{"document_id":"ECLI:CZ:US:2000:Pl.US.18.99","court":"usoud","case_number":"Pl. ÚS 18/99","ecli":"ECLI:CZ:US:2000:Pl.US.18.99","url":"https://nalus.usoud.cz:443/Search/GetText.aspx?sz=Pl-18-99","decision_date":"2000-07-03","decision_type":"Nález","case_domain":"CONSTITUTIONAL","disposition_type":"NORM_PETITION_REJECTED","subject":"Odejmutí tzv. dalšího platu soudcům za druhé pololetí 1997 - ústavnost zákona č. 287/1997 Sb.","legal_sentence":"Ústavní soud zastává názor, že soudci se nenacházejí v jakémsi \"právním a ekonomickém vakuu\", které by je zcela izolovalo od okolní hospodářské a sociální reality. Nelze tedy kategoricky tvrdit, že soudci mají apriorní právo na takové materiální zabezpečení, které nemůže být legislativní formou žádným způsobem a za žádných okolností změněno.","metadata_regulation_keys":["236/1995:§4a","287/1997","320/2000","1/1993:čl2","2/1993:čl2"],"analysis":{"proceedingType":"NORM_CONTROL_STATUTE","subject":"Odejmutí tzv. dalšího platu soudcům za druhé pololetí 1997 - ústavnost zákona č. 287/1997 Sb.","facts":[{"sourceRefs":["S0020","S0021","S0022"],"text":"Soudce Nejvyššího soudu podal u Městského soudu v Brně žalobu o zaplacení 62 000 Kč s příslušenstvím, které mu měly být vyplaceny v lednu 1998 jako další plat za druhé pololetí roku 1997 podle § 4 zákona č. 236/1995 Sb."},{"sourceRefs":["S0040","S0041","S0042","S0053"],"text":"Zákonem č. 287/1997 Sb., novelizujícím zákon č. 236/1995 Sb., bylo stanoveno, že představiteli a soudci další plat za druhé pololetí roku 1997 nenáleží; zákon nabyl účinnosti dnem vyhlášení 28.11.1997."},{"sourceRefs":["S0010","S0011","S0012","S0013","S0014","S0024","S0025","S0026","S0027"],"text":"Městský soud v Brně dospěl k názoru, že napadený zákon je retroaktivní a porušuje princip právní jistoty a ochrany důvěry občanů v právo, a proto podle § 109 odst. 1 písm. b) o. s. ř. přerušil řízení a předložil věc Ústavnímu soudu."},{"sourceRefs":["S0030","S0031","S0032","S0033","S0034"],"text":"Navrhovatel tvrdil, že nárok na další plat vznikl již 29.9.1997 a že nelze zákonem rušit již nabytý nárok; došlo tím k porušení čl. 1, čl. 4 a čl. 28 Listiny základních práv a svobod."}],"previousProceedings":[{"sourceRefs":["S0010","S0011","S0012","S0013","S0014","S0024","S0025","S0026","S0027"],"outcomeSummary":"Přerušil řízení o žalobě soudce a předložil věc Ústavnímu soudu podle čl. 95 odst. 2 Ústavy.","court":"Městský soud v Brně"}],"legalQuestions":[{"issueType":"NORM_CONSTITUTIONALITY","question":"Je zákon č. 287/1997 Sb. retroaktivní a porušuje princip právní jistoty a ochrany důvěry v právo?","courtAssessment":{"sourceRefs":["S0131","S0132","S0133","S0134","S0135"],"text":"Ústavní soud konstatoval, že napadený zákon není retroaktivní, neboť v době jeho účinnosti ještě nevznikl nárok na další plat, a proto nedošlo k zásahu do nabytých práv. Odkázal na nález sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 13/99.","outcome":"REJECTED_ON_MERITS"},"arguments":[{"argument":"Nárok na další plat vznikl již 29.9.1997, nelze jej zpětně zrušit.","courtTreatment":"REJECTED","courtSourceRefs":["S0053","S0054","S0055","S0056"],"sourceRefs":["S0030","S0031","S0032","S0033"],"importance":"CORE","parties":["Městský soud v Brně"],"courtExplanation":"Zákon nabyl účinnosti před splněním druhé podmínky (trvání pracovního vztahu k 31.12.1997), proto právo nevzniklo a nejde o retroaktivitu."}],"id":"LQ001","raisedBy":["Městský soud v Brně"],"arguments_hidden":1},{"issueType":"FUNDAMENTAL_RIGHT","question":"Porušuje zákon č. 287/1997 Sb. princip soudcovské nezávislosti zakotvený v čl. 82 odst. 1 Ústavy?","courtAssessment":{"sourceRefs":["S0119","S0120","S0121","S0122","S0123","S0124","S0125","S0126","S0127","S0128","S0148","S0149","S0150","S0151","S0152","S0153","S0154","S0155","S0156","S0157","S0158","S0159","S0160","S0161","S0162","S0163","S0164","S0165","S0166","S0167","S0168","S0169","S0170","S0171","S0172","S0173","S0174","S0175","S0176","S0177","S0178","S0179","S0180","S0181","S0182","S0183","S0184","S0185","S0186","S0187","S0188","S0189","S0190","S0191","S0192","S0193","S0194","S0195","S0196","S0197","S0198","S0199","S0200","S0201","S0202","S0203","S0204","S0205","S0206","S0207","S0208","S0209","S0210","S0211","S0212","S0213","S0214","S0215","S0216","S0217"],"testApplied":"PROPORTIONALITY","text":"Ústavní soud posoudil zásah podle tří kritérií: 1) byl stanoven zákonem (ano), 2) směřoval k legitimnímu cíli (úspory v rozpočtu, soudci nejsou izolováni od ekonomické reality), 3) byl nezbytný v demokratické společnosti (nešlo o svévoli, intenzita zásahu nebyla taková, aby ohrozila institucionální nezávislost). Dospěl k závěru, že napadený zákon není protiústavní.","outcome":"NO_VIOLATION"},"arguments":[],"id":"LQ002","raisedBy":["Městský soud v Brně"],"arguments_hidden":2}],"review":{"scope":{"challengedActs":[{"sourceRefs":["S0005","S0006","S0007","S0008","S0009"],"description":"Zákon č. 287/1997 Sb., kterým se doplňuje zákon č. 236/1995 Sb., o platu a dalších náležitostech spojených s výkonem funkce představitelů státní moci a některých státních orgánů a soudců, ve znění zákona č. 138/1996 Sb., a to ustanovení § 4a, které stanoví, že představiteli a soudci další plat za druhé pololetí roku 1997 nenáleží.","type":"STATUTE"}],"allegedViolations":[{"regulations":"čl. 82 odst. 1 Ústavy, čl. 1, čl. 4, čl. 28 Listiny","right":"Právo na soudcovskou nezávislost (čl. 82 odst. 1 Ústavy)"},{"regulations":"čl. 1 Ústavy, čl. 1 Listiny","right":"Zákaz retroaktivity a princip právní jistoty"}]},"admissibility":{"overallStatus":"ADMISSIBLE","reason":"Návrh splňoval formální náležitosti a byl podán oprávněným navrhovatelem.","sourceRefs":["S0035","S0036","S0037"]},"findings":[{"reason":"Zásah byl proveden zákonem, sledoval legitimní cíl a nebyl svévolný; neohrozil institucionální nezávislost soudů.","regulations":"čl. 82 odst. 1 Ústavy","reasonSourceRefs":["S0199","S0200","S0201","S0210","S0211","S0212"],"right":"Soudcovská nezávislost (čl. 82 odst. 1 Ústavy)","outcome":"NOT_VIOLATED"},{"reason":"Zákon nabyl účinnosti před vznikem nároku, nejde o pravou retroaktivitu.","regulations":"čl. 1 Ústavy","reasonSourceRefs":["S0053","S0054","S0055","S0056"],"right":"Zákaz retroaktivity a právní jistota","outcome":"NOT_VIOLATED"}]},"dispositionType":"NORM_PETITION_REJECTED","operativeOrders":[{"targetAct":"zákon č. 287/1997 Sb.","kind":"REJECT","text":"Návrh se zamítá."}],"dissentingOpinions":[{"summary":"Nesouhlasí s odchýlením od právního názoru vysloveného v nálezu sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 13/99 a namítá, že nebyla dosažena kvalifikovaná většina 9 soudců pro změnu právního názoru.","sourceRefs":["S0223","S0224","S0225","S0226","S0227","S0228","S0229","S0230","S0231","S0232","S0233","S0234","S0235","S0236","S0237","S0238","S0239","S0240","S0241"],"judges":["JUDr. Vladimír Čermák"]},{"summary":"Omezil odlišné stanovisko na otázku nerovnosti mezi soudci, kterou napadený zákon zakládá. Upozorňuje na vnitřní nerovnost: soudci, kteří splnili podmínky pro první pololetí, dostali plat, zatímco ti, kteří splnili podmínky pro druhé pololetí, nedostali nic, což je libovůle a porušení čl. 28 Listiny a mezinárodních smluv.","sourceRefs":["S0242","S0243","S0244","S0245","S0246","S0247","S0248","S0249","S0250","S0251","S0252","S0253","S0254","S0255","S0256","S0257","S0258","S0259","S0260","S0261","S0262","S0263","S0264","S0265","S0266","S0267","S0268","S0269","S0270","S0271","S0272","S0273","S0274","S0275","S0276","S0277","S0278","S0279","S0280","S0281","S0282","S0283","S0284","S0285","S0286","S0287","S0288","S0289","S0290","S0291","S0292","S0293","S0294","S0295","S0296","S0297","S0298","S0299","S0300","S0301","S0302","S0303","S0304","S0305","S0306","S0307","S0308","S0309","S0310","S0311","S0312","S0313","S0314","S0315","S0316","S0317","S0318","S0319","S0320","S0321","S0322","S0323","S0324","S0325","S0326","S0327","S0328","S0329","S0330","S0331","S0332","S0333","S0334","S0335","S0336","S0337","S0338","S0339","S0340","S0341","S0342","S0343","S0344","S0345","S0346","S0347","S0348","S0349","S0350","S0351","S0352","S0353","S0354","S0355","S0356","S0357","S0358","S0359","S0360","S0361","S0362","S0363"],"judges":["JUDr. Pavel Holländer"]},{"summary":"Nesouhlasí s odůvodněním, ale souhlasí s výrokem. Domnívá se, že napadený zákon nezasahuje do soudcovské nezávislosti, není retroaktivní a nevede k zásahu do nabytých práv. Namítá, že nebyla dodržena procedura podle § 13 zákona o Ústavním soudu pro změnu právního názoru.","sourceRefs":["S0373","S0374","S0375","S0376","S0377","S0378","S0379","S0380","S0381","S0382","S0383","S0384","S0385","S0386","S0387","S0388","S0389","S0390","S0391","S0392","S0393","S0394","S0395","S0396","S0397","S0398","S0399","S0400","S0401","S0402","S0403","S0404","S0405","S0406","S0407","S0408","S0409","S0410","S0411","S0412","S0413","S0414","S0415","S0416","S0417"],"judges":["JUDr. Ivana Janů"]},{"summary":"Souhlasí s výrokem, ale nesouhlasí s odůvodněním. Domnívá se, že zákon je protiústavní z důvodu nerovnosti a diskriminace mezi soudci podle toho, zda pracovali v prvním nebo druhém pololetí, což porušuje čl. 28 Listiny, čl. 7 Mezinárodního paktu a čl. 4 Evropské sociální charty. Zákon je nepředvídatelný.","sourceRefs":["S0418","S0419","S0420","S0421","S0422","S0423","S0424","S0425","S0426","S0427","S0428","S0429","S0430","S0431","S0432","S0433","S0434","S0435","S0436","S0437","S0438","S0439","S0440","S0441","S0442","S0443","S0444","S0445","S0446","S0447","S0448","S0449","S0450","S0451","S0452","S0453","S0454","S0455","S0456","S0457","S0458","S0459","S0460","S0461","S0462","S0463","S0464","S0465","S0466","S0467","S0468","S0469","S0470","S0471","S0472","S0473","S0474","S0475","S0476","S0477","S0478","S0479","S0480","S0481","S0482","S0483","S0484","S0485","S0486","S0487","S0488","S0489","S0490","S0491","S0492","S0493","S0494","S0495","S0496","S0497","S0498","S0499","S0500","S0501","S0502","S0503","S0504","S0505","S0506","S0507","S0508","S0509","S0510","S0511","S0512","S0513","S0514","S0515"],"judges":["JUDr. Jiří Malenovský"]},{"summary":"Nesouhlasí s výrokem. Domnívá se, že odejmutí dalšího platu je zásahem do soudcovské nezávislosti, který je v rozporu s mezinárodními standardy (rezoluce OSN, Doporučení Rady Evropy, Charta statutu soudce). Zásah je svévolný a porušuje princip nezávislosti.","sourceRefs":["S0516","S0517","S0518","S0519","S0520","S0521","S0522","S0523","S0524","S0525","S0526","S0527","S0528","S0529","S0530","S0531","S0532","S0533","S0534","S0535","S0536","S0537","S0538","S0539","S0540","S0541","S0542","S0543","S0544","S0545","S0546","S0547","S0548","S0549","S0550","S0551","S0552","S0553","S0554","S0555","S0556","S0557","S0558","S0559","S0560","S0561","S0562","S0563","S0564","S0565","S0566","S0567","S0568","S0569","S0570","S0571","S0572","S0573","S0574","S0575","S0576","S0577","S0578","S0579","S0580","S0581","S0582","S0583","S0584","S0585","S0586","S0587","S0588","S0589","S0590","S0591","S0592","S0593","S0594","S0595","S0596","S0597","S0598","S0599","S0600","S0601","S0602","S0603","S0604","S0605","S0606","S0607","S0608","S0609","S0610","S0611","S0612","S0613","S0614","S0615","S0616","S0617","S0618","S0619","S0620","S0621","S0622","S0623","S0624","S0625","S0626","S0627","S0628","S0629","S0630","S0631","S0632","S0633","S0634","S0635","S0636"],"judges":["JUDr. Vladimír Paul"]},{"summary":"Nesouhlasí s výrokem i odůvodněním. Namítá, že nebyla dosažena kvalifikovaná většina pro změnu právního názoru. Kritizuje použití kritérií jako 'míra neústavnosti' a 'bezprostřednost zásahu' jako nepřípustné. Trvá na kontinuitě judikatury.","sourceRefs":["S0637","S0638","S0639","S0640","S0641","S0642","S0643","S0644","S0645","S0646","S0647","S0648","S0649","S0650","S0651","S0652","S0653","S0654","S0655","S0656","S0657","S0658","S0659","S0660","S0661","S0662","S0663","S0664","S0665","S0666","S0667","S0668","S0669","S0670","S0671","S0672","S0673","S0674","S0675","S0676","S0677","S0678","S0679","S0680","S0681","S0682","S0683","S0684","S0685","S0686","S0687","S0688","S0689","S0690","S0691","S0692","S0693","S0694","S0695","S0696","S0697","S0698","S0699","S0700","S0701","S0702","S0703","S0704","S0705","S0706","S0707","S0708","S0709","S0710","S0711","S0712","S0713","S0714","S0715","S0716","S0717","S0718","S0719","S0720","S0721","S0722","S0723","S0724","S0725","S0726","S0727","S0728","S0729","S0730","S0731","S0732","S0733","S0734","S0735","S0736","S0737","S0738","S0739","S0740","S0741","S0742","S0743","S0744","S0745","S0746","S0747","S0748","S0749","S0750","S0751","S0752","S0753","S0754","S0755","S0756","S0757","S0758","S0759","S0760","S0761","S0762","S0763","S0764","S0765"],"judges":["JUDr. Vlastimil Ševčík"]},{"summary":"Nesouhlasí s výrokem. Domnívá se, že způsob, jakým zákonodárce odejmul plat (jednorázově, bez předem stanovených pravidel), je ústavně nepřípustný. Trvá na názoru vyjádřeném v nálezu sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 13/99 a namítá, že nebyla dosažena potřebná většina pro změnu názoru.","sourceRefs":["S0766","S0767","S0768","S0769","S0770","S0771","S0772","S0773","S0774","S0775","S0776","S0777","S0778","S0779","S0780","S0781","S0782","S0783","S0784","S0785","S0786","S0787","S0788","S0789","S0790","S0791","S0792","S0793","S0794","S0795","S0796"],"judges":["JUDr. Eva Zarembová"]}],"precedentLinks":[{"fileNumber":"Pl. ÚS 13/99 (vyhlášen pod č. 233/1999 Sb.)","sourceRefs":["S0111","S0112","S0113","S0114","S0115","S0116","S0117","S0186","S0187","S0188","S0189","S0190","S0191","S0192","S0193","S0194","S0195","S0196","S0197","S0198"],"usage":"DISTINGUISHED","proposition":"Ústavní soud odlišil posuzovanou věc od dřívějšího nálezu, který zrušil obdobný zákon pro rok 1998, a to z důvodu časového odstupu a neefektivity případného zrušení.","resolvedDecisionId":null}],"caseDomain":"CONSTITUTIONAL"},"found":true,"legal_sentence_precedents":{"cited_by_counts":{"REFERENCED":1}},"precedent_superseded_count":2,"precedent_superseded_gated":true,"precedent_superseded_usage":"OVERRULED","public_gate":{"mode":"public","precedent_links_hidden":0,"precedent_superseded_hidden":2,"arguments_hidden":3,"arguments_preview":1,"continuity_hidden":0,"continuity_preview":1,"relations_preview":1,"login_path":"/api/auth/oauth/keycloak/start","indexable":true,"canonical_url":"https://fragmea.com/judikatura/rozhodnuti/ECLI:CZ:US:2000:Pl.US.18.99","json_url":"https://app-api.fragmea.com/api/public/v3/decision/ECLI:CZ:US:2000:Pl.US.18.99"}}