The Constitutional Court found No. 52 / 2001 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 17 January 2001 on the application for annulment of Article 83 (1) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on Infringements, as amended
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
07.02.2001
52
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic
On 17 January 2001, the Constitutional Court decided in plenary on a proposal by PhDr. V. H. for the annulment of Paragraph 83 (1) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on infringements, as amended,
as follows:
Paragraph 83 (1) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on infringements, as amended, is hereby repealed on 28 February 2002.
Reasons
On 4 February 2000, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decision on the infringement of the Police of the Czech Republic - the Transport Inspectorate of the Municipal Directorate in Brno of 6 October 1999 sp. zn. MRBM-1216 / DI-VV-99, which was decided in the infringement proceedings and the applicant was fined at CZK 2 000 and laid down an obligation to pay the costs of the proceedings of CZK 500 pursuant to § 22 (2) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., as amended. The constitutional complaint was also directed against the decision of the Police of the Czech Republic - the Transport Inspectorate of the South Moravian Region Administration in Brno of 7 December 1999 sp. zn. PJM-890 / DS-odv-99, which rejected the appellant's appeal against the infringement decision. In the light of Article 83 (1) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on infringements, as amended, the appellant, together with a constitutional complaint, made a proposal to repeal that provision.
Paragraph 83 (1) of the Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on infringements, as amended, makes it impossible to review those judgments by the court, as it is an offence qualified under § 22 (1) (d) of the Act on Infringements, as amended, for which a fine of more than CZK 2,000 or a prohibition of activity cannot be imposed. Paragraph 83 (1) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on Infringements, as amended, reads:
Review of a judgment on an infringement by a court
(1) The Court of First Instance does not examine decisions on an offence for which a fine of more than CZK 2 000 or a prohibition of action cannot be imposed; This does not apply if a forfeit has been declared or prevents a case whose value exceeds CZK 2,000.
The appellant considers that the contested decision infringes its right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 (1) of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention '), published under No 209 / 1992 Coll. and binding under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (" the Constitution'), which requires at least one instance to be secured, which is either a court or another independent body and which will be dealt with in full jurisdiction and will therefore also be found on matters of fact. Since the Convention takes precedence over the law, the appellant took advantage of the possibility given to it by Article 64 (1) (d) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as the Law on the Constitutional Court) and, together with the constitutional complaint, submitted a proposal for the annulment of Article 83 (1) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on infringements, as amended. In view of this, the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court assessed compliance with the conditions laid down in Section 74 of the Constitutional Court Act. The constitutional complaint was lodged in due time, by an authorised appellant duly represented, the application is not inadmissible and the Constitutional Court was competent to discuss it.
Since the alleged interference with the fundamental law took place under the direct application of the provision which is the subject of the application, the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court concluded that the conditions of Paragraph 78 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act were fulfilled. Therefore, by order of 29.2.2000 No II of the ÚS 71 / 2000-9, the procedure for the constitutional complaint was suspended and the application for annulment of Paragraph 83 (1) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on infringements, as amended, was referred to the full court of the Constitutional Court for a decision under Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
By those decisions, the applicant was fined CZK 2,000 for an alleged traffic offence when, according to a police officer on 1.6.1999, at 17.34 hours as a driver of a passenger motor vehicle of the factory brand RENAULT Espace drove on the street in Brno, where the highest speed of 60 km / h is permitted, at 80 km / h. This speed has been measured, according to police authorities, by the Ramer 7M-VB measuring device. In fact, that the conclusion of the administrative authority on the appellant's guilt was based only on the assertion of one police officer who, by his assertion, proved the appellant's offence against the safety and continuity of road traffic, the appellant sees a breach of the fundamental principles of the administrative order contained in § 3 (4) of Act No 71 / 1967 Coll., on administrative procedure (administrative order), which states that decisions of the appellant must be based on a reliably established state of affairs and the principle that the procedure must be conducted in such a way as to strengthen citizens' confidence in the accuracy of decisions taken to be convincing and lead citizens and organisations to the voluntary fulfilment of their duties.
The appellant further pointed out that, in the view of the Constitutional Court, expressed in its finding published under No 2 / 2000 Coll., which repealed the provision of § 248 (2) (e) of Act No. 99 / 1963 Coll., the Civil Code, as amended, is the issue of § 83 of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on infringements, as amended, for which a fine of up to CZK 2 000 can be imposed, under the scheme of Article 6 (1) of the Convention, even if the fine does not reach this amount. In the view of the Constitutional Court, expressed in this finding and in the view of the appellant, the possibility of reviewing the decisions of the police authorities which are guilty decisions would strengthen legal certainty and would raise the contradiction between the provisions of Article 83 (1) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., as amended, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, Article 36 (1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights ("the Charter ') and Article 14 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, published under Article 120 / 1976 Coll., in conjunction with Articles 1 of the Charter and Articles 1 and 4 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court first examined the formal terms of the application. The application was submitted by an authorised appellant under the conditions set out in Section 74 of the Constitutional Court Act. The conditions of admissibility under Paragraph 66 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act were also met in the present case. The proposal was found admissible and the plenary of the Constitutional Court could have been followed by the provisions of Section 68 of the Law on the Constitutional Court.
By order of the Constitutional Court of 11.4.2000 sp. zn.
On behalf of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic as a party to the proceedings, the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Prof. Ing. Václav Klaus, CSc., who stated that the Constitutional Court found no. 2 / 2000 Coll., to which the appellant also referred in his submission, played an essential role in the examination of the proposal. This finding was annulled on the date of its publication, part of the provisions of § 248 (2) (e) of Act No. 99 / 1963 Coll., the Civil Code, as amended, thus reducing the scope of decisions of administrative bodies which are not examined in the context of administrative justice. At the end of the statement of reasons, the Constitutional Court also addressed the question of the review of the regularity of the fines as compared to the punishments imposed under Article 53 of the Criminal Code and which are under the regime of Article 6 of the Convention and concluded that there is no reasonable reason why this should not be the case even in the case of both order fines and infringements, including those for which the fine does not reach the level laid down in Article 83 (1) of the Act No 200 / 1990 Coll., on infringements, as amended, because any penalty for offences is in the Convention regime. The explanatory memorandum to the law on infringements states that it is proposed to review administrative decisions on the infringement by the court, but not all, but only those which have a more serious economic impact on the infringement, provided that the person has previously used the proper remedy under the administrative order. The establishment of this institute is, according to the explanatory memorandum, desirable in order to ensure legality in decision-making and in unifying administrative procedures by an independent state body. The Act on Infringements was approved by the necessary majority of the members of the legislature on 17 May 1990, signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and duly declared. In this state of affairs, it cannot be said that the legislature acted in the belief that the law adopted was in line with the Constitution, the constitutional order and the rule of law. It is up to the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of this law in the context of the submitted proposal and to give its decision.
The Louny District Court, as an intervener in its observations on the constitutional complaint, stated that, according to the established judicial practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the concept of criminal charges under Article 6 (1) of the First Convention applies to the infringement charge, which is defined by national law as preventive and also repressive measures of public authority, and for which a penalty is imposed, which significantly affects the civil rights of the responsible body, and which does not have to consist only in deprivation, but also in payment of the fine. According to the criteria set out in our legal order, the nature of criminal charges and charges of any offence, the nature of which is contained in the law on offences or other law, regardless of the amount of penalty that may be imposed on the person accused of the offence. This view is based on the definition of the concept of offences as well as on the nature and type of penalties that can be imposed for infringements (§ 2 (1), § 11 of the Code of Infringements). The contested provision of the law on infringements is also contrary to Article 36 (1) and (2) of the Charter and Articles 1, 4 of the Constitution. Denying judicial review of specified offences also causes inequality in the rights of persons who are recognised as guilty of the offence, and this inequality has no legitimate justification in a democratic rule of law. This also infringes Article 1 of the Charter. Moreover, there may be a situation where a person is found guilty of several offences by one decision, some of which are subject to judicial review and may therefore be annulled by the court, and others, less serious, are excluded from judicial review and the decisions on them remain unaffected, causing difficult problems. In the view of the District Court in Louny, Paragraph 83 (1) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on Infringements, as amended, is contrary to the constitutional laws and the international treaty pursuant to Article 10 of the Constitution and therefore proposed its annulment.
The Constitutional Court, in proceedings for the annulment of laws and other legislation, shall examine the content of the law or other legislation in accordance with the aspects contained in Article 68 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, i.e. their compliance with the constitutional laws and international treaties under Article 10 of the Constitution.
As regards the constitutionality of the content of the provisions of Section 83 (1) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on infringements, as amended, the Constitutional Court concluded that it did not consider it necessary to examine all constitutional aspects of the problem, that it was, in particular, a breach of equality in public law pursuant to Article 1 of the Charter in conjunction with a violation of the right to a fair trial pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the Convention and that the contested provision was not in accordance with Article 36 (1) and (2) of the Charter on grounds of infringement of the right to judicial and other legal protection, as well as it is contrary to Articles 1 and 4 of the Constitution, and the application must therefore be complied with.
Articles 1 and 4 of the Constitution read:
1. The Czech Republic is a sovereign, united and democratic rule of law based on respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen.
4. Fundamental rights and freedoms are protected by judicial authority.
Article 1 of the Charter reads:
People are free and equal in dignity and in law. Fundamental rights and freedoms are inalienable, inalienable, unbiased and unbreakable.
Article 36 (1) and (2) The Charter governs the right to judicial and other legal protection and reads:
1. Any person may apply for the procedure laid down in his or her right before an independent and impartial court and, in specified cases, to another authority.
2. Those who claim to have been shortened on their rights by a decision of a public authority may refer the court to examine the legality of such a decision, unless otherwise provided for by the law. However, the review of decisions relating to fundamental rights and freedoms under the Charter shall not be excluded from the jurisdiction of the court.
Article 6 The Convention governs the right to a fair trial and paragraph 1 of this Article reads as follows:
1. Everyone shall have the right to have his or her affairs dealt with in a fair, public and appropriate manner by an independent and impartial court established by law, which shall decide on his or her civil rights or obligations or on the validity of any criminal charges against him. The judgment must be declared publicly, but the press and the public may be excluded either for the entire or part of the process in the interests of morality, public order or national security in a democratic society, or where the interests of minors or the protection of the private life of the participants so require, or, to the extent deemed absolutely necessary by the court, if, in the light of special circumstances, the public proceedings could be prejudicial to the interests of justice.
As is apparent from the provisions cited, the right to a fair trial, the essential component of which is the right to be heard by an independent court, occupies a prominent place in a democratic society. The person concerned must be able to have the decision taken against him examined by a court which fulfils the guarantees of Article 6 (1) of the Convention. In the present case, however, the appellant did not have the opportunity to review the infringement decision by an independent and impartial court.
The refusal of judicial protection in respect of the review of decisions of public authorities is possible where the law so provides. However, this is not possible in the case of decisions concerning fundamental rights and freedoms under the Charter, the Constitution and international treaties under Article 10 of the Constitution. Any other procedure is contrary to Article 36 (1) and (2) of the Charter and Article 4 of the Constitution. Any natural or legal person in the Czech Republic shall have a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 6 (1) of the Convention.
However, in the case of infringement decisions, Paragraph 83 (1) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on infringements, as amended, does not guarantee this right as it is deprived of the right to have the decision of a public authority examined by an independent and impartial court.
In this case, the Constitutional Court also came out of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (e.g. Lauko v Slovakia, 2 September 1998, Kadubec v Slovakia, 2 September 1998), according to which, in cases where the complainant did not have the opportunity to review the judgment on an infringement by an independent and impartial court, the complainant's right to discuss his case was violated by an independent and impartial court, Article 6 (1) of the Convention is applicable and has been infringed.
Therefore, in the first Convention, Article 6 (1) provides for offences for which a fine of more than CZK 2,000 or a prohibition of action cannot be imposed. Therefore, Article 83 (1) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on infringements, as amended, which excludes from judicial review a judgment on an offence for which a fine of more than CZK 2 000 or a prohibition of action cannot be imposed, except where a forfeiture of a case has been declared or prevents a case whose value exceeds CZK 2 000 is contrary to the provisions of Article 6 (1) of the first Convention.
The contested provision of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on Infringements, as amended, is also contrary to Article 36 (1) and (2) of the Charter. The exclusion of judicial protection from the review of decisions on certain offences interferes with the fundamental right to judicial protection and, as a result, it is also in conflict with Articles 1 and 4 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court has no longer addressed other appellants' objections concerning the principle of the reliably established state of the matter, the principle that proceedings must be conducted in such a way as to strengthen citizens' confidence in the accuracy of decisions taken, to encourage citizens and organisations to carry out their duties on a voluntary basis when the only solution is to abolish Article 83 (1) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on infringements, as amended, and thus to allow judicial control of decisions on infringements issued in the field of administrative law.
For all the reasons set out above, the plenary of the Constitutional Court notes that Paragraph 83 (1) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on infringements, as amended, is unconstitutional and has therefore decided to repeal it.
The Constitutional Court is aware of the change in the legal situation resulting from its decision to repeal Paragraph 83 (1) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on misconduct, as amended, and therefore annulled the contested provision on 28 February 2002.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No. 52 / 2001 Coll., on the application for annulment of § 83 paragraph 1 of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on misconduct, as amended |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 07.02.2001 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0