The Constitutional Court found no 95 / 2002 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 12 February 2002 in the case of the application for annulment of Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll., amending Act No. 1 / 1992 Coll., on Wage, Remuneration for Employment and on Average Earnings, as amended, Act No. 143 / 1992 Coll., on Salary and Remuneration for Employment in Budget and in Certain Other Organisations and Bodies, as amended, Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll., on the State Budget of the Czech Republic for 1993, on Amendment and Addition to Certain Laws of the Czech National Council and certain other Regulations, as amended by Act No. 1 / 1992 Coll.
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
11.03.2002
95
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic
On 12 February 2002, the Constitutional Court decided in plenary on the proposal of a group of Senators to repeal "Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll., its parts or amendments in Act No. 1 / 1992 Coll. and No. 143 / 1992 Coll. ',
as follows:
Motion denied.
Reasons
A. The proposal in question first of all concerns Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll., amending Act No. 1 / 1992 Coll., on Wages, Remuneration for Employment and on Average Earnings, as amended, Act No. 143 / 1992 Coll., on Salary and Remuneration for Employment in Budget and in Certain Other Organisations and Authorities, as amended, Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll., on the State Budget of the Czech Republic for 1993, on the amendment and addition of certain Acts of the Czech National Council and of certain other Regulations, as amended, and Act No. 132 / 2000 Coll., on the amendment and repeal of certain laws related to the County Act, the Act on Municipality, the Act on District Offices and the Law on the Capital of Prague. The reason for the motion is the fact that this law (or at least part of it) was not adopted formally in accordance with the correct procedure laid down in the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution).
The appellants first refer to the provisions of § 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, according to which the review of the constitutionality of the contested law can be divided into an assessment (I.) of its content in accordance with the constitutional laws and international treaties pursuant to Article 10 of the Constitution and (II) of the Constitution. The appellants point out that, by their submission, they do not intend to question the content of the contested law's compliance with the laws and regulations, but only by means of its approval, which they consider to be unconstitutional.
The anti-constitutional nature of the process of adopting the law in question is seen by the appellants in the fact that the Senate has been removed from the opportunity to discuss the draft law properly and in accordance with the Constitution and to act on it. Article 42 (2) The draft State Budget Act is being debated by the Constitution and only by the Chamber of Deputies. The Senate cannot therefore participate in the legislative process in this case. The same rule also applies to the amendment of the State Budget Act (argument and maiori ad minus).
In the present case, the Senate also received a proposal to amend part of the State Budget Act as part of the contested Act. In this situation, it could, in principle, act in a threefold manner:
- Do not deal with this proposal at all within 30 days. Although this would seem to be the least controversial procedure (and therefore the Senate also chose it in the case of Act No. 362 / 1999 Coll., on the state bond programme to cover the state budget deficit for 1998 and on the amendment of Act No. 530 / 1990 Coll., on bonds, as amended, and Act No. 22 / 1999 Coll., on the state budget of the Czech Republic for 1999), it would nevertheless lead to the creation of a kind of future constitutional practice (precedent) where the Senate would "exclude" the Senate from the game "as part of the legislative process.
The Senate will not deal with the bill in question. However, it should be noted that in the committee responsible pursuant to the provisions of § 102 (1) of Act No. 107 / 1999 Coll., on the Rules of Procedure of the Senate, a vote will be taken on this issue 'after a detailed debate'. The term "detailed debate in committee 'could be understood as" discussion' under Article 42 (2) of the Constitution, which only grants this right to the Chamber of Deputies in the case of the State Budget Act. The appellants therefore consider that, even if the Senate had decided not to deal with the draft law at all, it would have committed an unconstitutional error in relation to the amendment to the State Budget Act, since it would have been decided or even discussed by the Senate, although Article 42 (2) The Constitution provides that the draft State Budget Act is to be decided and only the Chamber of Deputies is to discuss these proposals. In this case, there could also be a risk of the "elimination of the Senate" in the legislative process as set out in the previous paragraph.
- To refer to the matter in such a way that it is only a single law formally, but not in fact, and that it is therefore possible to separate the consideration of the various parts of the law submitted in the sense that the Senate would discuss the whole of the proposal, with the exception of the part concerning the State Budget Act. In the appellants' view, this variant is only theoretical, since even when several laws are amended simultaneously, the strict sense is a single law and neither the Constitution nor the Senate Rules of Procedure (cf. § 98 et seq.) give room for the said "division" of the draft law.
Finally, the Senate, taking into account the need to express itself in particular on the Wage Act, has discussed the law and returned it to the Chamber of Deputies as amended.
The appellants consider that the situation created in the negotiation of the contested law is not unique and, even in this respect, they see its gravity and its genuine constitutional intensity. Already in the case of Act No 362 / 1999 Coll. the Chamber of Deputies gave its consent to the Act, which included, in addition to the Act on the State Bond Programme and amendments to the Act on Bonds and the amendment to the Act on the State Budget. In the case of the 1998 government bond deficit bill, the Senate opted not to deal with the proposal at all, as it was clear in the debate that the Senators feared to deliberately violate the Constitution in their practice and also did not want to impose an option to challenge the law - with which almost everyone identified - before the Constitutional Court. The Senate therefore adopted "only 'resolution (No 217 of the 12th meeting of 8.12.1999) in the context of the situation created, which stated that it was" prevented from discussing the draft law' and therefore opposed the procedure described. This resolution was clearly intended to prevent a repetition of a similar situation.
The appellants consider that the legislative procedure, when it is part of the State Budget Act, is still an amendment of another law (or part of the amendment of another law is also an amendment of the State Budget Act), could be described as constitutionally conformal only if the term "law" was not formally understood as a legislation jointly discussed and published under one text under a single number in the Collection of Laws, but purely as a legal rule governing a particular field of legal issues, with the fact that under one number in the Collection of Laws or within a single body designated as a law and jointly negotiated may be several laws governing a particular material. In such a case, it could be concluded that the Senate had actually discussed and, in some way, decided only on certain parts of the contested law, but not on the amendment to the State Budget Act. The term "law" under Article 41 to 48 of the Constitution would not mean one law published in the Collection of Laws under a single number and jointly negotiated, but a law within the meaning of a legal rule governing a certain range of relationships in such a way that several laws can be published under a single number. However, this method of interpretation is considered by the appellants only to be theoretical and manifestly uncorrelated with the existing constitutional and legal regulation of the legislative process, in which it is quite common that, while one law is being amended by several other laws, it is, however, formally - and thus also from the point of view of the legislative process - a single law, for example, where it is not a separate vote on individual amendments, but only on the law as a whole.
Therefore, the appellants argue that, in the case of the contested law, it is formally a single law as a whole, even though it has amended several laws at the same time, and since it also included an amendment to the State Budget Act, which is not for the Senate to decide at all, it has been adopted as a whole in an unconstitutional manner, and there is therefore a reason (even without further examination of the content of the law) to abolish it.
However, the appellants do not exclude an interpretation based on the idea that only the State Budget Act, and not other laws (or their partial amendments), has been amended in an unconstitutional manner, and that the reason for the annulment is given only for the amendment of the State Budget Act and not for the amendment of other laws.
The appellants claim that there is a repetitive drafting of laws which, within the framework of one text, regulate the amendment of the law which is subject to the examination of the Senate and the State Budget Act which is discussed exclusively by the Chamber of Deputies. The practice of the Senate has been found to be inappropriate, but the Chamber of Deputies continues to discuss the laws (on a proposal from the Government) described above. In the present situation, it is therefore necessary to assess, authoritatively - from the point of view of the constitutionality of the legislative process - whether the practice described is correct, and to state in what way the Senate is to proceed in the cases described above.
As the appellants are aware of the fact that the Constitutional Court is not empowered to give authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, they consider it necessary to address this issue in the context of the abstract control of the standards to which it is competent under Article 87 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution.
B. The unconstitutional nature of the adoption of the contested law is particularly seen by the appellants in the following directions:
- The conflict with Article 42 (2) of the Constitution. The draft State Budget Act is only entitled to discuss and approve the Chamber of Deputies, but it was also debated and approved by the Senate in the case of the contested Act, which the Constitution does not allow.
- The conflict with Article 33 (2) of the Constitution. Under that provision, the Senate is not entitled to take legal measures in matters relating to the State budget. By interpretation of this article, the appellants point out that, when the legislator does not allow legal measures to be taken even in the event of the dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies, the less we can consider approving these bills by the Senate when the Chamber of Deputies normally operates.
- The conflict with Article 1 and Article 15 (2) of the Constitution. According to Article 1 of the Constitution, the Czech Republic is a democratic rule of law. Article 15 (2) of the Constitution guarantees bicameralism. With the principles of bicameralism in the existence of the rule of law, the clear distribution of responsibilities between the two chambers of Parliament is in particular consistent. The state where the upper chamber of a particular bill must not explicitly negotiate and act in accordance with the Constitution clearly contradicts the situation which has taken place in connection with the negotiation of the contested law, when the Senate has been placed in the above-described position, that is to say either completely ignore the bill and knowingly resign its right to participate in or vote on the legislative process in the adoption of "ordinary 'laws, thereby risking the unconstitutional nature of the adoption of that law.
In view of these arguments, a group of Senators proposes that the Constitutional Court should abolish as an unconstitutional finding:
1. Whole Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll.
Since, however, the appellants are aware that every amendment to the Act ceases to exist at the moment of its entry into force, since it becomes part of the amended Act, and because the practice of the Constitutional Court is somewhat inconsistent in this respect (e.g. resolution of 7.2.1995 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 10 / 94, Collection of Finals and Order of the Constitutional Court, Volume 3, p. 324, and the finding of 17.12.1997 sp. v.
2. Paragraph 2, § 4 (4), § 4 (5), § 4 (6), § 4 (6), § 6 (1), § 7, § 8 (1), § 8 (4), § 10, § 11 (1), § 11 (2), § 11 (3), § 11 (6) "on its cargo and danger to one employee account with a bank or branch of a foreign bank or a savings or credit cooperative, § 18 (2), § 19 (2), § 11 (2), § 11 (3), § 11 (7), § 12, § 13 (3), § 14 (1) last sentence, § 14 (2), § 15" 20% of the average hourly earnings and pay. Paragraph 1, Section 2 "Staff ', Section 3 (3) and (4), Section 3 (5), Section 3 (6), Section 4, Section 5 (1)" in the organisational component of the State which is the administrative office', Section 5 (1), Section 23 (1) (b), Section 16, Section 17 (5), Section 17 (5), Section 17, Section 18, Section 19 (1), Section 20, Section 21, Section 21a, Section 22, Section 23 (1), Section 23 (1), Section 17 (5), Section 17 (6) and Section 18, Section 19, Section 19, Section 20, Section 1, Section 21, Section 21, Section 21a, Section 22, Section 23 (1), Section 23 (i), Section 23 (1), Section 23 (b), Section 17, Section 17 (2), Section 17, Section 17, Section 17, Section 7, Section 7, Section 7, Section 7, Section 18, Section 18, Section 19, Section 19, Section 19, Section 19, Section 20, Section 2, Section 20, Section 20, Section 2, Section 20, Section 20, Section 20
3. Parts of Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll., amending Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll., on the State Budget of the Czech Republic for 1993, amending and supplementing certain laws of the Czech National Council and certain other regulations, as amended.
The parties to the proceedings informed the Constitutional Court in writing that they agreed to waive the oral procedure. The Constitutional Court considered that further clarification of the case could not be expected from this hearing and therefore abandoned it (§ 44 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll.).
According to § 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., the Constitutional Court first dealt with the way in which the contested Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll. In this respect, it is clear from the report of the 24th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and from Resolution 974 of 18 April 2000 that the Chamber of Deputies, by a majority of the votes 123 to 58 against (out of a total of 182 Members present), approved the aforementioned bill (House Press No. 475). From the short-term report of the meeting of the 19th meeting of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, held on 17. - 18. 5. 2000, the Constitutional Court further found that the Senate, by Resolution 367 of 18. 5. 2000, by a majority of 39 votes in favour and 3 against (out of 65 senators present), returned the draft law in question to the Chamber of Deputies as amended by the amendments adopted. Finally, it is clear from the report of the 26th session of the Chamber of Deputies that, by Resolution 1070 of 27 June 2000, the Chamber of Deputies adopted by a majority of 113 votes in favour and 55 against (out of 183 Members present) the draft law in question, as amended by the amendments adopted by the Senate.
The Constitutional Court found that the application in question fulfilled all the legal procedural requirements and conditions and that, therefore, there was no impediment to hearing and deciding the substance of the case. Therefore, pursuant to Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the parties to the proceedings - the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic - requested comments on the proposal.
In its observations on the proposal, the Chamber of Deputies stated in particular that the contested Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll. amended the part not directly related to the state budget from Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll. and that therefore, from a point of view, the amendment of the State Budget Act had not occurred, although the Act had been amended. Since Article 42 of the Constitution refers to the "draft State Budget Act 'and not to the" amendment of the State Budget Act', the party considers that the Act in question does not fall under Article 42. Therefore, the contested law is not contrary to the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, it was duly approved by the prescribed number of Members of the Chamber of Deputies, it was signed by constitutional officials and properly published in the Collection of Laws.
On the proposal, the Senate stated that it had discussed the draft law in question on 18 May 2000, adopted some amendments to it and returned it to the Chamber of Deputies, as amended by the adopted amendments, when the 65 senators present were 39 and 3 opposed it. The Chamber of Deputies approved the bill as returned by the Senate on 27 June 2000. On the question of the constitutionality of the legislative process, the Senate noted that it was necessary to distinguish between the case where (I.) the Act also contains its own state budget adjustment (e.g. the Act on the State bond programme to cover the state budget deficit for 1998, which included the amendment of Act No. 22 / 1999 Coll., on the state budget of the Czech Republic for 1999), and the Senate would also discuss the material material of the state budget by discussing such a bill, and when (II.) the proposed legal amendment does not concern its own state budget adjustment, which is the case.
In the case under examination, the amendment of Act No 10 / 1993 Coll. did not apply to the modification of the state budget, which is only regulated in the provisions of Sections 1 to 5, but to the second part, "The adjustment of salaries and other benefits of constitutional officials and of certain staff of central government bodies and other bodies', where, following the proposed amendments to Act No 143 / 1992 Coll. also certain provisions concerning the pay requirements of a certain number of employees, which is an adjustment within the competence of the Senate, were to be abolished. It therefore prevailed in the Senate that the Senate was not in breach of Article 42 (2) of the Constitution to discuss the draft law in question. However, the Senate added that, in the future, account should be taken of the fact that the Senate is not to be decided on a state budget and that therefore the substantive arrangements of the state budget should not be linked to the legal arrangements of other material in one law.
First of all, the Constitutional Court considers it necessary to define the way and the degree of constitutional review in the case under trial. It was based on the following considerations:
1. In particular, the Constitutional Court notes that the appellants have not explicitly questioned the substantive nature of the contested law, but only the way in which it is adopted, and since the Constitutional Court is not entitled to give authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, it is necessary to interpret the question at least in the context of the standard control procedure. In these circumstances, the Constitutional Court therefore did not find any reason in this particular and very specific case to address the substance of the law cited and to focus solely on the constitutionality of its adoption, although generally, it is bound only by petit and not by the justification of the proposal for monitoring standards. In the procedure for checking the standards referred to in Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution, the assessment of the constitutionality of the contested law pursuant to Article 68 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court is divided into a content assessment of its compliance with the constitutional laws and with the international treaties referred to in Article 10 of the Constitution and of whether the contested law has been adopted and issued within the limits of the constitutional competence and the constitutionally prescribed manner.
2. The proposal (petit) is formulated in an alternative way, where the appellants - for reasons of procedural certainty - attacked in the first alternative the whole of Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll. and at the same time the various parts of the above-mentioned laws, amended by Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll. On this question, the Constitutional Court refers to its earlier legal opinion, according to which the provisions of the law amending other laws become part of these amended laws (Resolution of 15.8.2000 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 25 / 2000, Collection of finds and orders of the Constitutional Court, Volume 19, p. 271 et seq.; Similarly, the finding of 13.3.2001 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 51 / 2000, there, Volume 21, p. 369; Decree No. 128 / 2001 Coll.) and are no longer part of the legal order of the Czech Republic. That is why the Constitutional Court had to reject as unjustifiable the part of the petition which the appellants oppose to the whole amending Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll., since the provisions of this Law amending the laws of others had already ceased to be part of Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll.; only the provisions of Article V (authorisation of the Prime Minister to declare the full text of Act No. 1 / 1992 Coll. and Act No. 143 / 1992 Coll.) and Article VI (regulation of the effectiveness of the law) are of separate importance, which, however, according to the content of the proposal, are not proposed for annulment and which, having regard to its nature and nature, cannot be repealed.
Therefore, the Constitutional Court also dealt solely with the part of the proposal which goes against the individual amended provisions of the above-mentioned laws.
3. Another question which the Constitutional Court had to consider in the light of the draft was whether it was justified to address all the amended provisions of Act No. 1 / 1992 Coll., Act No. 143 / 1992 Coll. and Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll. (Note: Law No. 217 / 2000 Coll. was also amended by Act No. 132 / 2000 Coll., on the amendment and the repeal of certain laws related to the Regional Act, Act No. 143 / 1992 Coll. and Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll., however, in this case the amendment consisted solely in the derogation of Article II of Part Two, so that neither the promoters expressly propose to abolish any part of the Act), or whether it is only appropriate to pursue the amendment of Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll. In this context, it must be based on Article 42 (2) of the Constitution, according to which only the Chamber of Deputies is discussing the draft State Budget Act and the draft State Accounts at a public meeting. This in the case under appeal means, first of all, that when the Senate discussed and approved the draft Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll. and when the amendment of four laws, of which three laws (No 1 / 1992 Coll., No 143 / 1992 Coll. and No 132 / 2000 Coll.) cannot be regarded as having been directly related to the State Budget Act in the formal or at least material sense, it is not possible to state for a reason that the Senate was not authorised to co-decide on them. Such an opinion would clearly contradict the meaning and wording of Article 42 (2) of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court therefore concludes that, in the case under appeal, it is only justified to consider the proposal to repeal the amended part of Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll., and not the proposal to repeal the amended provisions of Acts No. 1 / 1992 Coll. and No. 143 / 1992 Coll. While it is undeniably correct for the appellants that Law 217 / 2000 Coll. constitutes a single law from a formal point of view (although amending several other laws), which was decided by a single vote in the Senate, it is nevertheless the task of the Constitutional Court to examine, in the present case, whether the Senate was, or was not, entitled to discuss and approve an amendment to laws other than the State Budget Act, even if it was by a single law. The answer to such a question must be positive; Otherwise, there could be a situation that the appellants also fear that the amendment of the State Budget Act associated with the amendment (or adoption) of other laws would exclude the Senate from the legislative process concerning these other laws. Such an interpretation would obviously not correspond to the meaning of Article 42 (2) of the Constitution or to the essence of bicameralism enshrined in the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and must therefore be regarded as an interpretation of the unconstitutional.
Also, the second part of the alternative petition had to be rejected by the Constitutional Court as unfounded, since the Senate was entitled to discuss and approve the amendments to the laws mentioned therein.
The Constitutional Court therefore also dealt with only that part of the submitted proposal which goes against the amendment of Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll. implemented by Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found that the interpretation of Article 42 (2) of the Constitution in relation to the case had to be dealt with in the decision-making process. It is clear that the interpretation of the quoted article is only possible and meaningful in the context of the constitutional regulation of the entire legislative process in terms of the competence of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
1. According to the Constitution, individual types of laws - from the point of view of examination - can be divided into (1) those with which both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate have to agree, either by qualified or by simple majority. This group includes constitutional laws, as well as the laws referred to in Article 40 of the Constitution, i.e. the electoral law, the law on the principles of conduct and contact between the two chambers, as well as external law and the Senate Rules of Procedure. (2) The second group of laws consists of "common laws," i.e. laws where the Senate disagrees can be bridged by a new vote of the Chamber of Deputies. A simple majority of Members are needed to approve the draft law, as amended by the amendments adopted by the Senate; An absolute majority of all Members (Article 47 of the Constitution) are required to approve the original text of the law (i.e. the text in which the proposal was referred to the Senate). In this case, therefore, the Senate has a suspensive veto against the Chamber of Deputies. (3) The third case is the draft State Budget Act (note: the same is true of the draft State Final Account, but it does not take the form of a law), which is discussed and decided only by the Chamber of Deputies (Article 42 (2) of the Constitution).
2. It is not for the Constitutional Court to assess the merits of this constitutional regulation. Article 88 (2) In fact, the Constitutional Tribunal's judges are bound by constitutional laws, so that the Constitutional Court is not entitled to review the provisions contained in the constitutional laws (possibly even disturb); his task is only - in particular cases - their interpretation. Thus, while the Constitutional Court is forced to state in the present case that the concept that the Senate is not entitled to co-decide on the draft State Budget Act is unique in terms of comparison with other democratic European states with the bicameral system, it has no choice but to respect this regulation and to evaluate existing practice in accordance with it. (The Upper House of Parliament is excluded from codecision on the draft State Budget Law only in the case of Belgium and Austria, whereas in France, Ireland, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, the upper House is involved in adopting the law of this type.)
3. The current constitutional arrangements for the approval of the State Budget Act in the Czech Republic are based on the fact that the draft law can only be submitted by the government, since the state budget is the most important instrument of state policy and thus also an expression of the government's responsibility for the administration of the state. Since the concept of the constitutional system of the Czech Republic is based, among other things, on the fact that government control belongs only to the Chamber of Deputies and not to the Senate, the legislator chose a solution whereby the approval of the State Budget Act belongs exclusively to the Chamber of Deputies (see above). The State Budget Act is therefore already adopted at the moment of its approval in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, according to the current constitutional regulation, is not intended to interfere in any way.
4. However, in the present case, one law was also amended by several laws, one of which was the State Budget Act. It should be added that this practice, when one law is amended simultaneously by several different laws, is relatively common in legislative practice. In addition, the Constitutional Court generally states that this practice is, in principle, constitutionally conformist, only if the amended laws are correlated meritantly. On the contrary, an undesirable phenomenon, which is not consistent with the meaning and principles of the legislative process, must be described as a situation where one law is amended by laws which are not directly related to each other, for example in order to speed up the legislative procedure, in the frequent form of proposed amendments. (As probably the most notable example, when the Chamber of Deputies did so, the adoption of Act No. 170 / 2001 Coll., on the Government of the Czech Republic, the Government of the Slovak Republic and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on the termination of mutual settlement in transferable rubles and the settlement of mutual liabilities and claims arising as a balance in transferable rubles for the benefit of the Federal Republic of Germany, on the amendment of Act No. 407 / 2000 Coll., on the State bond scheme for partial compensation of damage to farmers affected by drought in 2000, and on the amendment of Act No. 424 / 1991 Coll.) Such a procedure does not comply with the fundamental principles of the rule of law, which include the principle of the predictability of the law, its clarity and the principle of its internal integrity. In fact, if one law (in the formal sense) is interfered with the material governed by several other laws, and these laws are not connected in substance and in a systematic manner, there is often a very unclear legal situation that no longer respects the principle of predictability, clarity and internal inconsistencies of the law.
5. Since the Constitution, in relation to the State Budget Act, does not allow the Senate to enter into the legislative process, and this law can be negotiated and approved only by the Chamber of Deputies on a proposal from the Government, it is clear that the only possible constitutional conformity procedure is one where the law is negotiated and approved entirely separately. That is why the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies (Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll., on the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies) expressly state in Paragraph 101 (3) that "Amendments, additions or repeal of other laws cannot be part of the State Budget Act." (Note: Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll. was approved before the entry into force of Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll.) In the view of the Constitutional Court, it can be concluded from this legal basis that the amendment, amendment or repeal of the State Budget Act cannot even be part of the "ordinary 'law. The situation in which, together with the draft State Budget Act, other laws are also proposed, or one law is amended by the State Budget Act and other laws is therefore - as has already been said - a state which does not comply with the Constitution or the Act (see Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll.).
6. For the sake of completeness, the Constitutional Court states that the need for a separate hearing and decision-making of the laws for which the Constitution provides for a different legislative procedure (i.e. including constitutional laws, see point V.1) should also be taken into account by the Act on the principles of conduct and contact between chambers, as well as on the outside, provided for in Article 40 of the Constitution.
1. In the present case, the Constitutional Court notes, first of all, that, although Law No. 217 / 2000 Coll. was amended by Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll., the amendment consisted solely in the deregation of § 6 of the Act. In paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of this Law and in the repeal of paragraphs 2 and 1. In addition, Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll. is divided into two relatively separate parts, the first of which is entitled (and also edited in substance) "State Budget of the Czech Republic for 1993," whereas the second part - where Paragraph 6 applies - is entitled "Adjustments to salaries and other benefits of constitutional officials and certain staff of central government and other bodies." Other parts of Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll. already concern separate laws which are amended by this Act.
2. First of all, the Constitutional Court found that the appellants themselves had not identified any provision in Law No 10 / 1993 Coll. which they would like to abolish because of the unconstitutional procedure of its adoption or for factual reasons, even if, as is apparent from the above, they were against the changes made in that law. In this particular case, it is not possible to abolish any part of Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll. amended by Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll. because no provision of that Act was supplemented or amended by Act No. 217 / 2000 but merely repealed. However, since the Constitutional Court assesses each proposal from the point of view of its content and not just its form, it has also had to deal with the question in this particular case of the consequences of compliance with the application for annulment of Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll., as regards the amendment of Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll. In fact, the Constitutional Court is of the legal opinion that the annulment of the contested unconstitutional provision of the law does not revitalise the earlier provision which has been annulled or amended by the unconstitutional provision. The Constitutional Court acts as a so-called negative legislator in the procedure for the control of standards, which is only entitled to derogate in the event of compliance with the application. Therefore, the repeal of the contested regulation can only result in its "exclusion" from the law of the Czech Republic and not in the actual constitution of a new regulation in the form of "exploitation" of the regulation previously repealed. The opposite view could lead, according to the Constitutional Court's belief, to the emergence of considerable legal uncertainty and to the exceeding of the constitutional competences of the Constitutional Court. It can therefore be concluded that the "exploitation 'of the legislation previously repealed or amended as a result of the finding by the Constitutional Court in that sense could only occur if the constitutional provisions directly permit it (see, for example, Article 140 (6) of the Constitution of Austria).
3. The Constitutional Court therefore finds that, if, in the present situation, a provision of Law No 10 / 1993 Coll. had been approved by the Senate in a situation where the Senate had not been entitled to discuss and decide on this proposal - the Constitutional Court would also have had to reasonably come to the view that this change was not capable of causing any legal consequences. In other words, because under Article 42 (2) of the Constitution, the Senate is not entitled to discuss and approve the State Budget Act (arg., and maiori ad minus, or to amend it), any of its interventions in that Act would have to be seen as interference by an entity which is not entitled to it at all. Since the State Budget Act can only discuss and approve the Chamber of Deputies, it is already adopted by approval in the Chamber of Deputies, i.e. completely independent of its possible further negotiation and approval in the Senate. If, at the same time as the State Budget Act (or its amendment), another (i.e. "ordinary ') Act (s) is being negotiated and approved, or its amendment (s) - which is contrary to the Act on the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies - this situation must be interpreted in such a way that the Senate can only discuss and approve" ordinary' laws and their amendments and its decisions are therefore of legal importance only for those laws, but not for the State Budget Act.
4. In the present case, however, it is relevant that the amendment to Act No 10 / 1993 Coll. concerned only the part which, with its material and formal incorporation, does not directly apply to the State budget. If Article 42 (2) of the Constitution refers to a "State Budget Act ', this concept must be understood not in a formal but in a material sense. In other words, not every law - designated as a budgetary law (or not every part of it) - directly concerns the issue of the state budget, and on the contrary, it is possible to imagine a situation where the material of the State Budget Act will be regulated by a law which will not be so designated. In support of this view, it can be pointed out that there is a comparison with the constitutions of some other countries, which also understand the concept of" State Budget Act' in a material sense when they clearly define what must be seen under such legislation. Article 51 (3) of the Austrian Constitution may serve as an example, which provides that "The Federal Financial Law must contain a draft of the revenue and expenditure of the Association (Federal Budget), a breakdown of the appropriations for the future financial year as well as other essential elements for the State budget in the relevant financial year. 'It may also be referred to in Article 134 (2) of the Spanish Constitution, according to which the" State budget shall be drawn up for one year; it shall contain a summary of the expenditure and revenue of the public sector and shall indicate the proportion of revenue generated by the State.'
5. It can therefore be concluded that, in assessing whether, in a particular case, a draft law can be understood as a "State Budget Act 'under Article 42 (2) of the Constitution, it is not sufficient to limit itself to the formal designation of such a proposal (law). This procedure could, in its consequences, lead to the Senate being excluded from the legislative process in the case of some important laws by calling the draft law a" State Budget Act, "even if in fact this law regulates material with a state budget directly unrelated. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court considers it necessary to emphasise that the material understanding of the concept of" State Budget Law' must not in practice lead to an overly extensive interpretation of it, since it is clear that the State Budget is directly or at least moderately linked to virtually every draft law, only because its implementation has, as a rule, an impact on the State Budget (the revenue or expenditure part of it). The term "State Budget Act" is to be interpreted in accordance with the normative regulation of the state budgetary rules contained in the Act of the Czech National Council No 576 / 1990 Coll., on the rules on the management of the budgetary resources of the Czech Republic and the municipalities in the Czech Republic (the rules on the budget of the Czech Republic), which applied at the time of the issue of the quoted Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll. and Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll. Under the provisions of § 3 of Act No. 576 / 1990 Coll. ("State Budget Content of the Republic ')" The state budget of the Republic includes expected revenue as well as expenditure on securing the tasks and covering the needs of the Czech Republic during the financial year. It also contains financial relations with the budgets of municipalities, district offices and the budgets of the state funds of the Republic.' In other words, the concept of "State Budget Act 'in the material concept must be interpreted in such a way that it is a law directly governing the planned revenue and expenditure component of the public sector budget of the Czech Republic relating to the performance of the functions of the State for the following period of time (i.e. financial years). Only the law so designed must be subdivided under Article 42 (2) of the Constitution, and only such a draft law is therefore not entitled to discuss and approve the Senate.
6. The Constitutional Court considers it desirable - beyond the present case - to stress that the material concept of the State Budget Act in Article 42 of the Constitution has a different dimension. By creating a specific constitutional category of the Act on State Budget, the Constitution stressed the special place and importance of the Act in the legal order of the Czech Republic, as it did in the cases of electoral law or "liaison" law under Article 40 of the Constitution. By excluding the draft State Budget Act from the system of approving draft "ordinary" laws, it expressed its will for the legislator to assess the State Budget material in a consistent and separate manner from those not directly related to the State Budget. In other words, the regulation included in the draft State Budget Act may only be the subject of rules relating to material matters relating to the State budget, not to other rules. It is unacceptable to include in the draft State Budget Act provisions which are not directly related to the State Budget material. Such an approach to the material concept of the State Budget Act can, moreover, be documented, for example, in the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland, whose Article 22 (1) provides that "The proposal for a Financial Act (and Money Bill) is such a bill which contains only provisions (contains only provisions) concerning some or all of the following: the imposition, cancellation, reduction, modification or modification of taxation, the imposition of benefits from the funds of citizens intended for the repayment of public debt or other fiscal purposes, the issue of money, the allocation, acceptance, administration, issue or revision of public funds accounts, the listing or guarantee of any loan or repayment thereof, the related or some of them. '
However, it should be noted at this point that that essential conclusion of the Constitutional Court cannot be relied upon in the present case, since the approval procedure of Law No 10 / 1993 Coll. was terminated before the Constitution entered into force and took place in accordance with the Czechoslovak legislation in force at the time.
7. Therefore, the Constitutional Court concludes that the contested intervention in the Act on State Budget No 10 / 1993 Coll. (so formally designated) carried out by amending Act No 217 / 2000 Coll. clearly cannot be regarded as interference in the Act on State Budget in the material sense. As is apparent from the above text - and as the parties to the proceedings correctly state in their comments on the proposal - the material of their own Law No. 10 / 1993 Coll. is divided into two relatively separate parts, where only part of the first part directly regulates the issue of the Czech state budget for 1993. The second part (Paragraph 6 of Article V), which is partially derogated by the contested Act No 217 / 2000 Coll., concerns a different issue (regulation of the salaries and benefits of certain managers and other officials). The Senate was therefore not in doubt when, in the present case, it discussed the whole of Act 217 / 2000 Coll. and also approved it, as amended. The contested Act amended Act No. 1 / 1992 Coll., No. 143 / 1992 Coll. and No. 132 / 2000 Coll., which cannot be regarded as State Budget Law either in formal or material terms, and the amendment to Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll. concerned only the separate part of it which did not regulate State Budget material.
For all the above reasons The Constitutional Court rejected the motion of a group of senators as unfounded.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found no 95 / 2002 Coll., on the application for annulment of Act No. 217 / 2000 Coll., amending Act No. 1 / 1992 Coll., on wages, remuneration for on-call time and on average earnings, as amended, Act No. 143 / 1992 Coll., on the salary and remuneration for on-call time in Budget and in certain other organisations and bodies, as amended, Act No. 10 / 1993 Coll., on the State Budget of the Czech Republic for 1993, on the amendment and amendment of certain laws of the Czech National Council and certain other regulations, as amended by Act No. 1 / 1992 Coll. |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 11.03.2002 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0