{"document_id":"ECLI:CZ:US:2001:4.US.460.2000","court":"usoud","case_number":"IV. ÚS 460/2000","ecli":"ECLI:CZ:US:2001:4.US.460.2000","url":"https://nalus.usoud.cz:443/Search/GetText.aspx?sz=4-460-2000","decision_date":"2001-10-11","decision_type":"Nález","case_domain":"CONSTITUTIONAL","disposition_type":"GRANTED","subject":"Odepření práva na soudní ochranu v důsledku formalistického výkladu podmínek správní žaloby","legal_sentence":"Účelem části páté občanského soudního řádu je zajistit přístup občana k soudu ve správních věcech a zajistit právo každého, aby se svých práv mohl domáhat u nestranného a nezávislého soudu ( čl. 36 odst. 1 Listiny základních práv a svobod ), a to v případech blíže upravených v čl. 36 odst. 2 Listiny základních práv a svobod . V posuzované věci pak správní soud tím, že nevycházel při svém rozhodování z obsahu a smyslu celého návrhu a omezil se jen na posouzení aplikovatelnosti stěžovatelem označených ustanovení celního zákona , odepřel stěžovateli přístup ke spravedlnosti.","metadata_regulation_keys":["13/1993:§107","99/1963:§249","2/1993:čl36"],"analysis":{"proceedingType":"CONSTITUTIONAL_COMPLAINT","subject":"Odepření práva na soudní ochranu v důsledku formalistického výkladu podmínek správní žaloby","facts":[{"sourceRefs":["S0035","S0036","S0037","S0038","S0039","S0040","S0041","S0042","S0043","S0044","S0045"],"text":"Stěžovatel L. K. jako řidič a zaměstnanec dopravní firmy F. N. - Univel přepravoval zboží (etylalkohol) z Itálie do České republiky. Celní úřad v Rozvadově propustil zboží deklarované jako denaturovaný etylalkohol do režimu tranzitu s cílovým celním úřadem Cínovec. V celním prohlášení byl jako hlavní povinný uveden stěžovatel, který jej podepsal."},{"sourceRefs":["S0046","S0047","S0048","S0049","S0050","S0051","S0052","S0053","S0054","S0055","S0056"],"text":"Celní úřad Cínovec potvrdil dodání zboží, avšak následné šetření Policie ČR odhalilo, že kamiony s nákladem ve skutečnosti neopustily území ČR a potvrzení o ukončení tranzitu bylo fiktivní, za úplatu. Proti celníkům a dalším osobám bylo zahájeno trestní stíhání."},{"sourceRefs":["S0057","S0058","S0059","S0060","S0061","S0062","S0063","S0064","S0065","S0066","S0067","S0068","S0069","S0070","S0071","S0072","S0073","S0074","S0075","S0076","S0077","S0078","S0079","S0080","S0081","S0082","S0083","S0084","S0085","S0086","S0087","S0088","S0089","S0090","S0091","S0092","S0093","S0094","S0095","S0096","S0097","S0098","S0099","S0100","S0101","S0102","S0103","S0104","S0105","S0106","S0107","S0108","S0109"],"text":"Celní úřad v Rozvadově vydal dne 25. 11. 1998 čtyři rozhodnutí, kterými stěžovateli vyměřil celní dluh ve výši 755.987 Kč za každou zásilku, a dne 17. 6. 1999 další čtyři rozhodnutí, kterými mu doměřil rozdíl na cle a daních ve výši 7.573.169 Kč za každou zásilku, neboť zboží nebylo denaturované, nýbrž nedenaturované, podléhající spotřební dani. Stěžovatel se odvolal s argumentem, že není hlavním povinným, jednal jako zaměstnanec na základě plné moci a nepředložení zboží zavinily jiné osoby."},{"sourceRefs":["S0016","S0017","S0018","S0019","S0020","S0021","S0022","S0023","S0024","S0025","S0026","S0027","S0028","S0029","S0030","S0031","S0032","S0033","S0034","S0035","S0036","S0037","S0038","S0039","S0040","S0041","S0042","S0043","S0044","S0045","S0046","S0047","S0048","S0049","S0050","S0051","S0052","S0053","S0054","S0055","S0056","S0057","S0058","S0059","S0060","S0061","S0062","S0063","S0064","S0065","S0066","S0067","S0068","S0069","S0070","S0071","S0072","S0073","S0074","S0075","S0076","S0077","S0078","S0079","S0080","S0081","S0082","S0083","S0084","S0085","S0086","S0087","S0088","S0089","S0090","S0091","S0092","S0093","S0094","S0095","S0096","S0097","S0098","S0099","S0100","S0101","S0102","S0103","S0104","S0105","S0106","S0107","S0108","S0109","S0110","S0111","S0112","S0113","S0114","S0115","S0116","S0117","S0118","S0119","S0120","S0121","S0122","S0123","S0124","S0125","S0126","S0127","S0128","S0129","S0130","S0131","S0132","S0133","S0134","S0135","S0136","S0137","S0138"],"text":"Celní ředitelství v Plzni odvolání stěžovatele zamítlo rozhodnutími ze dne 3. 2. 1999 a 1. 10. 1999. V odůvodnění uvedlo, že stěžovatel jako dopravce věděl, jaké zboží přepravuje, a v celním prohlášení byl uveden jako hlavní povinný. Stěžovatel následně podal správní žaloby ke Krajskému soudu v Plzni, které soud spojil ke společnému projednání."}],"previousProceedings":[{"fileNumber":"čj. 98/164, 98/165, 98/166, 98/167","sourceRefs":["S0057","S0058","S0059","S0060","S0061","S0062","S0063"],"outcomeSummary":"Vyměření celního dluhu stěžovateli vždy po 755.987 Kč za čtyři zásilky.","court":"Celní úřad v Rozvadově","decisionDate":"25. 11. 1998"},{"fileNumber":"čj. 2158900066, 2158900067, 2158900068, 2158900069","sourceRefs":["S0082","S0083","S0084","S0085","S0086","S0087","S0088","S0089"],"outcomeSummary":"Doměření rozdílu na cle a daních stěžovateli vždy po 7.573.169 Kč za čtyři zásilky.","court":"Celní úřad v Rozvadově","decisionDate":"17. 6. 1999"},{"fileNumber":"zn. 314/1-50/99, 314/1-51/99, 314/1-52/99, 314/1-53/99","sourceRefs":["S0009","S0010","S0011","S0012","S0013","S0014","S0015","S0016","S0017","S0018","S0019","S0020","S0021","S0022","S0023","S0024","S0025","S0026","S0027","S0028","S0029","S0030","S0031","S0032","S0033","S0034","S0035","S0036","S0037","S0038","S0039","S0040","S0041","S0042","S0043","S0044","S0045","S0046","S0047","S0048","S0049","S0050","S0051","S0052","S0053","S0054","S0055","S0056","S0057","S0058","S0059","S0060","S0061","S0062","S0063","S0064","S0065","S0066","S0067","S0068","S0069","S0070","S0071","S0072","S0073","S0074","S0075","S0076","S0077","S0078","S0079","S0080","S0081"],"outcomeSummary":"Zamítnutí odvolání stěžovatele proti rozhodnutím Celního úřadu v Rozvadově ze dne 25. 11. 1998.","court":"Celní ředitelství v Plzni","decisionDate":"3. 2. 1999"},{"fileNumber":"čj. 7113/1-1116/1/99, 7113/1-1116/2/99, 7113/1-1116/3/99, 7113/1-1116/41/99","sourceRefs":["S0011","S0012","S0013","S0014","S0015","S0016","S0017","S0018","S0019","S0020","S0021","S0022","S0023","S0024","S0025","S0026","S0027","S0028","S0029","S0030","S0031","S0032","S0033","S0034","S0035","S0036","S0037","S0038","S0039","S0040","S0041","S0042","S0043","S0044","S0045","S0046","S0047","S0048","S0049","S0050","S0051","S0052","S0053","S0054","S0055","S0056","S0057","S0058","S0059","S0060","S0061","S0062","S0063","S0064","S0065","S0066","S0067","S0068","S0069","S0070","S0071","S0072","S0073","S0074","S0075","S0076","S0077","S0078","S0079","S0080","S0081","S0082","S0083","S0084","S0085","S0086","S0087","S0088","S0089","S0090","S0091","S0092","S0093","S0094","S0095","S0096","S0097","S0098","S0099","S0100","S0101","S0102","S0103","S0104","S0105","S0106","S0107","S0108","S0109"],"outcomeSummary":"Zamítnutí odvolání stěžovatele proti rozhodnutím Celního úřadu v Rozvadově ze dne 17. 6. 1999.","court":"Celní ředitelství v Plzni","decisionDate":"1. 10. 1999"},{"fileNumber":"30 Ca 106/99-49","sourceRefs":["S0004","S0005","S0006","S0007","S0008","S0009","S0010","S0011","S0012","S0013","S0014","S0015","S0016","S0017","S0018","S0019","S0020","S0021","S0022","S0023","S0024","S0025","S0026","S0027","S0028","S0029","S0030","S0031","S0032","S0033","S0034","S0035","S0036","S0037","S0038","S0039","S0040","S0041","S0042","S0043","S0044","S0045","S0046","S0047","S0048","S0049","S0050","S0051","S0052","S0053","S0054","S0055","S0056","S0057","S0058","S0059","S0060","S0061","S0062","S0063","S0064","S0065","S0066","S0067","S0068","S0069","S0070","S0071","S0072","S0073","S0074","S0075","S0076","S0077","S0078","S0079","S0080","S0081","S0082","S0083","S0084","S0085","S0086","S0087","S0088","S0089","S0090","S0091","S0092","S0093","S0094","S0095","S0096","S0097","S0098","S0099","S0100","S0101","S0102","S0103","S0104","S0105","S0106","S0107","S0108","S0109","S0110","S0111","S0112","S0113","S0114","S0115","S0116","S0117","S0118","S0119","S0120","S0121","S0122","S0123","S0124","S0125","S0126","S0127","S0128","S0129","S0130","S0131","S0132","S0133","S0134","S0135","S0136","S0137","S0138","S0139","S0140","S0141","S0142","S0143","S0144","S0145","S0146","S0147","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"],"outcomeSummary":"Zamítnutí správní žaloby stěžovatele proti rozhodnutím celních orgánů. Soud uvedl, že žalobce musí uvést konkrétní ustanovení právního předpisu, k jehož porušení mělo dojít, a že stěžovatelem označená ustanovení nebyla aplikovatelná.","court":"Krajský soud v Plzni","decisionDate":"27. 4. 2000"}],"legalQuestions":[{"issueType":"FUNDAMENTAL_RIGHT","question":"Zda Krajský soud v Plzni porušil právo stěžovatele na soudní ochranu podle čl. 36 Listiny základních práv a svobod tím, že jeho správní žalobu zamítl pouze na základě formálního nesouladu mezi uvedenými právními ustanoveními a skutkovým stavem, aniž by se věcně zabýval jeho námitkami.","sourceRefs":["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"],"courtAssessment":{"sourceRefs":["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"],"testApplied":"ARBITRARINESS_EXCLUSION","text":"Krajský soud se nezabýval podstatou žalobních námitek, ale omezil se na posouzení aplikovatelnosti stěžovatelem označených ustanovení celního zákona, čímž odepřel stěžovateli přístup ke spravedlnosti. Ústavní soud konstatoval, že žalobní návrhy splňovaly požadavky § 249 o.s.ř., neboť z nich bylo zřejmé, v čem stěžovatel spatřuje nezákonnost. Právní kvalifikace náleží soudu, nikoli žalobci. Tento formalistický postup je v rozporu s čl. 36 odst. 1 Listiny základních práv a svobod.","outcome":"VIOLATION_FOUND"},"arguments":[{"argument":"Stěžovatel namítal, že není povinen uvádět konkrétní číslo paragrafu; dle zásady iura novit curia by měl soudu postačovat popis jednání nebo skutečností, ve kterých spatřuje pochybení. Soud se měl zabývat jeho stěžejní námitkou, že není deklarantem a hlavním povinným, ale jednal jako zaměstnanec na základě plné moci.","courtTreatment":"ACCEPTED","courtSourceRefs":["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"],"sourceRefs":["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"],"importance":"CORE","parties":["L. K."],"courtExplanation":"Ústavní soud dal stěžovateli za pravdu, že právní kvalifikace jednání náleží soudu a že z jeho návrhu bylo zřejmé, v čem spatřuje nezákonnost rozhodnutí celních orgánů. Krajský soud se měl věcně zabývat podstatou žalobních námitek."}],"id":"LQ001","raisedBy":["L. K."],"precedent_cited_by_counts":{"FOLLOWED":1},"arguments_hidden":1,"precedent_relies_on_gated":true,"precedent_relies_on_count_hidden":1,"precedent_relies_on_superseded":false,"precedent_followed_by_superseded_hidden":1},{"issueType":"FUNDAMENTAL_RIGHT","question":"Zda celní orgány porušily právo stěžovatele na spravedlivý proces podle čl. 36 Listiny tím, že na základě neúplně zjištěného skutkového stavu a formální aplikace celního zákona stanovily celní dluh, aniž by zohlednily okolnosti nasvědčující tomu, že protiprávní jednání spáchaly jiné osoby.","sourceRefs":["S0064","S0065","S0066","S0067","S0068","S0069","S0070","S0071","S0072","S0073","S0074","S0075","S0076","S0077","S0078","S0079","S0080","S0081","S0082","S0083","S0084","S0085","S0086","S0087","S0088","S0089","S0090","S0091","S0092","S0093","S0094","S0095","S0096","S0097","S0098","S0099","S0100","S0101","S0102","S0103","S0104","S0105","S0106","S0107","S0108","S0109","S0110","S0111","S0112","S0113","S0114","S0115","S0116","S0117","S0118","S0119","S0120","S0121","S0122","S0123","S0124","S0125","S0126","S0127","S0128","S0129","S0130","S0131","S0132","S0133","S0134","S0135","S0136","S0137","S0138","S0139","S0140","S0141","S0142","S0143","S0144","S0145","S0146","S0147","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"],"courtAssessment":{"sourceRefs":["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","S0418","S0419"],"testApplied":"ARBITRARINESS_EXCLUSION","text":"Ústavní soud shledal, že celní orgány nedostatečně zjistily skutkový stav a formálně aplikovaly ustanovení celního zákona, aniž by se zabývaly otázkou, zda stěžovatel skutečně mohl být považován za hlavního povinného s ohledem na plnou moc a trestní řízení proti jiným osobám. Tento postup je v rozporu s čl. 36 Listiny základních práv a svobod, neboť stát nemůže tentýž skutek posuzovat dvojím způsobem – trestně stíhat jiné osoby a zároveň ukládat stěžovateli povinnost k úhradě celního dluhu bez řádného zjištění skutkového stavu.","outcome":"VIOLATION_FOUND"},"arguments":[],"id":"LQ002","raisedBy":["L. K."],"precedent_cited_by_counts":{"FOLLOWED":1},"arguments_hidden":2,"precedent_followed_by_superseded_hidden":1},{"issueType":"PROCEDURE","question":"Zda opravné usnesení Celního ředitelství v Plzni ze dne 11. 2. 1999, kterým bylo změněno odůvodnění rozhodnutí z jednání jménem zastoupené osoby na jednání vlastním jménem, bylo vydáno v souladu s § 56 odst. 1 písm. b) zákona č. 337/1992 Sb.","sourceRefs":["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"],"courtAssessment":{"sourceRefs":["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"],"text":"Opravné usnesení ze dne 11. 2. 1999, kterým Celní ředitelství změnilo odůvodnění svého rozhodnutí z jednání jménem zastoupené osoby na jednání vlastním jménem, nebylo vydáno v souladu s § 56 odst. 1 písm. b) zákona č. 337/1992 Sb., neboť toto ustanovení umožňuje opravu pouze zřejmých chyb v psaní, počítání nebo jiného omylu, nikoli změnu skutkových zjištění a právního hodnocení. Tato vada měla vést ke zrušení rozhodnutí pro nepřezkoumatelnost.","outcome":"VIOLATION_FOUND"},"id":"LQ003","raisedBy":["COURT"]}],"regulationInterpretations":[{"sourceRefs":["S0301","S0302","S0303"],"interpretation":"Pro splnění požadavku na uvedení důvodů nezákonnosti správního rozhodnutí postačuje, aby žalobce popsal jednání nebo skutečnosti, ve kterých spatřuje pochybení; není nutné uvádět konkrétní číslo paragrafu, neboť právní kvalifikace náleží soudu.","regulations":"§ 249 odst. 2 o.s.ř."}],"review":{"scope":{"challengedActs":[{"sourceRefs":["S0004","S0005","S0006","S0007","S0008"],"description":"Rozsudek Krajského soudu v Plzni ze dne 27. 4. 2000, čj. 30 Ca 106/99-49","type":"COURT_DECISION"},{"sourceRefs":["S0009","S0010"],"description":"Rozhodnutí Celního ředitelství v Plzni ze dne 3. 2. 1999, zn. 314/1-50/99, 314/1-51/99, 314/1-52/99, 314/1-53/99","type":"ADMIN_DECISION"},{"sourceRefs":["S0011","S0012"],"description":"Rozhodnutí Celního ředitelství v Plzni ze dne 1. 10. 1999, čj. 7113/1-1116/1/99, 7113/1-1116/2/99, 7113/1-1116/3/99, 7113/1-1116/41/99","type":"ADMIN_DECISION"},{"sourceRefs":["S0013","S0014"],"description":"Rozhodnutí Celního úřadu v Rozvadově ze dne 25. 11. 1998, čj. 98/164, 98/165, 98/166, 98/167","type":"ADMIN_DECISION"},{"sourceRefs":["S0014","S0015"],"description":"Rozhodnutí Celního úřadu v Rozvadově ze dne 17. 6. 1999, čj. 2158900066, 2158900067, 2158900068, 2158900069","type":"ADMIN_DECISION"}],"allegedViolations":[{"regulations":"čl. 36 Listiny základních práv a svobod","right":"Právo na soudní ochranu"}]},"admissibility":{"overallStatus":"ADMISSIBLE","reason":"Ústavní soud neshledal důvody pro odmítnutí ústavní stížnosti; stížnost byla podána včas a oprávněnou osobou."},"findings":[{"reason":"Krajský soud odepřel stěžovateli přístup k soudu tím, že se nezabýval podstatou jeho žalobních námitek a zamítl žalobu pouze na základě formálního nesouladu mezi uvedenými právními ustanoveními a skutkovým stavem. Celní orgány rovněž porušily právo stěžovatele na spravedlivý proces nedostatečným zjištěním skutkového stavu a formální aplikací zákona.","regulations":"čl. 36 Listiny základních práv a svobod","reasonSourceRefs":["S0262","S0263","S0264","S0265","S0266","S0420","S0421","S0422","S0423","S0424","S0425"],"right":"Právo na soudní ochranu (čl. 36 Listiny)","outcome":"VIOLATED"}],"bindingInstructions":["Celní orgány jsou povinny znovu posoudit věc v souvislosti se všemi zjištěnými okolnostmi, včetně závěrů orgánů činných v trestním řízení."]},"dispositionType":"GRANTED","operativeOrders":[{"targetAct":"Rozsudek Krajského soudu v Plzni a rozhodnutí celních orgánů","kind":"QUASH_DECISION","text":"Rozsudek Krajského soudu v Plzni ze dne 27. 4. 2000, čj. 30 Ca 106/99-49, rozhodnutí Celního ředitelství v Plzni ze dne 3. 2. 1999 a 1. 10. 1999, a rozhodnutí Celního úřadu v Rozvadově ze dne 25. 11. 1998 a 17. 6. 1999 se zrušují."}],"precedentLinks":[{"fileNumber":"IV.ÚS 325/99","sourceRefs":["S0267","S0268","S0269","S0270"],"usage":"FOLLOWED","proposition":"Zákonem stanovené podmínky přístupu občana k soudu ve správních věcech jsou velmi rigidní, formální, přísné, vázané lhůtou a stojí na principu koncentrace řízení.","resolvedDecisionId":"ECLI:CZ:US:1999:4.US.325.99","precedent_source_units":["legal_question:1000"],"precedent_target_units":["legal_sentence:990000","legal_question:1000"],"precedent_target_id":"ECLI:CZ:US:1999:4.US.325.99"}],"caseDomain":"CONSTITUTIONAL"},"found":true,"precedent_superseded_count":6,"precedent_superseded_gated":true,"precedent_superseded_usage":"DISTINGUISHED","precedent_followed_by_superseded_hidden":1,"public_gate":{"mode":"public","precedent_links_hidden":0,"precedent_superseded_hidden":6,"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:2001:4.US.460.2000","json_url":"https://app-api.fragmea.com/api/public/v3/decision/ECLI:CZ:US:2001:4.US.460.2000"}}