The Constitutional Court found no 65 / 2007 Coll.
The Constitutional Court's finding of 16 January 2007 on the application for annulment of certain provisions of Act No. 425 / 2002 Coll., certain provisions of Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll., certain provisions of Act No. 309 / 2002 Coll. and certain provisions of Act No. 626 / 2004 Coll., as far as they concern the Judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
30.03.2007
Contents
65
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic
The Constitutional Court ruled on 16 January 2007 in the composition of Stanislav Balík, František Duchoň, Vlasta Formánková, Vojen Güttler, Ivana Janů, Vladimir Krůk, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodým, Pavel Rychetský (Judge of the Rapporteur), Miloslav Excellent, Eliška Wagner and Michaela Židlická on the motion of the Municipal Court in Brno to abolish the First Court of Justice, § 1 (h) of Law No. 425 / 2002 Coll., § 3 of Law No. 427 / 2003 and § 4 of Law No. 427 / 2003 Coll.
as follows:
Motion denied.
Reasons
Recital of the proposal
1. By a proposal submitted pursuant to Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) and Article 64 (3) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, the Municipal Court in Brno sought the issue of a finding by which the Constitutional Court would annul
I. Paragraph 1 (h) of Act No. 425 / 2002 Coll. and § 3 of Act No. 425 / 2002 Coll., as regards the Judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court [§ 1 (h) of Act No. 425 / 2002 Coll.],
II. provision § 1 (i) of Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll. and § 3 and 4 of Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll., as regards the judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court [§ 1 (i) of Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll.],
III. Clause III of Part Thirty-Third Article XXXIII of Act No. 309 / 2002 Coll., as regards the Judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court [§ 1 (h) of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll. - Note: as in force at the time of the application, now point (g)],
IV. Paragraph 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of Part One of Article I of Act No. 626 / 2004 Coll., as regards the Judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court [§ 1 (i) of Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll.].
2. The appellant stated that the proceedings are pending before him in sp. zn. 36 C 338 / 2005 concerning an action by the Court of Justice of the City Court in Brno JUDr. D. S. contends against the Czech Republic - the Municipal Court in Brno to pay an amount of CZK 16 300 on the basis of a claim for a salary payment within the meaning of § 28 to 31 of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., on the salary and other formalities connected with the performance of the duties of representatives of the State and of certain state bodies and judges and Members of the European Parliament, as amended at the relevant time (hereinafter referred to as "Act on the salary of the representatives of the State) and reimbursement of expenses within the meaning of § 32 (1) of this Act in January 2003 and January 2004. The applicant in the proceedings argued that he had not been paid the full salary and reimbursement of expenses in the payment dates set for 16 February 2003 (January 2003) and 17 February 2004 (January 2004).
3. The appellant concluded in the proceedings that the provisions set out in the proposed petition (see recital (1)), which ultimately led to the freezing of salaries from 1 January 2003 and 1 January 2004 and which are to be applied in the resolution of sp. zn. 36 C 338 / 2005, are in breach of Article 1 (1) in conjunction with Article 82 (1) of the Constitution and Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights ("the Charter '), since the freezing of salaries has caused undue interference with judicial independence, namely its component of material collateral, or the right of the Judge to the material security of his judicial independence. It therefore suspended the procedure and submitted a request to the Constitutional Court for annulment.
4. The appellant argued that the material guarantee of the independence of the judge was one of the guarantees of impartial and fair decision-making on the rights and rights of the protected interests of persons. Therefore, the pay issues of judges must not be a variable factor, the development of which depends on the ideas of the government group. According to the appellant, the pay ratios of judges who are apolitical constitutional officials must be stable and ad hoc, unimpaired or independent of the ideas of executive and legislative powers based on politically motivated objectives and views. In view of the principle of division of power and the principle of independence of the judiciary, the legislature cannot approach pay restrictions with judges according to the same principles and objectives as in other areas of the public sphere. The material security of judges is guaranteed by law and by the Constitution, so intervention in such security can be justified only by completely exceptional circumstances. Even if such exceptional circumstances were to arise, account would have to be taken of the difference between judicial power and executive and legislative power.
5. However, the legislator did not follow these principles when adopting the draft contested provisions. According to the appellant, Article 1 (h) of Act No 425 / 2002 Coll., which provides for an exceptional measure for 2003 to determine the amount of the salary and certain compensation of the expenses associated with the performance of the functions of representatives of the State Government and of certain state authorities, judges and prosecutors, and which provides for additional salaries for the first and second half of 2003 to be paid by those persons, (hereinafter the "Emergency Salary Act 2003 '), to be frozen by the legislature in 2003 to apply a salary base of up to 31 December 2002, and that, as a result of a change in the legislation on the salaries and the personal surcharge of ministerial staff with effect after 31 December 2002, the salary base is not increased in that year. This salary freeze was also regulated by the legislator in § 3 of the Act cited, according to which, between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003, the provisions of § 3 (3) of the Law on the salary of representatives of state authorities are not applicable.
6. As a result of the contested provisions, the salary base remained the same in the amount of CZK 46 500 per month, although it was to be increased to CZK 50 180, and the reimbursement of the final expenses remained to CZK 2 600, although it was to be increased to CZK 2,800 per month; the salary base was to be increased by 7,91% in percentage terms and the reimbursement of the final expenses by 7,69%.
7. The appellant stated that, according to the explanatory memorandum to the 2003 Act on Exceptional Payment Measures, and according to the Government's representatives when discussing this bill, its aim was to ensure proportionality in terms of the salaries of public administration and services employees and representatives of state power, certain state authorities, judges and prosecutors, and to apply solidarity with citizens affected by floods. However, according to the appellant, this declared intention was contested. With effect from 1 January 2003 there has been an increase in the scale of the salaries of public sector employees and the state budget for 2003 (Act No. 579 / 2002 Coll., on the State Budget of the Czech Republic for 2003) with an increase in the wage resources for these employees; the appellant referred to Government Decree No. 582 / 2002 Coll., Government Decree No. 583 / 2002 Coll. and Government Decree No. 584 / 2002 Coll. (Government Decree No. 582 / 2002 Coll., amending Government Decree No. 253 / 1992 Coll., on the Staff Rates of Government Authorities, certain other authorities and municipalities, as amended, and Government Decree No. 583 / 2002 Coll., amending Government Regulation No. 251 / 1992 Coll., on the Staff Regulations of the Armed Forces, the Security Corps and the Services, as amended, and Government Regulation No. 584 / 2002 Coll., as amended by Decree No. 79 / 1994 Coll., on the Staff Regulations of the Armed Forces, the Services and Services, the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of Fire Protection and Staff of Other Organisations, as amended.
8. In 2004, according to the appellant, there was a refreezing of salaries as a result of the proposal for the contested provisions (point II of the petition) of § 1 (i) and § 3 of Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll., which provides for an exceptional measure for 2004 to determine the amount of the salary and compensation of the expenses associated with the performance of the duties of representatives of the State and of certain state institutions, Members of the European Parliament, Judges and Prosecutor, the amount of the additional salary of those persons for the first half of 2004, and amending certain related laws (hereinafter the "Act on the exceptional payment measure for 2004 '), which was anchored at 31 December 2003. In accordance with the contested provision of § 1 (h) and § 3 of the Act on Exceptional Payment Measures for 2003, the salary base was identical on 31 December 2003 to the salary base on 31 December 2002.
9. As a result of the provisions contested under point II of the petition, the salary base did not increase, although it was to increase from CZK 50 180 (the salary base on 31 December 2003 fixed without taking into account the previous freezing) to CZK 59 180, and the reimbursement of the final expenses did not increase, although it was to increase from CZK 2 800 (the reimbursement of the final expenditure on 31 December 2003 determined without taking into account the previous freezing) to CZK 3 300 per month; the salary base was to be increased by 17,93% in percentage terms and the reimbursement of the final expenses by 17,86%.
10. Even in this case, the appellant stated that, according to the explanatory memorandum to the Law on the extraordinary payment measure for 2004, and according to the representatives of the Government when discussing this bill, its aim was to ensure proportionality in terms of the salaries of public administration and services staff and representatives of the State, certain state authorities, judges and prosecutors, and to further apply solidarity with citizens affected by floods. However, according to the appellant, this claim was also contested. With effect from 1 January 2004 there was an increase in the scale of the salaries of public sector employees and the state budget for 2004 (Act No. 457 / 2003 Coll., on the State Budget of the Czech Republic for 2004) calculated an increase in the wage resources for these employees. the appellant referred to Government Decree No. 330 / 2003 Coll., on the pay ratios of employees in public services and administration.
11. The application for annulment of the provisions of Part One of Article I (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) of Act No. 626 / 2004 Coll., as regards the judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court [§ 1 (i) of Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll.] - point IV of the petition - was justified by these provisions by the adoption of an amendment to Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll. concerning the salary freeze for 2005 and 2006. In view of the requirement of internal consistency of the proposal and the principle of legal certainty, it also proposed the abolition of them, since otherwise the provisions governing the freezing of salaries in 2004 would remain in the legal order.
12. Under point III of the petition, the appellant sought the annulment of the provisions of Part Thirty-third Article XXXIII of Act No. 309 / 2002 Coll., on the amendment of the laws relating to the adoption of the Law on the Service of Civil Servants in Administrative Offices and on the Remuneration of These Employees and Other Servants in Administrative Offices (Staff Act), as regards the Judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court [§ 1 (h) of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll. - Note: as in force at the time of the application, now paragraph (g)], which amended the provisions of Paragraph 3 (3) of the Law on the salary of State Representatives. Instead of the current method of calculation of the salary base as a sum of the highest wage rate and the maximum amount of the personal surcharge provided for by the special legislation for ministerial staff, the salary base is to be newly set at three times the average nominal monthly wage of individuals in the non-business sphere obtained according to the published data of the Czech Statistical Office for the preceding calendar year. The application for annulment of those provisions was justified by the appellant by the fact that, should the proposal under point II of the petition be complied with, the freezing of the salary base would be removed from 1 January 2003, thereby automatically setting the salary base as from 1 January 2004 according to the new method of calculation. This would be the case, according to the appellant, that the salary base from 1 January 2004 would be CZK 46026 (three times the average nominal monthly salary of individuals in the non-business sphere in 2002, according to the publication of the Czech Statistical Office No. 3106-04, Annex No. 2), i.e. an amount of CZK 28,58% lower than CZK 59 180, what the salary base would have been without taking into account the freezing of salaries and the new method of calculating it. The real decline in the judge's salary by almost one third would, according to the appellant, be clearly unconstitutional.
13. The appellant also referred to the case-law of the Constitutional Court on the issue of the material security of judges, namely the findings of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 11 / 02 of 11 June 2003 [Collection of finds and orders of the Constitutional Court ("the Reports of the Judgments'), Volume 30, Found No. 87, Declared under No 198 / 2003 Coll., Sb.], sp. zn.
Conditions for the applicant's active legitimacy
14. The Constitutional Court first addressed the question whether the appellant - Municipal Court in Brno - is entitled to file an application for annulment of the contested provisions. The appellant stated that it had to apply the contested provisions in civil proceedings for an action for payment, since the contested provisions, alleging their inconstitutionality, the plaintiff - the judge of the Municipal Court in Brno - relied on his claim against the Czech Republic - the Municipal Court in Brno. This claim was verified by the Constitutional Court on the file of the Municipal Court in Brno, sp. zn. 36 C 338 / 2005. The application of the Municipal Court in Brno is therefore related to its decision-making activities and therefore the Court is a legitimate appellant pursuant to Article 95 (2) of the Constitution and Article 64 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Proceedings and recap of observations of parties and other bodies pursuant to Sections 48 and 49 of the Constitutional Court Act
15. In order to call upon the Constitutional Court, pursuant to Section 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, according to which judicial independence is primarily a legal principle and an institute, it is not absolute independence and has its limits. It therefore only allows protection against interference, influences and actions which are punishable by law. It is not in its power to rule out the general determinants that act on judges as any other person (influence of the environment, education, character, etc.), nor the fact that the judge is part of a state mechanism is therefore not isolated but exists within a system. A specific adjustment must take account of the existence of this system, it cannot ignore it. The purpose of the adjustments was, above all, to express some solidarity with workers paid from public sources and not to attack judicial independence.
16. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic by the mouth of its President MUDr. He added that, in virtually all cases of negotiations of these laws in the Senate, which were supposed to take place - according to the petitioner, the necessary - austerity measures in the field of salaries governed by Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., both the effectiveness and the merits of such adjustments and the possible doubts as to the acceptability of such adjustments in relation to judges in view of the well-known (and different) views of the Constitutional Court in matters of restrictions on additional salaries. However, none of the draft laws under discussion, if they concerned determining the salary base, outweighed the view in the Senate that it could be an adjustment contrary to the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.
17. The Senate pointed out that the withdrawal of the proposed provisions would lead to a situation in which, for the judges of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court, there would be no regulation defining the salary base necessary for determining the level of the salary and reimbursement of expenditure, because according to the established case law of the Constitutional Court, "the repeal of the anticonstitutional provision of the Law would not benefit from a provision earlier which was abolished or amended by the unconstitutional provision '; The Senate referred to the finding of the Constitutional Court under No 95 / 2002 Coll. [sp. zn.
18. According to Article 49 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act, the Constitutional Court and the Ministry of Justice have addressed it and have given it the opportunity to comment on the proposal.
19. In his statement of 12 April 2006, the Minister of Justice JUDr. Pavel Germany stated that he was not generally in favour of freezing or withdrawing the salaries of judges and other formalities connected with the performance of the judicial function. He stated that the salary base, and thus the salary of the judge, could, albeit in theory, fall under previous legislation, for example as a result of the amendment of the Government Decree implementing Act No. 143 / 1992 Coll., as amended, setting the rates and amount of the personal surcharge for employees in public services and administration. According to the current legislation, a decline may occur if the average nominal monthly salary of natural persons in the non-business sector were to fall, i.e. without any change in the law governing the rights of judges governed by Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., as amended.
20. The Minister of Justice pointed out that it is up to the Constitutional Court to assess whether or not legislative power is entitled in relation to the development of the state of public budgets in the Czech Republic and the development of income relations by law to limit, for a certain period of time, the increase in salaries for a particular group of persons, without any undue restriction on the principle of their independence for judges. However, he refused as an unacceptable view that the degree of independence of the judge, regardless of any objective circumstances, was directly dependent on the level of material security.
21. In conclusion, he recalled that, on the basis of the findings of the Constitutional Court published under No 354 - 356 / 2005 Coll., additional salary for the first and 2nd half of 2003 and the first half of 2004 and additional salary for the second half of 2004 were paid to the judges. With effect from 1 January 2005, on the basis of Act No. 626 / 2004 Coll., on the amendment of certain laws following the implementation of the reform of public finances in the field of remuneration, there was, inter alia, an increase in the salaries of judges when the salary coefficients to which earlier salaries were reflected were increased and an increase in the salary base. In this situation, the Minister of Justice found it unconstructive to return to the discussions on the rights of judges from 2003 and 2004 when the situation was stabilised as of 1 January 2005.
22. The Ministry of Justice also provided the Constitutional Court with information on the total annual income of the judge, including the multiple-purpose flat-rate compensation and other compensation, on the application under Paragraph 48 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, with the duration of the practice from the beginning of the sixth year of the beginning of the beginning of the year of the beginning of the period of the beginning of the 30 year of the period from 2001 to 2006 (extrapolation until the end of 2006):
| 2001 | 2002** | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| celkový roční příjem včetně paušální náhrady výdajů | ||||||
| OS 6* | 572 200 | 626 800 | 636 000 | 636 000 | 645 600 | 682 800 |
| 30* | 841 000 | 922 000 | 935 600 | 935 600 | 948 000 | 1 002 000 |
| KS 6* | 618 400 | 679 000 | 689 200 | 689 200 | 693 600 | 733 200 |
| 30* | 929 200 | 1 018 600 | 1 033 600 | 1 033 600 | 1 044 000 | 1 104 000 |
| VS 6* | 660 400 | 723 400 | 734 000 | 734 000 | 7 41 600 | 784 800 |
| 30* | 102 3000 | 1 120 800 | 1 137 200 | 1 137 200 | 1 147 200 | 1 213 200 |
| NS | 102 3000 | 1 120 800 | 1 137 200 | 1 137 200 | 1 147 200 | 1 213 200 |
| z toho paušální náhrada výdajů činí | ||||||
| 27 600 | 30 600 | 31 200 | 31 200 | 33 600 | 36 000 | |
* Judge with length of practice from 6th or 30th year, respectively.
* * from January 1 to February 28, 2002, pay base for 2001 of CZK 41 780
from 1 March to 31 December 2002, a salary base of CZK 46440 (Government Decree No. 67 / 2002 Coll., amending Government Decree No. 253 / 1992 Coll., on the pay ratios of employees of public authorities, certain other institutions and municipalities, as amended)
23. The Municipal Court in Brno by mouth of its Vice-President JUDr. O. K. to the application under Article 48 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act provided the Constitutional Court with information on the total annual salary and the amount of compensation of the Court of Justice in Brno with the length of experience since the beginning of the 6th year of the counting period between 2001 and 2006 (extrapolation until the end of 2006), and the additional payments - as a result of previous findings of the Constitutional Court - are included in the years 2001 to 2004 for which they were originally withdrawn; data comparable to that of the Ministry of Justice are highlighted in bold:
| rok | plat (včetně dalších platů) | náhrady výdajů | celkem |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 544 600 Kč | 27 600 Kč | 572 200 Kč |
| 2002 | 596 200 Kč | 30 600 Kč | 626 800 Kč |
| 2003 | 604 800 Kč | 31 200 Kč | 636 000 Kč |
| 2004 | 604 800 Kč | 31 200 Kč | 636 000 Kč |
| 2005 | 612 000 Kč | 33 600 Kč | 645 600 Kč |
| 2006 | 646 800 Kč | 36 000 Kč | 682 800 Kč |
24. In view of the fact that the requested information from the Minister of Justice and the President of the Municipal Court in Brno on the development of the salaries of judges in 2001 - 2006 is part of the evidence in the present case, both observations were sent to the appellants and parties, together with a request to give their consent to the termination of the oral procedure.
25. Both the author and the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic have given their assent to the abandonment of oral proceedings under Paragraph 44 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court. The President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has not responded within the prescribed time limit to the request of the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic to agree to the termination of oral proceedings, thus expressing his agreement to the abandonment of oral proceedings under Paragraph 101 (4) of the Civil Code in conjunction with Sections 44 (2) and 63 of the Constitutional Court Act in silence.
Dedication of the contested provisions of the law and their legislative history
26. Under point I of the petition, the appellant seeks the annulment of the provisions of § 1 (h) of the Act on Exceptional Payment Measures for 2003 No. 425 / 2002 Coll. and § 3 of this Act, as regards the judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court [§ 1 (h) of Act No. 425 / 2002 Coll.], which reads:
For determining the salary and certain reimbursement of expenditure relating to the performance of the duties
...
(h) Judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court,
...
a salary base of 31 December 2002 shall apply in 2003. As a result of the change in the rules governing the remuneration tariffs and the personal surcharge applied to ministerial staff with effect after 31 December 2002, the salary base shall not be increased in that year.
...
Paragraph 3 (3) of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., on the salary and other formalities relating to the performance of the duties of representatives of State authority and of certain state bodies and judges, and Paragraph 3 (3) of Act No. 201 / 1997 Coll., on the salary and certain other formalities of the prosecutors and on the amendment and addition of Act No. 143 / 1992 Coll., on the salary and remuneration of the on-call for duty in the budget and in certain other organisations and bodies, as amended, shall not apply from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2003. '
27. According to the explanatory memorandum to the government bill, which was finally approved and published under No. 425 / 2002 Coll. (www.psp.cz), Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll. did not prove the method of automatic increase in the salary base, as it leads in its development to break the percentage increase in employees' salaries and salaries of the above mentioned persons and to a faster increase in reimbursement of expenditure than would correspond to consumer price developments and overall inflation. In addition, in the context of the economic situation resulting from the floods in August of this year, the government believes that it is necessary to postpone the implementation for the second time of the new 16-year pay system for public service employees and administrations and to increase their level of pay to a much lower extent than originally foreseen in the 2003 budget proposal. Even this minimum increase would be reflected in a disproportionately high increase in salaries and some of the compensation granted to representatives of state power, certain state bodies, judges and prosecutors, while maintaining the current method of setting the salary base, which cannot be considered correct or fair at the level of income achieved by these persons. Zdeněk Škromach, Deputy Propostor, Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, stated on 13 September 2002 when discussing the bill in the Chamber of Deputies, that this bill will freeze the level of the salaries of Members, Senators, Members of the Government, Judges, prosecutors and others at the level reached in 2002, thus avoiding further diverging from the level of the public service and administration salaries, until the new method of determining the level of the salary base, which will slow the development of the salaries of representatives of state power and of certain other persons from 2004 onwards and adapt the development of the salaries financed from public resources. Nothing else from Members has been heard or proposed during this bill in the Chamber of Deputies. The Senate did not deal with the bill.
28. Under point II of the petition, the appellant seeks the annulment of the provisions of § 1 (i) of the Act on Exceptional Payment Measures for 2004 No 427 / 2003 Coll. and of the provisions of § 3 and 4 of that Act, in so far as they concern the judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court [§ 1 (i) of Act No 427 / 2003 Coll.]. At the time of the submission of the proposal, the original text of Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll. was affected by several amendments; The President I points 1, 2, 4 and 6 of Act No. 626 / 2004 Coll., on the amendment of certain laws following the implementation of the reform of public finances in the field of remuneration (which are themselves the subject of the proposal under point IV of the petition), so they are worded (in brackets the text of the provision in the version before the amendment made by Act No. 626 / 2004 Coll.):
AMOUNT OF THE 2004 PAYMENT BASIS AND THE OTHER PAYMENT FOR THE FIRST SECOND OF 2004
(AMOUNT OF PAYMENT BASIS FOR 2004, 2005 AND 2006 AND OTHER PAYMENTS FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND MONTHS 2004, 2005 AND 2006)
For determining the salary and certain reimbursement of expenditure relating to the performance of the duties
...
(i) Judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court,
...
in 2004, a salary base of the amount achieved under the Special Legislation (1) shall be applied at 31 December 2003.
(to be used in 2004, 2005 and 2006, a salary base of the amount achieved under the special legislature1) as at 31 December 2003.)
...
Paragraph 3 (3) to (5) of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., on the salary and other formalities associated with the performance of the duties of representatives of State authority and of certain state authorities and judges, as amended by Act No. 309 / 2002 Coll., and the provisions of § 3 (3) to (5) of Act No. 201 / 1997 Coll., on the salary and other formalities of the prosecutors, and on the amendment and addition of Act No. 143 / 1992 Coll., on the salary and remuneration of the on-call for duty in the budget and in certain other organisations and bodies, as amended, as amended by Act No. 309 / 2002 Coll., shall not apply between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2004 (until 31 December 2006).
Amendment of the Salary Act and other formalities relating to the performance of the duties of representatives of State authority and of certain state bodies and judges
In Article 3 (4) of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., on the salary and other formalities relating to the performance of the duties of representatives of State authority and of certain state authorities and judges, as amended by Act No. 309 / 2002 Coll., "2004 'is replaced by" 2007', "2003 'is replaced by" 2006', "2001 'is replaced by" 2004' and "2002 'is replaced by" 2005'.
1) Act No 425 / 2002 Coll., laying down exceptional measures for 2003 to determine the amount of the salary and certain reimbursement of expenses associated with the performance of the duties of representatives of the State and of certain state authorities, judges and prosecutors, and fixing the level of additional salaries for those persons for the first and second half of 2003. '
29. Under point III of the petition, the appellant seeks the annulment of the provisions of Part Thirty-Third Article XXXIII of Act No. 309 / 2002 Coll., as regards the judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court [§ 1 (h) of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll. - Note: as in force at the time of the application, now point (g)], which reads:
Amendment of the Salary Act and other formalities relating to the performance of the duties of representatives of State authority and of certain state bodies and judges
Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., on the salary and other formalities relating to the performance of the duties of representatives of State authority and of certain state bodies and judges, as amended by Act No. 138 / 1996 Coll., Act No. 287 / 1997 Coll., Act No. 155 / 2000 Coll. and Act No. 231 / 2001 Coll., is amended as follows:
1. in Paragraph 3 (3), including footnote 1, the following shall be added:
"(3) From 1 January to 31 December of the calendar year, the salary base shall be three times the average nominal monthly salary of individuals in the non-business sphere obtained according to published data of the Czech Statistical Office for the preceding calendar year. The level of the salary base for the relevant calendar year is announced by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs in the Collection of States.1)
1) Paragraph 2 (1) (e) of Act No. 309 / 1999 Coll., on the Collection of Laws and on the Collection of International Contracts. "
2. In Article 3, paragraphs 4 and 5 are added:
"(4) From 1 January to 31 December 2004, the salary base shall be the sum of the amount of the salary base reached on 30 June 2003 and the absolute value of the annual increase in the average monthly salary of individuals in the non-business sphere recorded from the published data of the Czech Statistical Office for the years 2001 and 2002. Similarly, the salary base shall be established for each calendar year thereafter. The level of the salary base for the relevant calendar year is announced by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs in the Collection of States.1)
(5) From the calendar year in which the salary base referred to in paragraph 3 would reach at least the salary base referred to in paragraph 4, the procedure laid down in paragraph 3 shall be followed. ';
30. According to the explanatory memorandum to Part Thirty-Third (in the draft Law of the Thirty-Fifth), "the existing method of establishing a salary base for determining the level of pay and certain compensation of constitutional agents, which is the sum of the highest salary tariff and the maximum amount of the personal surcharge provided for by the special regulation for ministries' employees, is legally problematic, on the one hand, because the law derives claims from an implementing regulation issued to another law and, on the other hand, because de facto the power of executive (government) determines the rights of officials of the legislature.... It is therefore proposed to change the way the salary base is established in order to establish a stable link between constitutional salaries and wage developments in the non-business sphere. In relation to the possibilities for differentiation in employees' salaries, the salary base can be considered a reasonable relation to the average wage in the non-business sphere of three times that. However, since the current level of the salary base is higher (is 3.4 times), it is proposed that, for the coming years, the salary of constitutional officials should be based on the level of the salary base achieved, which would increase year-on-year by the same amount, increasing the average wage in the non-business sector. Since the year in which the value of three times the average wage in the non-business sector is higher than the salary base determined for the transitional period, the salary base will automatically increase annually by three times the absolute value of the annual increase in the average wage in the non-business sector. '
31. Finally, under point IV of the petition, the appellant seeks annulment of the provisions of part 1 of Article I (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) of Act No. 626 / 2004 Coll., as far as the judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court [§ 1 (i) of Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll.] is concerned:
Amendment of the Law laying down exceptional measures for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 in order to determine the amount of salary and certain reimbursement of expenses associated with the performance of the duties of representatives of the State and of certain State institutions, Members of the European Parliament, Judges and prosecutors
Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll., laying down exceptional measures for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 to determine the amount of salary and certain reimbursement of expenses associated with the performance of the duties of representatives of the State and of certain State institutions, Members of the European Parliament, Judges and prosecutors, the amount of other salaries of such persons for the first and second half of 2004, and amending certain related laws, as amended by Act No. 359 / 2004 Coll., is hereby amended as follows:
1. In the title of the Act, the words "years 2004, 2005 and 2006 'are replaced by the words" years 2004' and the words "additional salaries of such persons for the first and second half of 2004, 2005 and 2006 'are replaced by the words" additional salaries of such persons for the first half of 2004'.
2. In the heading of Part One, the words "years 2004, 2005 and 2006 'are replaced by the words" year 2004' and the words "additional salaries for the first and second half of 2004, 2005 and 2006 'are replaced by the words" additional salary for the first half of 2004'.
4. In Section 1, "2004, 2005 and 2006 'is replaced by" 2004'.
5. In Section 2, the words "and the second half of 2004, 2005 and 2006 'are replaced by the words" half of 2004'.
6. In Article 3, "2006" is replaced by "2004." '
32. According to the explanatory memorandum to the Government Bill, which was finally adopted and published under No. 626 / 2004 Coll., the purpose of this regulation is to abolish the so-called additional salary and all forms of public finances from 2005 and to compensate for its cancellation with effect from 1 January 2005 in the form of an increase in monthly wage charges to an average of one twelfth of one additional salary which would otherwise be granted in 2005. A similar procedure has been proposed for representatives of state power, certain state bodies, judges and prosecutors.
Constitutional conformity of the legislative process
33. According to Article 68 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court is to determine, in addition to assessing the compliance of the contested law with the constitutional laws, whether it has been adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down in competence and in a constitutional manner.
34. Given that the appellant did not object to a defect in the legislative process or to a breach of the legislature's constitutional competence, it is not necessary to examine this issue further in the light of the principles of procedural economics, and it is sufficient to formally verify the conduct of the legislative process from a publicly available information source at www.psp.cz.
35. The Constitutional Court found out from it that, after the Senate returned it to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments, Resolution 1395 at the 38th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies on 26 November 2004, as approved by the Chamber of Deputies, was approved by the Senate, when out of 187 Members present it voted in favour of Amendment 109, against 57. The law was signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and was declared in the amount of 212 Collection of Laws which was distributed on 10 December 2004 under the number 626 / 2004 Coll.
36. The bill, which was later published under No. 309 / 2002 Coll. (House Press 794 of the Chamber of Deputies 1998- 2002), was approved by Resolution 2318 at the 51st session of the Chamber of Deputies on 13 June 2002, as approved by the Senate, when out of 171 Members present voted in favour of the Bill 95, against 52. The law was signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and was declared in the amount of 114 Collection of Laws which was circulated on 12 July 2002 under the number 309 / 2002 Coll.
37. The Constitutional Court notes that Law No 626 / 2004 Coll. and 309 / 2002 Coll. were adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down by competence and in a constitutionally prescribed manner, or that it did not find anything in this procedure that would prove otherwise.
38. The Constitutional Conformation of the Legislative Proceedings of the Parties to Act No. 425 / 2002 Coll. was already established by the Constitutional Court in proceedings under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 34 / 04 and concluded that this Law was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution established competence and in a constitutional manner (the finding of sp. zn. ÚS 34 / 04 of 14 July 2005). The Constitutional Court has already ascertained the constitutional conformity of the legislative process of the parties to Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll. in proceedings under sp. zn. The Constitutional Court refers briefly to both findings.
Evaluation of the Constitutional Court
39. The appellant concluded that the contested legal provisions constitute, in short, a restriction on the salaries of judges, in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 (1) of the Constitution, according to which the Czech Republic is a sovereign, united and democratic rule of law based on respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, in conjunction with Article 82 (1) of the Constitution, according to which judges are independent in the performance of their duties and their impartiality must not be jeopardised and Article 1 of the Charter, which provides that people are free and equal in dignity and in law, and that fundamental rights and freedoms are inalienable, inalienable, immeasurable and unbiased. In the view of the Constitutional Court, although the provision of Article 1 of the Charter is not likely to apply to the case in question, the reasoning of the proposal would correspond rather to a reference to an infringement of Article 2 (1) of the Constitution, in which the principle of the division of state power into legislative, executive and judicial powers is reflected, but that is not relevant for the assessment of the proposal, given the binding nature of the Constitutional Court, and not its justification.
40. The Constitutional Court has dealt with the issue of pay restrictions against judges several times in its decisions. The Constitutional Court is now faced with this problem again, so it is appropriate to briefly mention the existing precedents.
Relevant case law of the Constitutional Court
41. In the derogatory finding sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 13 / 99 of 15 September 1999 (Reports of Decisions, Volume 15, Found No. 125, published under No. 233 / 1999 Coll.) The Constitutional Court, on a proposal from the District Court for Prague 4, annulled part of the provision of Section 1 of Act No. 268 / 1998 Coll., on the withdrawal of another salary for the second half of 1998 to representatives of the State Government and of certain state bodies, judges, prosecutors and members of the Securities Commission Presidium, namely the provision governing the withdrawal of another salary for judges for the second half of 1998. The underlying reason for the finding was the principle of judicial independence, in which the court also drew "material aspects." Another argument was the difference between the constitutional status of judges, on the one hand, and legislative and executive officials, in particular government, on the other.
42. Findings of 3 July 2000 sp. zn. The Constitutional Court rejected the motion by the Municipal Court in Brno to abolish part of the provisions of § 4a of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll., as amended by Act No. 287 / 1997 Coll., governing the withdrawal of additional salary from judges for the second half of 1997. Even in this finding, he stressed that judicial independence is one of the fundamental democratic values, which is undoubtedly supported by the material security of judges. In doing so, he considered it essential that other authorities of State power should not interfere in the salaries of judges, in any form, arbitrarily and repeatedly. However, for a decision-making case, the legislator's intervention did not show the characteristics of arbitrarily, according to the Constitutional Court.
43. On the same day, i.e. 3 July 2000, the Constitutional Court also rejected the proposal of the District Court in Hradec Králové to abolish part of the provisions of Section 1 of Act No. 308 / 1999 Coll., to withdraw another salary for the second half of 1999 and for the second half of 2000 to representatives of the State Government and certain state bodies, judges, prosecutors and members of the Commission's Securities Presidium for the second half of 1999 and 2000. In doing so, it did not change the underlying basis for assessing the problem.
44. On 11 June 2003, the Constitutional Court, acting on a proposal from the Municipal Court in Brno, found in sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 11 / 02 (see above), annulled part of the provisions of Section 1 of Act No. 416 / 2001 Coll., on the withdrawal of another salary for the second half of 2001 and the fixing of additional salaries for the first and second half of 2002 by representatives of the Ombudsman and members of the Banking Board of the Czech National Bank, providing for the withdrawal of another salary for the second half of 2001 and reducing the additional salary for the first and second half of 2002 to the amount to which they would otherwise be entitled.
45. In the opinion of the Constitutional Court, the legislative amendment under review relating to the pay ratios of judges exceeded the constitutional limits for the acceptance of the "exceptional" act by which a further salary was withdrawn from the judges as defined in the previous decisions. He also stated that, if, in very exceptional circumstances, the principle of equality in the field of restrictions on the remuneration of civil servants, constitutional officials and judges is to be accentuated before the principle of comprehensively understood independence of judges, the session of both principles is not generally valid as once and for all and under all circumstances. On the contrary, the pay ratios of judges in a broad sense are to be stable, not a variable with which it calculates this or that of the government group, for example, because it appears that the fees of judges are too high compared to those of civil servants or to another professional group. In other words, if it is possible to accept the application of the principle of equality at the top of that sense as regards the exceptional economically justified reduction of all salaries, the equality of all top of those groups (even as a target category) as regards the final level of pay cannot be accepted. Efforts for such equality deviates from the category of constitutionality, a political objective that does not support the constitutionally understood principle of equality. This principle finds, in the material sense, its boundaries in a statement that "the same must not be treated inequally, but at the same time the same must not be treated differently." The principle of equality cannot be understood as a nivulation in the result, but must be interpreted as guaranteeing the same starting chances. However, according to the opinion of the Constitutional Court in § 1 of Act No. 416 / 2001 Coll. he clearly failed to respect the principle of equality. The Constitutional Court found in sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 11 / 02 formulated a generalized maximum, according to which the principle of equality in the field of restrictions on the remuneration of civil servants, constitutional officials and judges can be accentuated before the principle of comprehensively understood independence of judges under very exceptional circumstances, thereby defining the scope of constitutional conformity of pay restrictions against judges. In this context, the Constitutional Court considers it necessary to emphasise that the reasoning of the finding, sp. zn.
46. Finally, on 14 July 2005, the Constitutional Court adopted three findings on the issue of the withdrawal of the so-called additional salary to judges. By finding sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 9 / 05 (see above), the Constitutional Court, acting on a proposal from the Municipal Court in Brno, annulled the provision of § 1 (h) of Act No. 590 / 2004 Coll., on the withdrawal of another salary for the second half of 2004 to representatives of state power and certain state bodies, judges, prosecutors and Members of the European Parliament, elected in the Czech Republic, i.e. the provision that the withdrawal of another salary for the second half of 2004 applied to judges.
47. The finding of the same day sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 34 / 04 (see above) by the Constitutional Court on a proposal from the Municipal Court in Brno repealed the provision of § 2 of Act No. 425 / 2002 Coll., as regards the judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court [§ 1 (h) of Act No. 425 / 2002 Coll.], that is to say, the provision which laid down an exceptional measure for 2003 in determining the amount of the salary and some compensation of the expenses associated with the performance of the functions of the representatives of the State Government and of certain state authorities, judges and state representatives, and which laid down additional salaries for the first and second half of 2003.
48. The third finding of the same date sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 43 / 04 (see above) by the Constitutional Court on a proposal from the Municipal Court in Brno annulled the provisions of § 2 of Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll., as amended by Act No. 626 / 2004 Coll., as regards the judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court [§ 1 (i) of Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll., as amended by Act No. 626 / 2004 Coll.], i.e. the provision which laid down an exceptional measure for 2004 to determine the amount of the salary and some compensation of expenses associated with the function of representatives of state authorities, judges and civil servants and the amount of the additional salary for the first half of 2004.
49. In the last three cited findings, the Constitutional Court, having regard to the existing case law and comparative analysis, has formulated the following fundamental generalising arguments:
• the assessment of the constitutionality of pay restrictions against judges for a specific period of a particular year falls within the framework of the principle of judicial independence;
• the constitutional position of judges, on the one hand, and the representatives of the legislative and executive powers, in particular the administration of the state, on the other hand, is different due to the principle of the division of power and the principle of the independence of judges, which implies a different layout for legislators to pay restrictions on judges compared to those of such restrictions in other areas of the public sphere;
• intervention in the material security of judges guaranteed by the law must not be an expression of the legislature's indiscretions, but must be justified, based on the principle of proportionality, by exceptional circumstances, such as the difficult financial situation of the State, while taking into account, even if this condition is met, the differences in the function of judges and officials of the legislature and executive, in particular the state administration; Such intervention must not give cause for concern if the restriction of the dignity of the judges does not affect [see Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (94) 12 of 13 October 1994], or if it is not an expression of constitutionally unacceptable pressure of legislative and judicial power.
50. It is also appropriate to repeat the basic arguments that led the Constitutional Court to formulate these problems. The Constitutional Court is based on the premise that the principle of an independent judiciary is one of the essential elements of the democratic rule of law (Article 9 (2) of the Constitution). The requirement of independent justice stems from two sources: the neutrality of judges as a guarantee of fair, impartial and objective judicial proceedings and the safeguarding of the rights and freedoms of individuals by a judge "separated" from political power. The independence of judges is guaranteed by guarantees of a special legal status (which must include inconsistencies, irrevocability, integrity), guarantees of organisational and functional independence from the bodies representing legislative and, in particular, executive powers, and separation of the judiciary from legislative and executive powers (in particular, application of the principle of incompatibility). From the point of view of content, judicial independence is ensured only by the binding of judges by law, i.e. excluding any elements of subordination in judicial decision-making.
51. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly stated that the legislator's intervention in the area of material protection of judges (in other words, pay restrictions) must be placed under the framework protected by the principle of independence for two reasons. The independence of judges is primarily conditional on their moral integrity and professional level, but is also linked to their adequate material collateral. This component of the principle of independence of judges was also enshrined in the recommendation of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (94) 12 of 13 October 1994 on the independence, effectiveness and role of judges, according to which the "proper working conditions' of judges include" ensuring the adequacy of the position and remuneration of judges with regard to the dignity of their profession and the workload '(Principle III, paragraph 1b). A similar maximum is also contained in Article 6.1 of the European Charter on the Statute of a Judge, adopted by participants in a multilateral meeting organised by the Council of Europe on 8 to 10 July 1998, according to which professional judges have the right to a salary to be set in such a way as to protect them from pressure to influence their decisions and, in general, to influence their conduct in finding a right which could jeopardise their independence and impartiality. The second reason for subjecting the prohibition of arbitrary interference in the material security of judges (pay restrictions) to the principle of their independence is to exclude the possibility, possibly oppression of legislative or executive decision-making powers. In other words, to exclude arbitrary interference in the material security of judges as a possible form of "penalisation" of judges by legislation and executive, and thus a form of pressure on their decisions.
Self-assessment of the constitutionality of the contested provisions of the law
52. As is clear from the recap of the previous case-law of the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court has so far dealt with cases in which judges, together with other representatives of state power, were once removed or reduced by the so-called additional salary, which by the end of 2004 constituted one of the demanding components of the remuneration of a representative of state authority for the performance of his duties. As a result of these interventions, the total annual total salary of the judge has been reduced repeatedly, "extraordinarily 'and, at the same time, between 1997 and 2004. The judges have been removed or one of the components of their claim remuneration reduced without compensating for this reduction by an increase in another claim component. Such wage restrictions, except for two exceptions, were found by the Constitutional Court to be unconstitutional, as was recap above.
53. In the present case, however, the Constitutional Court is confronted at first sight with a different situation. It is not a reduction or withdrawal of an additional salary or other claim component of a judge's remuneration for the performance of his duties, as in previous cases, but a measure which reduced the rate of increase in the salary of judges in 2003 and 2004 (in other words, the salaries were frozen). The Constitutional Court must therefore first of all answer the question whether, in the present case, it is possible at all to talk about wage restrictions against judges in the sense of the existing findings.
54. The structure of the remuneration of representatives of state power, including judges in the Law on the salary of representatives of state power, is quite complicated. The regular income of the judge shall consist of a monthly salary, and by the end of 2004 the judges received two additional salaries equivalent to the monthly salary paid in the first and second half of the calendar year. In addition to the fees, the Judge shall receive a flat-rate multipurpose reimbursement per month. Although it does not have the character of remuneration for the performance of its duties, it will be considered by the Constitutional Court for the purpose of quantifying the material security of judges as part of the regular income of the judge for its regularity, non-accounting and cash form. This does not, of course, apply to the kind of performance and reimbursement of proven expenses which do not have the character of remuneration for the performance of the duties, are not quantifiable by the amount of money or are provided on an irregular basis and against billing.
55. In order to determine the impact of the contested legal provisions on the material security of judges, it is necessary to base the total of the regular revenue of judges in a calendar year; the monthly income cannot be compared, in view of the existence of additional salaries paid only in certain months of the year, and the economic, budgetary and tax system is naturally built on the calendar year cycle. The quantification of the material security of judges in the form of a sum of their income in a calendar year is therefore a fundamental criterion for the Constitutional Court to determine whether or not a salary restriction has taken place as a result of the measure in the area of the remuneration of judges. A measure whereby the judge is withdrawn or reduced by a claim component of remuneration (e.g. additional salary) should be regarded as a salary restriction, in line with the findings of the Constitutional Court so far, without such withdrawal or reduction being compensated by an increase in another claim component of remuneration. However, the freeze of the legally foreseen increase in the income of judges or other constitutional officials should also be seen as another form of pay restriction, for example, the "permanent" freeze of the salaries of some representatives of the State would undoubtedly be regarded by the Constitutional Court as a step constitutionally inadmissible.
56. The evidence showed that the income of the judge did not decrease between 2001 and 2006. On the contrary, the judge's annual income grew, even in 2003 compared to 2002, although the judge's income for 2003 was influenced by the Act on the exceptional payment measure for 2003, the constitutionality of which the petitioner under point I challenged the petition. As a result of the adoption of the Act on an exceptional payment measure for 2004, which was contested under point II of the petition, the revenue of the judge did not increase in 2004 compared to 2003, but did not fall, which is decisive in view of the Constitutional Court's findings. At the same time, it is clear that the contested legal provisions did not affect one of the claim components of the remuneration, namely the monthly salary, the additional salary or the multipurpose flat-rate compensation in a given calendar year compared to the current situation, without compensating for such a reduction by increasing the other claim component of the remuneration.
57. The Constitutional Court recalls at this point that the tenor of existing precedents is the theory (principle) that the pay ratios of judges in a broad sense are to be a stable, non-diminishing quantity, unless there are exceptional, exceptional circumstances of the State. However, it is not possible from the present case-law of the Constitutional Court to establish a permanent and unquestionable claim to the annual increase in the salaries of judges.
58. The Constitutional Court therefore concludes that the legal provisions contested under points I and II do not constitute a salary restriction contrary to Article 1 (1) (democratic rule of law), Article 2 (1) (principle of division of state authority) and Article 82 (1) (principle of independence of judicial authority) of the Constitution, as the increase in the salaries of judges has been halted for only one year. However, the Constitutional Court did not agree with all the reasons which led the legislative and executive powers to adopt the contested legal provisions, in particular the argument that the "further departure 'of the level of the judicial pay from the level of the public service and administration employees was" further removed'. This argument will not stand, even compared to other advanced democratic states.
59. In the line of findings to date, the Constitutional Court considers it necessary to express its deep conviction that the practice of "extraordinary 'is not in progress, and that it has been with the judges for eight years (1997 to 2004). The Constitutional Court is repeatedly confronted, a past that will never return. Although, in the present case, the Constitutional Court did not find that, as a result of the contested legal provisions, the material security of judges had been reduced compared to the present situation, it is clear that the continuous changes in the rules on the remuneration of judges did not contribute to the desirable stabilisation of the judiciary. Once again, the Constitutional Court points out at this point that adequate material provision of judges is one of the important conditions of their independence and that the constitutional position of judges on the one hand and the representatives of the legislative and executive authorities, in particular the state administration, on the other hand, is different in view of the principle of division of power and the principle of independence of judges, which implies a limited margin for the legislators on the remuneration of judges. As such, and in view of the unprecedented experience of previous years, the Constitutional Court considers that progress in the remuneration of judges and other representatives of state power is undeniable by the removal of so-called additional salaries and their" dissolution "into monthly salaries, without the measure reducing the judge's overall income between years. A significant element of the guarantee of adequate material security for judges in terms of the principle of the division of state power into legislative, executive and judicial powers and the requirement of their mutual balance should also be regarded as a direct link between the salary of legislative and executive officials on the one hand and the salary of judges on the other hand. The construction of the Law on the salary of representatives of state power, which, with the help of the uniform salary base and the legal coefficients laid down by law, guarantees that, together with the increase in the salaries of officials of legislative and executive powers, the salary of judges will automatically increase in the same proportion, thus constitutes an important, incorporated insurance in the legal order, that the ratio in the material security of officials of individual powers will be maintained in the future.
60. The Constitutional Court concludes that it did not find the grounds for the annulment of the provisions of § 1 (h) of Act No. 425 / 2002 Coll. and § 3 of Act No. 425 / 2002 Coll., and of the Law No. 425 / 2002 Coll., as far as the Court of First Instance, and § 1 (i) of Law No. 427 / 2003 Coll. and § 3 and 4 of the Law No. 427 / 2003 Coll., as regards the Court of First Instance, the Court of First Instance and the Supreme Administrative Court of First Instance [§ 1 (i) of Law No. 427 / 2003 Coll.], which are contested under Section 70 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, therefore rejected. For the same reason, it also rejects the application for annulment of the provisions of Part Thirty-third Article XXXIII of Act No. 309 / 2002 Coll., as regards the Judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court [§ 1 (h) of Act No. 236 / 1995 Coll. - Note: as in force at the time of the application, now point (g)], contested under point III of the petition, and the application for annulment of the provisions of Part One of Article I (1) (1) (2), (4) and (6) of Act No. 626 / 2004 Coll., in so far as these proposals are indivisibly related to the applications under points I and II of the Petito the Supreme Court of Law No 427 / 2003 (i) of the Law No. 427 / 2003 Coll.], appealed under point IV of petit, since these proposals are inseparably related to the application.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v. r.
Contents
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No 65 / 2007 Coll., on the application for annulment of certain provisions of Act No. 425 / 2002 Coll., on certain provisions of Act No. 427 / 2003 Coll., on certain provisions of Act No. 309 / 2002 Coll. and on certain provisions of Act No. 626 / 2004 Coll., as far as they concern the judge of the District, Regional and Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 30.03.2007 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0