. IV. ÚS 112 / 01 was not issued by the Constitutional Court, but by a resolution - see below). The Constitutional Court pointed out here that it is particularly necessary to examine the question of the good faith of the acquirer very strictly, especially in cases where the provisions of the Commercial Code are applied under the agreement of the Parties pursuant to Article 262 thereof. The existence of such an agreement may, in certain individual cases, raise doubts as to its purpose and the reasons for its conclusion, and may not serve as a means of "securing 'the buyer that the seller would not be entitled to transfer ownership to the case in question, since this would in itself exclude the existence of good faith on the part of the buyer and thus the application of the provisions of § 446 of the Commercial Code. However, the appellant notes that the timing of the findings and the subsequent practice show that even the correction of the findings made did not lead to interpretation by the general courts in such a way as not to be contrary to the protection of fundamental rights. The continued existence of the provisions of Paragraph 446 of the Commercial Code, in conjunction with ongoing practice, threatens the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 4 (4) and 11 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Charter). The Constitution and the Charter protect the right of all owners without distinction, but the contested provision providing for the possibility of acquiring from the non-owner infringes that principle, in order to protect other interests - the protection of the good faith of the acquirer, which is a lesser interest. Moreover, the buyer's good faith is and can be protected in another way - by regression, provided the justice and police work properly. In support of his claim, the appellant cites the quoted edition of the Commercial Code according to the condition as at 1 January 1999, in which doc. Dr. Karel Elias notes that the difference between dealing with the issue of acquisition of property rights from a non-owner in the Civil and Commercial Code is clearly contrary to the Charter and the Constitution because he denies both the constitutional principle of equality and the principle of equal protection of property rights.

5. The appellant cites from the judgment of the Supreme Court 2 Odon 144 / 97 of 18.12.1997, according to which the parties to the obligation relationship, whether or not they are entrepreneurs, whether or not they are undertakings relating to their business activities, may agree that their obligation relationship, if it should otherwise be governed by the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, will be governed by the corresponding provisions of the Commercial Code. The appellant accuses the Supreme Court that this is the way to give instructions for a crime that enjoys judicial protection, which illustrates well the danger caused by a good intention of the legislator to protect the good faith of the buyer and results in a breach of the protection of the interests of a greater (right of ownership). The Supreme Court has made use of that interpretation despite the fact that the circumstances of the case of good faith do not support (the rate of sale, the amount of discount, the buyer's knowledge of these advertised facts).

6. The interpretation of Article 446 of the Commercial Code referred to above by the Constitutional Court is not perceived by the practice of general courts represented by the interpretation of the Supreme Court in such a way that fundamental rights are not infringed, which leads the appellant to a radical proposal, knowing that it can bring either the annulment of the contested provision or an even more pronounced definition of the limits of its interpretation.

7. In its observations of 26 March 2005 signed by its President, PhDr. Lubomír Zaorálk, the Chamber of Deputies notes that the legislature's intention to include the legislation governing the acquisition of ownership from the non-owner in the Commercial Code was to strengthen the legal certainty of the buyer, as evidenced by the explanatory memorandum, which states, to the provisions of § 443 to 446, that even if the proposed law is limited to the regulation of commercial obligations, it is appropriate, in the interests of legal certainty, to regulate the acquisition of ownership on the basis of the purchase agreement. In the context of the nature of the case, the parties are allowed to negotiate a different period of time for the acquisition of ownership, including the reservation of ownership. For legal certainty, the provision of Paragraph 446 on the acquisition of property rights by a non-owner, which contains the principle adopted in most foreign legal regulations, is of particular importance. In addition, the Chamber of Deputies adds that it is possible to agree with the view that the provision of Article 446 of the Commercial Code significantly interferes with the constitutional guarantee of the right to own property and favours the good faith and certainty of participants in commercial relations. They can therefore only be applied with strict respect for the provisions of Article 4 (4) of the Charter as they constitute a legal limit to one of the most important fundamental rights. Finally, it states that the legislature has acted in the belief that the law adopted complies with the Constitution, the constitutional order and our legal order; It is for the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of that provision and to give its decision.

8. The Senate, in its observations of 23 March 2003 signed by its President, MUDr. The draft law amending Article 446 was ordered to discuss the constitutional committee, the Committee on Economy, Agriculture and Transport and the Committee on European Integration; all committees recommended that the Senate return the bill to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments, and the Senate did so, but none of the amendments adopted concerned the provision in question. Since the Institute of Acquisition of Owned by a Non-Owner in Trade Relations has become part of the rule of law before the creation of the Senate, the Senate cannot support its observations by arguing from the Senate bodies. Likewise, the discussion of the draft Law No 370 / 2000 Coll. did not touch the provision of Section 446 of the Commercial Code, albeit supplemented by a dictate "or should have known and could '. It can therefore be concluded that the Senate considered the provision referred to as constitutionally conformal. The Institut of Acquisition of Property from the Non-Owner was not known in Roman law and the French Code civilian considered such a sale to be invalid (Article 1599). The acquisition of the non-owner has been gradually evolving in our law since 1863. Even today's formulation of good faith in the provision of § 446 of the Commercial Code is the result of its restriction by amendment by Act No. 370 / 2000 Coll. That provision is special and constitutes a derogation from the general principle that no one can transfer to another more rights than he has. In commercial relations, however, the legislator's interest in ensuring the legal certainty of a trader who has acquired goods from another trader and who is in need (sic - note.) in order to continue to sell the goods purchased. However, this should be without prejudice to the liability of the seller to the owner of the property. The principle on which this provision is based therefore applies mutatis mutandis to the securities transfer contract (Section 20 of Act No. 591 / 1992 Coll., on Securities, as amended). In conclusion, the finding (ref.: correctly with the order) of the Constitutional Court sp. zn. IV. ÚS 112 / 01 The Senate notes that the provision of Section 446 of the Commercial Code significantly interferes with the constitutionally guaranteed right of ownership of property and favours the good faith and certainty of participants in commercial relations. They can therefore only be applied with strict respect for the provisions of Article 4 (4) of the Charter.

9. The Constitutional Court requested a statement from the Government of the Czech Republic. The statement of 23 March 2005 signed by Prime Minister Stanislav Grosse states that Article 446 of the Commercial Code, as amended by Act No. 370 / 2000 Coll., provides for the acquisition of ownership from its non-owner, provided that the principle of good faith is adopted and applied in most foreign legal orders. This principle is also taken into account in the newly prepared private law code, where it will be provided that if the person to whom ownership of the case is transferred, taking into account all the circumstances in good faith that the transferor of the case is the owner or otherwise is entitled to transfer ownership, he acquires ownership of the case.

10. On 9 June 2005, the Constitutional Court received a proposal from the District Court in Breclav to abolish the same provision of the Commercial Code, as amended, which was submitted by the Court in connection with its decision-making activities under Article 95 (2) of the Constitution. The items were assigned sp. zn.

11. In the present case, applicant A., a. s. made a proposal on 19 March 2003 to determine that it was the owner of a passenger vehicle of the Passat brand. The applicant purchased the vehicle in question from V. B. on 12 June 2002 under the provisions of § 409 et seq. of the Commercial Code and subsequently transferred its ownership rights to C. s. r. o., which left it in the leasing lease of L. P. On the basis of the invitation of the Police of the Czech Republic, the leasing tenant issued the vehicle as a matter of importance for criminal proceedings on 22 July 2002 and the vehicle was deposited in the custody of the Police of the Czech Republic in Olomouc on 18 December 2002. In order not to burden her client by lengthy proceedings with the Police of the Czech Republic, the applicant entered into a settlement agreement with C., s. r. o., on 7 August 2002, on the basis of which the right of ownership was transferred back to the applicant and the purchase price was refunded to the client. By judgment of 12 January 2004 No 9 C 422 / 2003-62, the Breclav County Court dismissed the action when it concluded that the applicant did not have an urgent legal interest in the determination of ownership. In order to appeal the applicant, the Regional Court in Prague, by order of 23 June 2004 No 28 Co 286 / 2004-80 annulled the judgment of the Court of First Instance and returned the case to him for further proceedings, since he found his conclusion on the lack of an urgent legal interest incorrect. On 7 June 2005, the Breclav District Court sent the Constitutional Court the application for annulment of § 446 of the Commercial Code as amended.

12. The appellant submits that the general principle of civil law "no one can transfer more rights than he has" is broken by the provision of Paragraph 446 of the Commercial Code, and as one of the civil law sectors, the commercial law completely excludes such provisions from its system. Not only legally-historically, the provision in question is completely unjustified, but it cannot be overlooked that in a democratic society that is committed to subjective human rights, the existence of protection of rights acquired at the expense of the active resistance of the participant cannot be allowed. On the contrary, every citizen and legal person should be guided by the rule of law to seek to protect and respect the property rights of other persons.

13. The duality of the regulation of the same legal institutes in a different way as laid down in the Civil and Commercial Code is completely incomprehensible and does not make the legislator's intention clear. Consequently, entities whose obligations are governed by the Commercial Code are in a completely unreasonably unequal position with those whose obligations are governed by the Civil Code, which is contrary to Article 3 (1) of the Charter.

14. The appellant concludes that the Constitutional Court has dealt with Article 446 of the Commercial Code several times in its decisions; where the court is aware, however, not in connection with a proposal to repeal the law or its individual provision. In some decisions, he stated that this provision significantly interferes with the constitutionally guaranteed right of ownership of the property and that he preferred to it the good faith and legal certainty of the participants in commercial relations and can therefore only be applied with strict respect for Article 4 (4) of the Charter. In such cases, the Court of First Instance must always examine strictly the question of the existence of good faith, which is both difficult to prove and verifiable in proceedings; The same applies to the absence of good faith.

15. The Constitutional Court has requested a statement from the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. The House of Deputies' comments are in conformity with the comments sent to the Regional Court in Prague, the Senate referred to its position on the same proposal.

16. By order of 4 August 2005 No. Pl. ÚS 31 / 05-21 (unpublished), the Constitutional Court rejected the proposal of the District Court in Breclav as inadmissible under the Law on the Constitutional Court, since at the date of the application the Constitutional Court already acted on the application for annulment of the provisions of Article 446 of the Commercial Code, as amended, on the proposal of the Regional Court in Prague. The district court in Breclav is responsible for the status of intervener in sp. zn.

17. Under the provisions of Paragraph 44 (2) of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll. the Constitutional Court may, with the consent of the parties and the interveners, waive the oral hearing if it is not possible to expect further clarification of the case. The two parties, namely the appellant of 26 April 2006 and the party to the proceedings in the observations of the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic of 26 April 2006 and the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic of 28 April 2006, agreed to waive the oral procedure. The intervener, despite the express invitation of the Constitutional Court (sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 75 / 04, no. 44), did not comment on the abandonment of oral proceedings (§ 63 of Law No 182 / 1993 Coll. in conjunction with § 101 (4) of the Civil Code). In view of the express and presummation of the assent to the abandonment of oral proceedings and the fact that the Constitutional Court considers that further clarification of the case cannot be expected from the hearing, the oral hearing in the present case has been abandoned.

18. The Constitutional Court first examined whether, pursuant to Article 95 (2) of the Constitution and Article 64 (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the appellant and the intervener were entitled to apply for annulment of the provisions of Article 446 of the Commercial Code, as amended.

19. The Regional Court in Prague, as the appellant, is not entitled to file an application for annulment of the provision of Article 446 of the Commercial Code, as amended, within the meaning of Article 95 (2) of the Constitution, since that provision is not the law to be applied by it to resolve the matter. As the Constitutional Court found from the file of the District Court in Mladá Byslav, the sales agreement in the dispute was concluded on 13 October 1999, namely the provision of § 446 of the Commercial Code in force until 31 December 2000, and this text will therefore be applicable to the resolution of the dispute. The Constitutional Court therefore qualified the application of the Regional Court in Prague to abolish the provisions of § 446 of the Commercial Code, as amended, as an application made by someone manifestly unauthorized under the provisions of § 43 (1) (c) of the Law on the Constitutional Court.

20. In such a procedural situation, the Constitutional Court is not entitled to give an authoritative opinion on the constitutional conformity of the provisions of Article 446 of the Commercial Code, as amended by Act No 370 / 2000 Coll., even from the point of view of the views expressed by the Constitutional Court in the decision of the Constitutional Court in its sp. zl.

21. The Constitutional Court is aware of the fact that the courts of lower instances are bound by the legal opinion of a higher court of an instance, in particular, that it is the duty of the Regional Court in Prague to respect the legal opinion contained in the Supreme Court judgment, but at the same time recalls that all general courts are obliged to interpret ordinary law in a constitutional manner, namely by taking full account of the impact of constitutionally guaranteed human rights and freedoms in the sphere of ordinary law. The guide provides, inter alia, the reference to the Constitutional Court's finding sp. zn. I. ÚS 437 / 02 (Reports of Decisions, Volume 31, Found No. 110) or Resolution No. IV. ÚS 112 / 01 (Reports of Decisions, Volume 23, Order No. 30), which must be added that enforceable decisions of the Constitutional Court are binding on all the institutions and persons (cf. Sf. Sp. III. ÚS 561 / 04 of 10.3.2005, Volume 36, Found No. 54, also published on www.ujud.cz) and that the statement of findings is not only binding, but also in the section clarifying reasons for such a decision (cf. The obligation to respect the Supreme Court's legal opinion is not an incentive for the mechanical application of the relevant legal provision, but assumes a sensitive and careful assessment of the specific circumstances of the case, which will allow an assessment of the extent to which the provision is applicable to the case. Therefore, the Constitutional Court is convinced that not only the appellant's caselaw cited by the Constitutional Court, but also the conclusions contained in the assessment of the case currently under appeal will allow the General Court to find a fair balance between the protection of property rights and the protection of the good faith of the person acquiring ownership from the non-owner.

22. The Constitutional Court has also assessed the active legitimacy of the District Court in Breclav for the application for annulment of § 446 of the Commercial Code, as amended. Since the contract of sale, which is at the heart of the dispute, was concluded on 12.6.2002, i.e. at the time the amended and still in force, the intervener is entitled to submit such a proposal, since he will be obliged to apply that legal provision (which he considers to be unconstitutional) in the proceedings. The proposal is also admissible, including from the point of view of the provisions of Section 66 of the Constitutional Court Act.

23. Paragraph 446 of the Commercial Code, in its version effective until 31 December 2000, reads as follows: "The buyer shall acquire ownership even if the seller is not the owner of the goods sold, unless, at the time when the buyer was to acquire ownership, he knew that the seller was not the owner and that he was not entitled to dispose of the goods for the purpose of its sale."

Paragraph 446 of the Commercial Code as amended reads as follows:

"The buyer shall acquire ownership even if the seller is not the owner of the goods sold, unless at the time when the buyer had the right to acquire, know or know that the seller is not the owner and that he is neither entitled to dispose of the goods for the purpose of its sale. '

24. The Constitutional Court, as laid down in Paragraph 68 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, subsequently examined whether the law in question was adopted within the limits of the Constitution laid down by competence and in a constitutional manner. From the shorthand report from the 25th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies held on 30 May 2000 The Constitutional Court found that Act No. 370 / 2000 Coll. submitted by the Government (Press No. 476) was adopted by the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Parliament by Resolution No. 1061 when 128 of 172 Members present were in favour and 34 against. It is clear from the observations of the President of the Senate, as well as from the report sent as an annex to the Senate's observations, that the Senate discussed the draft law at its 20th meeting in its second term of office on 12 July 2000 and adopted resolution 424 on the draft law by which it returned the draft law to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments. Of the 63 senators present in favour voted 54, against one. The Chamber of Deputies renegotiated the draft law at its 27th meeting on 14 September 2000 and approved it by resolution No 1171 as amended by amendments adopted by the Senate; of 185 Members present, 108 were in favour, 55 against. The constitutional procedure prescribed for the adoption of the law was followed, as was its publication, since the law was signed by the President of the Chamber of Deputies, the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister (Article 51 of the Constitution) and was published in the Collection of Laws (Article 52 (2) of the Constitution) in the amount of 100, 2000, sent on 25 October 2000. On 1 January 2001 this law became effective.

25. The Constitutional Court with the constitutionality of the provisions of § 446 of the Commercial Code, as effective by 31.12.2000, took an authoritative approach to the finding of sp. zn. I. ÚS 437 / 02 (Reports of decisions, Volume 31, Found No. 110). It confirmed the legal opinion expressed in the resolution in Case C-112 / 01 ÚS 112 / 01 (ECR 23, p. 30, p. 365), according to which "Paragraph 446 of the Commercial Code significantly interferes with the constitutionally guaranteed right of ownership of property and favours the good faith and certainty of participants in commercial relations. It can therefore only be applied with strict respect for Article 4 (4) of the Charter, as it constitutes the legal limit of one of the most important fundamental rights and it is therefore necessary to strictly exclude any misuse of it for purposes other than those for which it has been established. For this reason it is particularly necessary to examine the question of the good faith of the acquirer very strictly.... '.

26. In the interpretation of the legal provision in question, the Constitutional Court based itself on the view that the concept of giving the transferee a good faith over the protection of the right of ownership of the original owner constitutes a constitutional legal restriction on one of the most fundamental fundamental rights and freedoms. Such a restriction should therefore also be interpreted in such a way that the substance of the property right is still under investigation and that such restriction is not misused for other purposes, or that such abuse is not tolerated or sought by the court by the interpretation accepted (Article 11, in conjunction with Article 4 (4) of the Charter). It further stated that the interpretation that would transfer to the owner the burden of proof of the rebuttal of the good faith of the buyer, which cannot be demonstrated to such an extent, would invalidate the right of the acquirer over the protection of the right of ownership.

27. Following the legal opinion expressed in the find sp. zn. I. ÚS 437 / 02 The Constitutional Court merely adds that it is up to the general courts to consider, in the light of a particular case, the distribution of the burden of proof between the parties.

28. The Constitutional Court in the proceedings in case sp. zn. I. ÚS 437 / 02 thus formulated a constitutional conformal interpretation of the provisions of § 446 of the Commercial Code, as amended by 31.12.2000, and therefore found no reason to interrupt the procedure and to submit an application for the control of standards [§ 78 (2), § 64 (1) (c) of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll., as amended].

29. As an obiter dictum, the Constitutional Court, at the end of its finding, sp. zn. I. ÚS 437 / 02, recalled that the reasoning that would take into account the above-mentioned application of constitutional rules to the formulation of the provisions of § 446 of the Commercial Code, was also led by the legislator when the amendment made by Law No 370 / 2000 strengthened the legal limit of the protection of property law by explicitly making requirements for the existence of good faith by the buyer [...] knew or should and could (...)].

30. A minori ad maius therefore applies to the provision of § 446 of the Commercial Code containing increased protection of good faith at the expense of the protection of property law found by the constitutionally conformal interpretation (see, in particular, the concept of "sp. zn. Pl. ÚS. On the basis of the reasons set out above, it cannot be concluded that the provisions of Article 446 of the Commercial Code, as amended by Act No. 370 / 2000 Coll., fully correspond to the cases arising from the principle of proportionality, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court in a number of its findings [sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 4 / 94 (ECR No. 2, Volume 2, Found No. 214 / 1994 Coll.), sp. zn. Pl. Pl. ÚS 15 / 96 (Collection of decisions, Volume 6, Found No. 99, Found No. 10, Sc. III. ÚS 256 / 01 (Collection of decisions, Svol. No. 37), Pl.

31. For the above circumstances, the Constitutional Court rejected the application for annulment of the provision of § 446 of the Commercial Code, as amended by Act No. 370 / 2000 Coll., rejected.