The Constitutional Court found No 476 / 2002 Coll.
Act No. 501 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 513 / 1991 Coll., Commercial Code, as amended, Act No. 40 / 1964 Coll., Act No. 30 / 2000 Coll., Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., Act No. 99 / 1963 Coll., Civil Code, as amended, Act No. 370 / 2000 Coll., as amended, Act No. 513 / 1991 Coll., Commercial Act, as amended, Act No. 358 / 1992 Coll.
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
20.11.2002
476
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic
The Constitutional Court decided on 2 October 2002 in plenary on the proposal of a group of senators to repeal Act No. 501 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 513 / 1991 Coll., Commercial Code, as amended, Act No. 40 / 1964 Coll., Civil Code, as amended, Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., Act No. 99 / 1963 Coll., Civil Code, as amended, Act No. 370 / 2000 Coll., as amended, Act No. 513 / 1991 Coll., as amended, Act No. 358 / 1992 Coll., Act No. 358 / 1992 Coll., and their activities (notarial Order), Act No. 370 / 2000 Coll.
as follows:
1. Act No. 501 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 513 / 1991 Coll., Commercial Code, as amended, Act No. 40 / 1964 Coll., Civil Code, as amended, Act No. 99 / 1963 Coll., Civil Code, as amended, Act No. 99 / 1991 Coll., as amended, Act No. 591 / 1992 Coll., on Securities Act, as amended, Act No. 358 / 1992 Coll., as amended, Act No. 358 / 1992 Coll., on Notaries and their Activities (notarial Order), as amended, Act No. 370 / 2000 Coll., Act No. 15 / 1998 Coll., Act No. 55 Coll.
2. The application for annulment of the provisions of Paragraph 183b (3) (a) of Act No. 513 / 1991 Coll., Commercial Code, as amended, is rejected.
Reasons
The Group of 22 Senators, acting as a legitimate draftsman [Paragraph 64 (1) (b) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court], proposed the repeal of Act No. 501 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 513 / 1991 Coll., the Commercial Code, as amended, etc., as amended, was amended. According to the motion for a procedural procedure in which the contested law was adopted, it shows anti-constitutional defects, since after the amendment of Amendment No. 824 to the 39th session of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic was approved in its second reading, namely at the extraordinary 42nd session of the Chamber of the amendment of the resolution No. 1828.
According to the applicants, the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic responded to this unconstitutional procedure at its eleventh meeting on 22 November 2001 by stating that, by the Chamber of Deputies, the draft law (and its resolution) submitted by the Chamber of Deputies is not "a draft law pursuant to Article 45 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic," and for this reason it did not deal with it.
According to the applicants, The House of Deputies' chosen procedure was justified by the alleged attempt "to prevent the serious economic damage which (for the error of the Chamber of Deputies) could have occurred '; However, the appellants consider that such a procedure, however justified, is" contrary to the law'. In the case under consideration, this was a "revision of the final and meritorious resolution of the Chamber of Deputies', which (definitively) approved the draft law and was to be referred to the Senate in such an approved text, since the resolution was" the perfect moment for a vote that was not immediately questioned '.
Referring to the principle of political decision-making, according to which an ad hoc decision of an ad hoc majority adopted in a given situation protects this (potentially variable) majority and, in particular, by reference to the content of Article 6 (in conjunction with Article 39 (1) and (2)), as well as to the content of Article 47 (1) and (3) and Article 50 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution), and by reference to the possibilities under which the Chamber of Deputies may return to the law adopted (by a new vote), the appellants concluded that the Chamber of Deputies had infringed the "relative imunity of the resolution '; In adopting the contested law, the Chamber of Deputies found itself contrary to the constitutional order of the Republic. Achieving in particular the repeal of the entire Act No. 501 / 2001 Coll., the appellants proposed, by an alternative request, the annulment of the provisions of Section 183b (3) (a), and of the other amended provisions which they specifically identified in the petition and whose ilconstitutional status, regardless of the unconstitutional way in which they were accepted (without further justification), was derived from the provisions of Articles 4 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, respectively Article 1 (1) of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Chamber of Deputies expressed its views on the invitation of the Constitutional Court to propose a group of Senators as a party to the proceedings (Section 69 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., as amended) by submitting its President; in which she, on the one hand, recalled the course of critical votes, including the plenary of the Chamber of Deputies on the objection of the Member of the Pilip of the parties (rapporteur) to the impossibility of voting on his proposal on the amended provision of Paragraph 183b, which, as an objection to "technical changes without a deeper context ', subsequently complied with and, on the other hand, stressed that, in that vote, it itself was misled, which resulted in the provision of Paragraph 183b (3)" the existence of two identical provisions under its (e) (i) (a) and, in the broader context, the removal from the obligation to make an offer to all holders of participating securities to the target company'. In particular, as demonstrated by the later vote at the 42nd session of the Chamber of Deputies, according to which no one voted in favour of the proposal of Mr Pilip of the 110 Members present, while 98 Members voted against him, but it was contrary to the true will of the Chamber of Deputies, and because, as regards the revision of the resolution by which the Parliament of Deputies as a whole was approved by the House of Deputies, the 'principle of no bis idem or res iudicata is not part of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, it was up to its decision on how such a proposal'.
According to the President's final observations, The Chamber of Deputies of the legislature acted in the belief that the law (i.e. the law under examination) adopted and the procedure which led to its adoption was in line with the constitutional order and the legal order of the Czech Republic, and it is therefore up to the Constitutional Court to examine and make a decision on the motion of a group of senators to repeal the law.
The President also spoke on behalf of the Senate. He also, after giving a concise overview of the objections raised by a group of senators, carried out a recap of the critical votes in the Chamber of Deputies and pointed out that "The constitutional procedure for approving the laws of the Senate was being discussed" and, contrary to the opposite opinion of the Chamber of Deputies, he concluded that "the resolution by which the Chamber of Parliament approves the draft law is final and can only be returned to such a proposal by the means of the Constitution ', which means, for the matter under consideration, that" if Parliament wants to amend its will be expressed in the legislative process, it cannot do so by means of amendment'; The Senate thus "concluded in majority that the shortcomings of the bills approved in the Chamber of Deputies can be addressed either in the Senate bodies or in the launch of a new legislative procedure, but not by changing the House of Deputies' resolution," the assessment of whether the law has been adopted in a constitutional manner is, however, entirely up to the Constitutional Court '.
In view of the nature of the case, the Government's opinion was also requested (Section 48 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll.); In its submission, she expressed the belief that the procedure under examination, in connection with the contested amendment of Mr Pilip, which in essence constituted the de facto abolition of the existing legislation provided for in Paragraph 183b (3) (a) and moreover was manifestly duplicated against the proposal of the Economic Committee, "the obligation arising from the provisions of Paragraph 72 (4) of the Law No. 90 / 1995 Coll., on the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies," according to which, "before the vote, any other case of vote is not ruled out by the Members," however, the Constitution of the Resolution of the Chamber of Deputies of the Chamber of Deputies, and if it does not comply with the Rules of Procedure, it must not be repeated, "that each Member may, in the vote or immediately after which he may raise an objection against the outcome of the Chamber of Deputies. In view of these circumstances, the Government considers that the proposal to abolish all the legally amended provisions under review is" totally inadequate ', as this would cause significant problems, for example, in the capital market and would create an "opposite privatisation trend' - among other things, the disadvantage of the parties involved in privatisation... and would undoubtedly lead to a large reduction in the State's revenues from the privatisation of individual companies'. Finally, the Government states that" the rules governing the takeover offer '(i.e. the provision of Paragraph 183b of the contested law) was included in the Commercial Code on the basis of a proposal for a recast of the 13th Directive of the European Communities, which does not allow any exceptions from such an offer, so that the validity of that provision is "limited to the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union'.
Finally, the Government recommended that a group of Senators' proposal to repeal the Act under consideration, or to repeal the amended regulations by it, be rejected.
It is clear from the written documents (the House of Deputies and stenographic records on the course of the 39th and 42nd meeting of the Chamber of Deputies) submitted to the Constitutional Court at its request by the offices of the Chamber of Deputies that
1. as regards the course of the 39th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies:
(a) the act under consideration was discussed on the initiative of a group of Members and, as House Press No. 824, was ordered to discuss the committees with economic and constitutional law and was also initiated by the Committee on Budgets; According to the promoters of the law, this was a "technical amendment, the core of which was to eliminate legislative and technical errors',
(b) a number of amendments (House of Deputies 824 / 2 - 5), some of which were accepted by the House of Deputies by voting in plenary during the second reading, were discussed on the original bill,
(c) in the course of the third reading, Mr Pilip objected to the parties to the alleged "non-voting" of his amendment adopted at second reading (the amendment of Paragraph 183b (3) (a)), which was adopted as "acceptance of technical change" and by voting (under number 531, of the 177 in 97 in favour, 12 against), his amendment was adopted earlier at second reading,
(d) the resolution by which the Chamber of Deputies' assent to the House of Deputies No 824, as amended by the amendments, was adopted by the necessary majority under number 1828 (in the vote of order number 532, 177 in the 159 pro, 2 against); none of the Members objected to the course or outcome of the vote at or immediately thereafter (§ 76 paragraphs 5 and 6 of Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll.);
2. as regards the course of the 40th session of the Chamber of Deputies held on 15 November 2001, the stenographic record shows that:
(a) this meeting of the Chamber of Deputies was convened by its President in accordance with the provisions of Rule 51 (4) of the Rules of Procedure, on the request of 41 Members, and its conduct was subordinate to the legislative procedure in a state of legislative emergency (§ 99 of Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll.), which was declared for the period from 14 to 21 November 2001; the House decided by voting after the debate (under No 4, of 161 present 110 pro, 48 against) that it would continue during this meeting (§ 99 (4) of Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll.),
(b) a proposal by the Social Democracy Parliamentary Club to renew Resolution 1828 of the Chamber of Deputies of 31 October 2001 was included as the second item of the agenda;
(c) the proposal was justified by the representative of the appellants - briefly summarised - by voting on a "non-voting" amendment by Mr Pilip (on Paragraph 183b), on the one hand, "in the context of the process of approving individual amendments, the rules of the Chamber of Deputies', on the other hand, taking into account all the circumstances in which the vote took place, the Chamber of Deputies was so irritated in its proceedings that" it is clear that it did not clearly know which proposal it was voting on ';
(d) After the debate, the Chamber of Deputies shall vote:
(aa) (under order number 11, of 108 present 84 for, 16 against), revised its resolution No 1828 of 31 October 2001, by which it gave its assent to the motion of a group of Members to issue the Law under consideration;
(bb) (under order number 15, of the 110 present for no one, against 98) the amendment by Mr Pilip (on Paragraph 183b) did not accept and subsequently accept
(cc) (under order number 16, out of 105 present 92 pro, 4 against), adopted a resolution (under number 1859) which "gave its assent to the motion for a group of Members to enact a law amending Act No. 513 of 1991 Coll., Commercial Code, as amended, etc., according to House Press No. 824, as amended by the approved amendments'; and
dd) in the newly adopted text, the draft law has been passed on to the Senate for further action; since he did not comment on it in substance, after the expiry of the prescribed period (§ 97 (2) of Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll.), the President of the Chamber of Deputies submitted it for signature of the President of the Republic (§ 98 (1) of Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll.).
It can therefore be summarised and concluded that the law under examination in the legislative process in the Chamber of Deputies has passed three stages; in the first place (after the adoption of the amendments) was adopted by Resolution No 1828 of 31 October 2001, in the second place it was renewed on 15 November 2001 and then (after the earlier amendment adopted by Mr Pilip was rejected in the new vote) it was approved again as a whole by Resolution No 1859 of 15 November 2001 and in that new text (after the deletion of the text of Mr Pilip's amendment to Paragraph 183b) it was forwarded to the Senate and later to the President of the Republic for signature; was published in the Collection of Laws in the amount of 180 under No 501 with the date of dispatch on 31 December 2001.
Significantly majority opinion The Chamber of Deputies considers that, however the Chamber of Deputies gave its assent in the final vote on 31 October 2001, the legislative process itself has not yet been completed, since the Chamber of Deputies approved the Act was not forwarded to the Senate by the date of the 42nd meeting nor was it submitted to the President of the Republic for signature, and because "a binding deadline is laid down for the examination of the motion for the resolution of Deputies, by which the bill of Deputies was approved" (more precisely for the non-changeability of the approval resolution), neither constitutional nor the legislation of the lower legal force (Act 90 / 1995 Coll.) is a binding deadline for the revision of the resolution and for the reversal of the law opened. "
By contrast, the appellants, alleging the principle of "relative inconsistency (once adopted) of the law," with reference to Article 6 in conjunction with Articles 39 (1) and (2), 47 (1) and (3) and 50 (2) of the Constitution, consider the procedural procedure of the Chamber of Deputies to be unconstitutional.
In view of these completely contradictory opinions, it was up to the Constitutional Court to examine and decide whether:
(a) the existing constitutional order or, where applicable, the ordinary law (Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll.) can be derived from a time or substance line under which, by the Chamber of Deputies, the decision adopted by the Chamber of Deputies, by which approval was given after the final (final) vote, cannot be changed, or whether, after the renewal of the approval resolution, the legislative process can be continued and the previously approved law renegotiated and adopted in a new (corrected) version; and
(b) if such a limit as is of importance from the point of view of the protection of constitutionality and the consequences of exceeding it, in other words, whether the Act under examination No 501 / 2001 Coll., amending the Commercial Code, as amended, etc., was adopted in a constitutional manner.
According to the opinion of the Constitutional Court, all the earlier statements made by the Chamber of Deputies in order to clarify the circumstances in which the revocation under consideration took place, or the reasons which led to it, are already excluded from the subject matter, as these are assertions from the point of view of the substance of the case. After all, both the observations of the Chamber of Deputies and the arguments of the Government are directed exclusively at the issues relating to the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, and because in both cases they completely ignore the conditions of the constitutional procedure for the adoption of laws (Section 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., as amended), the opinions are without practical meaning.
The legislator's intentions, if not expressed in an appropriate form and scope in the legal standard itself (the law) as the motives of the legislator's conduct, do not affect its content and validity (efficiency) and cannot be assessed (separately) more precisely, cannot be relied upon by the exculpatory reasons for the breach of the procedural rules (principles) if it has occurred during the legislative process, irrespective of whether the defects of the law established ex post have caused the legislator's failure to pay attention in the vote or its lack of knowledge of the material associated with the examination of the draft law.
These circumstances were therefore left out of the attention of the Constitutional Court, as were the consciously omitted questions relating to the alleged error of Members, the reasons for the possible justification of such error and so on, or the alleged illogical nature of the amendment (Mr Pilip on Paragraph 183b), which was adopted in the original vote by the Chamber of Deputies, and which subsequently became an obvious reason for the revision of the final resolution on the approval of the negotiated law, after which this amendment was rejected in the new vote and deleted from the final and newly approved text of the law.
Although the legislative procedure provided for by the Rule of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies (Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll.) is not based on the principle of lawmakers' infallibility, however, from the various (theoretically) possible variants of the mechanisms for re-voting and the reasons for them at the same time the law in force determines the conditions for them by reserving to each Member the right to object either to the vote or to its outcome (dtto paragraph 5), and only if the Parliament of Deputies so applied has accepted the proposal, it may not be repeated, but not to the motion for a new vote.
The repeated vote, indifferent to whether the amendment or the resolution giving its assent to the bill as a whole, is thus limited by two conditions, namely the immediate objection of the Member and the positive decision of the Chamber of Deputies on it, and, moreover, because of their nature, can only be extended to defects (errors) in their own voting act, i.e. essentially to the voting technique or to the determination of its outcome, but not to the substance of the proposal under consideration (material error); other mechanisms (Articles 47 (2), 47 (1) and (3) and 50 (2) of the Constitutional Act No. 1 / 1993 Coll., the Constitution of the Czech Republic), through which the Chamber of Deputies, but already under changed procedural conditions, may, in connection with the reservations of the Senate or its amendments or with the reservations of the President of the Republic, re-act and vote on them. In such a case, however, it is a procedure initiated not by the Chamber of Deputies' own decision, but a procedure which is a procedural consequence of another party to the legislative process's disagreement with the draft law as adopted by the Chamber of Deputies and, as its constitutionally defined authority, obliges the Chamber of Deputies to vote again (to renegotiate in the intentions of the express opposition). However, in relation to the approved draft law, the own power of the Chamber of Deputies, as is apparent from its Rules of Procedure and, after all, from the nature of the legislative process as a decision-making process at all, is exhausted by the adoption of a resolution giving its assent to the draft law, namely - procedural - unchallenged announcement of the outcome of the vote by the chairman of the meeting.
Legislative process in the phase in which the plenary is The Chamber of Deputies submitted a motion for a resolution to be agreed to by the bill of vote as a whole (Paragraph 95 (3) al. 2 of Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll.), is only the conclusion of a decision-making process in which the Member no longer has any other choice but to vote either in favour or against (or not at all), since, during the previous stages of that process, he had sufficient time and opportunity to apply his proposals (expression of his political positions) to make his vote at all, and in particular at this final stage, an expression (consequence) of his own political decision, in which he then, as the resulting whole (compromise), based on the will of the majority expressed by free vote (Rule 6 al. 1 of Constitutional Law No. 1 / 1993 Coll.).
Therefore, the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies declaring consent to the draft law must be seen as a decision containing, at a given stage of procedure, the final sentence by which the legislative process in the Chamber of Deputies was completed; the requirement of the Act (Chamber of Deputies) that the approved bill be sent to the Senate by the President of the Chamber of Deputies without undue delay (Section 97 (1) of Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll.) does not have any substantive or temporal connection to the Chamber of Deputies' own decision-making process and, in fact, has no influence on the Chamber of Deputies' own decision-making process, the less it could restore it.
For reasons thus interpreted he reached The Constitutional Court believes that the question put by sub III (a) must be answered in a positive way: both from the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and from the field of ordinary law (Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll.) and from the nature of the case that the unchallenged announcement of the results of the vote on the resolution by which the Chamber of Deputies expressed the draft law as a whole is both a substantive and a time limit under which the revision of this resolution and the subsequent renegotiation of the draft law which relates to it is not admissible, except for reasons already laid down - also because the conditions of the ordinary legislative process, more precisely and more fully expressed, were not met in this renegotiation of the draft law in the constitutional cases.
If the Chamber of Deputies, in the circumstances mentioned earlier, after a long time and at another meeting, has adopted a resolution (of 31 October 2001, number 1828), by which it has given its assent to the draft law under consideration, and has renegotiated the previously approved draft law in such an open legislative process and then adopted it in another version, it has burdened the legislative process with a defect which cannot be overlooked in terms of its procedural purity.
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.
Where the principles thus recalled relate to the constitutionality of the procedure before and the acts adopted therein by the public authorities (the procedure provided for in Article 36 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms), there is no reasonable reason to derogate from those principles in matters of control of the legislative process and the acts adopted therein (the legal standards adopted therein), since, although the decision-making process in the legislative activity differs to a certain extent from the decision-making process in proceedings before other public authorities - and in this sense it can be seen as the sui generis the guiding principle of decision-making in which the final outcome is identical in both cases; Moreover, it cannot be forgotten that the consequences of legislative acts are certainly more important for their social impact than in cases of individual (defective) decisions by other public authorities. It is therefore - in the legislative process - at the forefront of the demand for stability, persuasion and the necessity of the legal acts on which the rule of law and, in parallel, the lives of citizens lie; However, such acts, as well as achieving the necessary authority of the legislature, cannot be found otherwise than in respect of the rules (principles of legislative action) which the Chamber of Deputies, as an important bearer of legislative power, has itself established by law for this activity.
Taking into account the reasons already set out in the preamble to this finding, the requirement of the Rules of Procedure with regard to the President of the Chamber of Deputies, namely that the draft law with which the Chamber of Deputies has given its assent should be sent without delay to the Senate (§ 97 (1) of the Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll.), or whether and to what extent it has been complied with in the case under consideration, the draft law with which the Chamber of Deputies has been given its constitutional protection (Article 83 of Constitutional Law No. 1 / 1993 Coll.) is indecisive in the case, as well as it does not stand before. However - unlike the previous institutes (Czechoslovak State) - the content of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies is not constitutionally defined, there is no reasonable reason to doubt that the fundamental principles of the legislative bodies' conduct, as well as the principles of contact between the two parliaments (as well as the government) and on the outside, cannot step out of the constitutional framework. Similarly, the claim that the case under consideration was a significantly complicated bill and that, at the end of the legislative process (at third reading), the Chamber of Deputies was so irritated that "it did not clearly know which proposal it was voting on 'is below the procedural purity aspects of the decision-making process without any meaning.
The complexity of the material discussed by the Chamber of Deputies, the frequency or diversity of amendments and other proposals raised in the course of the debates against the proposed draft law, in itself or in conjunction with the "ex post 'attempt to correct error and prevent serious economic damage, cannot justify a breach of the constitutionally protected procedure in the legislative process and principles already laid down.
It has already been mentioned that, in parliamentary democracy, political decisions are based on the will of the majority expressed by free voting; However, the terms and conditions, which are explicitly expressed by the Constitution, ensure the constitutional legitimacy and legality of the decision taken and which create the relevant majority during the legislative process, are different and almost always clinging not only to the material which is the subject of the negotiations and 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 it entails. 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 earlier decisions, is essential not only in terms of the stability of legal acts, but also as a result of a consensus reached at a given time (compromise political will), which excludes from the decision-making arbitrage, for which there is no place, in other words: the fact that the approved bill has not yet been referred to the Senate by the President of the Chamber of Deputies, does not give any reason for the Chamber of Deputies to restore the final decision-making process on the draft law and return to a new decision-making process. That is why the moment when the decision-making process at a given stage of the legislative process has irrevocably ended, it is not only for the legality of the decision-making process, but also for its stability so important that the threshold is constitutionally unsurpassed and, as such, it is intended to prevent the emergence of a potential risk of usurping power that is not for the Chamber of Deputies. The opposite majority view of the Chamber of Deputies is also wrong because in the rule of law "State power serves all citizens and can only be applied in cases, within the limits and in the ways laid down by the law." (Article 2 (3) of Constitutional Law No. 1 / 1993 Coll.); Therefore, not every will of the parliamentary body, but only one which, whether it be a constitutional or simple law (its Rules of Procedure), respects and is within its limits can become a law.
The Constitutional Court has therefore come to the conclusion that the second question raised at the front of sub III (b) must also be answered in a positive way: the step forward from the limits on the integrity of the decision adopted (the resolution giving its assent to the act under discussion) and the principles previously laid down are an infringement of the constitutionality of the legislative process; Act No. 501 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 513 / 1991 Coll., Commercial Code, as amended, etc., was therefore not adopted by the Chamber of Deputies in a constitutional manner.
This conclusion in itself already makes it unnecessary to examine the constitutionality of the individual provisions of the Law under consideration, which, as anti-constitutional promoters in the alternative request, was not needed to deal with them as individuals.
In its observations, the Constitutional Court has not overlooked the position of the Government, which, although not a party to the present proceedings, considers, according to the requested statement, that, for possible significant problems, such as in the capital market, as well as the failure to conduct a critical meeting of the Chamber of Deputies, at which the law under examination was first adopted, "it would also be appropriate to tolerate relatively problematic revocation, particularly if, in order to create the possibility of Members, it was aware of its will '. However serious the government's warnings must be taken, and there is no doubt that the amendment of the Commercial Code brings about a number of desirable changes, but these facts cannot outweigh the fundamental post of constitutionality, namely that the laws are adopted by Parliament's legislative bodies in a constitutional manner (Article 1, Article 2 (3), Article 45 of Constitutional Act No. 1 / 1993 Coll., as amended).
Since the contested issue of the provision of Paragraph 183b (3) (a) of the Law under consideration, against which the substantive reservations of the appellants are directed in the first instance, cannot be separated from the other material, since the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies of 15 November 2001 (No 1859) removes its previous resolution of 31 October 2001 (No 1828), which approved the act as a whole, was left to the extent of Act No. 501 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 513 / 1991 Coll., Commercial Code, as amended, etc., as adopted not in a constitutional manner prescribed by the Government on the date, as amended by Act No 182 / 1993 Coll.).
The refusal of the parties to the application for annulment of the provisions of Paragraph 183b (3) (a) of Act No. 513 / 1991 Coll., Commercial Code, as amended, is based on the fact that the formal and content identical proposal was lodged with the Constitutional Court on 13 December 2001, is dealt with separately under the sp. zn.
President of the Constitutional Court:
v. JUDr. Holecek v. r.
Vice-President
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | Act No. 501 / 2001 Coll., amending Act No. 513 / 1991 Coll., as amended, Act No. 40 / 1964 Coll., Act No. 30 / 2000 Coll., Act No. 200 Coll., Act No. 99 / 1963 Coll., Civil Code, as amended, Act No. 370 / 2000 Coll., as amended, Act No. 513 / 1991 Coll., Act No. 358 / 1992 Coll., Act No. 358 / 1992 Coll., Act No. 39 / 1992 Coll., Act No. 39 / 1992 Coll. |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 20.11.2002 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0