var textForPages = ["ACTA UNIVERSITATIS BRUNENSIS                ________________________________                IURIDICA                               No 425","SPISY PRÁVNICKÉ FAKULTY                MASARYKOVY UNIVERZITY V BRNĚ                ______________________________                řada teoretická                Svazek č. 425","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011                                     Interpretace a aplikace mezinárodního                                   a evropského práva vnitrostátními soudy                                                                           Masarykova univerzita                                                         Brno, 2012","Všechna práva vyhrazena. Žádná část této elektronické knihy nesmí                                         být reprodukována nebo šířena v papírové, elektronické či jiné podobě                                          bez předchozího písemného souhlasu vykonavatele majetkových práv                                         k dílu, kterého je možno kontaktovat na adrese – Nakladatelství                                         Masarykovy univerzity, Žerotínovo náměstí 9, 601 77 Brno.                          © 2012 Masarykova univerzita                 ISBN 978-80-210-5957-3                ISBN 978-80-210-5910-8 (soubor)","OBSAH – CONTENTS                    Daniel Bacho: Správná interepretace práva EU                                              1                Róbert Bardač: Aplikácia práva EÚ v rozhodovacej činnosti slovenských okresných a        14                 krajských súdov                Petr Bouda: Interpretace nepřímé diskriminace po přijetí Listiny základních práv EU      30                 Anamaria Cristina Cercel: Considerations on the first registration tax and on the pollution   45                tax for motor vehicles as stated by the Romanian law according to the recent decisions of                the E.U`s Court of Justice and to the E.U`s Treaties                 Libor Havelka: Možné dopady nesplnění povinnosti vnitrostátních soudů aplikovat právo    56                EU ex officio                Ivana Janeková -- Tomáš Kaščák: Aplikácia princípu ne bis in idem v trestnom konaní      65                 Lucie Nechvátalová: Application of International Counter-Terrorism Measures by           80                National Bodies (Courts)                Martin  Kopa: Evolutivní interpretace a doktrína margin of appreciation - pohled         90                 vnitrostátního soudu                Soňa Matochová: Interpretation and Application of European Law in Constitutional Court   98                 of the Czech Republic Case Law                Katarína Mikulová: Aplikácia práva EÚ v oblasti ochrany spotrebiteľa súdmi v            114                Slovenskej republike                 Bojinca Moise: Some Considerations on the Sale of Other Good in the New Romanian        138                Civil Code                 Kristýna Ondrová: Interpretation and aplication of European social security coordination   143                rules                Roman  Říčka: Indirect effect of directives in case-law of Czech courts                 153                Eliška Šrotová: Aplikace evropského spotřebitelského práva v České republice            167                 Laura Magdalena Trocan: The importance of the United Nations Convention on the Law      178                of the Sea of 10 December 1982                 Marius Vacarelu: A European Union with two speeds and a new type of European law        187                Jozef Varmus: Právo na majetok z pohľadu európskej a vnútroštátnej legislatívy a        199                judikatúry                 Vojtěch Vomáčka: Aplikace environmentálního práva EU českými soudy                      209                Vladimír Týč: New Vision of the EU Patent Protection: Patents Will be Cheap, but not    227                 Available in the  National Languages","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                       ÚVOD KE „SPRÁVNÉ“ INTERPRETACI                                              EVROPSKÉHO PRÁVA                                                      DANIEL BACHO                                 The Faculty of Law, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic                                Abstract in original language                              Interpretace mezinárodního a evropského práva je velice komplexní a                              rozvětvenou problematikou. Evropské a jeho interpretace má mnoho                              společného  s výkladem  vnitrostátního  a  mezinárodního  práva,  ze                              kterých čerpá. Stále je to ale samostatný systém s mnoha jedinečnými                              výkladovými metodami.                               Key words in original language                              Interpretace  práva,  mezinárodní  právo,  právo  EU,  Soudní  Dvůr                              Evropské Unie                               Abstract                              Interpretation of international and European law is very complex and                              widespread  problematics.  European  law  and  its  interpretation  has                              much in common with the interpretation of national and international                              law,  from  which  it  draws.  Still  it's  a  standalone  system  with  many                              unique methods of interpretation.                               Key words                              The  interpretation  of  law,  International  law,  Law  of  The  EU,  The                              Court of Justice of the EU                               1. ÚVOD                               Ke správnému pochopení a aplikaci evropského práva přirozeně patří                              znalost  o  interpretačních  pravidlech,  procesech  a  metodách.  Ať                              mezinárodní  tak  evropské  právo  mají  mnoho  společného                              s vnitrostátním právem, i když jejich hlavní prameny a samotná tvorba                              stojí na odlišných základech.                               V tomto příspěvku se autor zabývá základními pravidly a  metodami                              interpretace,   rozdíly   mezi   těmito   metodami   v národním                              kontinentálním právu, mezinárodním právu a především v právu EU,                              kterému je věnována podstatná část příspěvku. Od teoretického pozadí                              přes  specifika  mezinárodního  práva  po  analýzu  stěžejních                              interpretačních  metod  evropského  práva  se  autor  snaží  o  zkrácený                              přehled  této  problematiky  a  uvádí  množství  literatury  a  především                              judikatury Soudního Dvora Evropské Unie pro další studium.                               Tento  příspěvek  je  vhodný  pro  teoretický  úvod  do  problematiky                              interpretace  práva  pro  konferenci  Dny  Práva  2011  pro  sekci                              intepretace mezinárodního a evropského práva českými soudy.                                                                        1","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 2. TEORETICKÉ POZADÍ                               Interpretace  a  její  správnost  je  velice  abstraktní  spojení.  Samotný                              význam slova interpretace popírá jakoukoli uniformitu a stoprocentní                              shodu. Také nelze hovořit o výjimečně právním pojmu, ale naopak se                                                                                            1                              pojem interpretace užívá i v jiných vědách, zejména společenských.                              Interpretací  se  obecně  rozumí  od  širšího  pojetí  tlumočení  po  užší                                                                                 2                              podávání  výkladu,  objasnění  či  samotný  výklad  pojmů.   Interpretací                                                                                 3                              se detailně zabývá vědní odvětví nazvané hermeneutika.  V této práci                              autor ztotožňuje pojem interpretace s výkladem.                              Z hlediska právní teorie jde o duševní proces, kdy subjekt interpretace                              postihuje skutečnost prostřednictvím objektu interpretace jinými slovy                              v tomto procesu přiřazuje člověk, který interpretuje, určitým znakům                                      4                              význam.   Interpretace je v rámci právní vědy a právní praxe přítomná                              především  v momentu  studia  právní  normy  a  následné  aplikaci.                              Interpretace  nám  pomáhá  pochopit  význam  právní  normy  pro  její                              správné  využití  v následné  praxi.  Je  zde  v prvním  případě  přítomna                                                                                     5                              složka  pasivní  a  v druhém  případně  aktivní  neboli  volní   složka                              aplikační,  kdy  je  třeba  správně  využít  všech  poznatků  nabytých                              v procesu  výkladu  právní  normy  pro  konsekutivní  aplikaci  na                                                               6                              společenskou situaci či právní vztah.                              Z hlediska subjektu teorie dělí intepretaci na autentickou (subjektem                              je  orgán  normu  vydávající),  legální  (subjekt  je  k výkladu  zmocněn                              právní  normou),  oficiální  (subjekt  interpretuje  v rámci  nadřízeného                              vztahu),  orgánu  právní  aplikace  (intepretace  závazná  pro  strany                              konkrétního  případu),  doktrinální  (učebnicový)  a  konečně  výklad                              doktrinální, který je typický pro soudní rozhodnutí.                               Oproti  výše  uvedenému  dělení  dle  subjektů  je  dělení  dle  metod                              výkladu  méně  teoretické  a  více  zaměřené  na  samotný  proces                              hodnocení  významu  právní  normy.  Dle  metod  rozlišujeme  výklad                                1                                 Boguszak, J. – Čapek, J. – Gerloch, A. Teorie práva . Praha: EUROLEX                              Bohemia, 2001. s. 143.                              2                                Holubová Václava a kolektiv, Nový akademický slovník cizích slov A-Ž:                              ACADEMIA, 2005.                              3                                 Slovo  hermeneutika  souvisí  s  řeckým  výrazem   Hermeneus“,  které                              označovalo interpreta nebo-li toho, kdo  činí věci jasnými“.                               4                                Pro detailní komentář HARVÁNEK, J. a kol. Teorie práva. Plzeň Vydavatelství a                              nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk, 2008 a KNAPP, Viktor. Teorie práva. 1. vyd. Praha : C.H.                              Beck, 1995, s. 168.                                5  WEYR, František. Teorie práva. Brno : Orbis, 1936, s. 63                               6                                HARVÁNEK, J. a kol., Teorie práva, Plzeň Vydavatelství a nakladatelství                              Aleš Čeněk, 2008  s. 361.                                                                   2","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 norem  na  historický  (výklad  na  základě  analýzy  všech  dosavadních                              pramenů),  jazykový  neboli  gramatický,  logický  (na  základě  právní                              logiky), teleologický (výklad sledující účel a smysl), systematický (dle                              postavení  pravidla  v daném  systému  norem)  a  výklad  komparativní,                                                                           7                              který srovnává normy z různých právních systémů.                              Samotná  věda  právní  interpretace  je  velice  komplexní  a  není  cílem                              tohoto  článku  zabývat  se  detailně  jejími  teoretickými  základy,  ale                              spíše  se  věnovat  základním  odlišnostem  a  rozdílům  v právní                              interpretaci  vnitrostátního  práva  a  práva  mezinárodního  nebo                              evropského.                                3. SROVNÁNÍ                               3.1 SROVNÁNÍ S MEZINÁRODNÍM PRÁVEM                               Samotný  vztah  vnitrostátního  a  mezinárodního  práva  je  velice                              zajímavý a v některých místech i nejednoznačný. Některá ustanovení,                              především ústavního práva některých zemí, nedávají mezinárodnímu                                                  8                              právu  přímo  přednost   a  snaží  se  tak  o  ochranu  suverenity  svého                                               9                              právního  systému.   Interpretace  vnitrostátního  práva  je  v některých                              aspektech odlišná od interpretace na poli mezinárodního a evropského                              práva. Liší se především povahou a metodami.                               V rámci  srovnání  intepretace  vnitrostátního  a  mezinárodního  práva                              sledujeme  především  odlišnost  v povaze  samotného  systému                              normotvorby.  V národní  normotvorbě  je  autoritou  samotný                              normotvůrce,  který  působí  na  subjekty  ze superiorní  pozice,  kdežto                              v mezinárodním  právu  jsou  tvůrci  práva  samotné  státy,  tudíž  zde                              absentuje  obdobná  hierarchie.  Metody  výkladu  tak  především  musí                                                                                          10                              být takové, aby vyvodily “přesný smysl z toho co bylo dohodnuto.”                               Dalším  podstatným  rozdílem  je  odlišnost  pramenů  národního  a                              mezinárodního  práva.  Klasik  české  mezinárodně-právní  teorie  prof.                                                                                     11                              Malenovský  rozdělil  prameny  na  základní  a  podpůrné.   Mezi                                7                                K hn rozděluje srovnávací výklad dále na fakultativní, obligatorní a býklad                              norem čistě domáího původu. Vice zde: K hn  . Srovnávací metoda výkladu                              práva  ve  srovnávací  perspektivě  .  InPrávník  ,  2002,  roč  .  141,  č  .  10,  str.                              1071-1107                               8                                A. Cassese, Modern Constitutions and International Law, 192 HR (1985-                              III), 331                              9                                PETER MALANC UK, AKEHURST’S MODERN INTRODUCTION TO                              INTERNATIONAL LAW, (7th rev. ed. 1997), 63–64                               10                                  Orakhelashvili,  A.  The  Interpretation  of  Acts  and  Rules  in  Public                              International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. s. 286.                              11                                  MALENOVSKÝ,  Jiří.  Mezinárodní  právo  veřejné  :  obecná  část.  3.                              opravené a doplňkové vydání Brno : Masarykova univerzita, 2002, s. 101.                                                                   3","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 základní  prameny  dle  něj  patří  mezinárodní  obyčeje,  mezinárodní                              smlouvy  a  obecné  zásady  právní.  Do  podpůrných  pramenů  můžeme                              zařadit soudní rozhodnutí, učení kvalifikovaných znalců neboli právní                              literatura.  Ohledně  posledních  dvou  jmenovaných  nepanuje  mezi                              teoretiky  ideální  shoda  a  bývají  někdy  zařazovány  spíše  do                              interpretačních  nástrojů  pro  výklad  primárních  neboli  základních                                                           12                              pramenů,   zejména    obyčeje.    Soudní   rozhodnutí   na   poli                              mezinárodního  práva  dle  některých  teoretiků  slouží  k určování                                                                                         13                              přesného významu ustanovení práva, avšak bez ambicí ho změnit.                              I  přes  reference  uvedené  v předchozím  odstavci  toto  dělení  bey                              pochyby vychází z klasifikace právních pramenů uvedené v článku 38                                                                  14                              Statutu Mezinárodního Soudního Dvora.                               Pokud  se  zabýváme  detailně  právním  výkladem  smluv,  dojdeme                              k závěru, že interpretace v mezinárodním právu veřejném byla do 60-                              tých  let  20.století  značně  neunifikovaná  a  opírala  se  o  především  o                              doktrinální  rozdělení  na  výklad  teologický  směřující  k účelu  normy,                              objektivní  výklad,  jehož  základem  je  zkoumání  smyslu  normy  a                              výklad  subjektivní,  který  má  za  účel  zformulovat  úmysl  tvůrců                                                                    15                              v případě  smlouvy  tedy  smluvních  stran.   Toto  rozdělení  se  stalo                              obsoletním  s příchodem  nejvýznamnější  kodifikace  mezinárodního                              smluvního  práva.  Touto  kodifikací  se  stala  Vídeňská  úmluva  o                              smluvním  právu  (dále  jen   Úmluva“).  Tvůrci  Úmluvy  umně  a                              výstižně zformulovali interpretační pravidla v pouhých třech článcích                              31 až 33.                               Nejpodstatnějším je článek 31 odst. 1, který ustanovuje jako základní                              pravidla:                                       a. výklad v dobré víře ve vztahu mezi stranami smlouvy tak                                        také vůči třetím stranám,                                       b. užití  obvyklého  významu  pojmů  tak,  aby  se  výklad  co                                        nejvíce přiblížil původní vůli smluvních stran                                        12   ČEPELKA,  Čestmír;  ŠTURMA,  Pavel.  Mezinárodní  právo  veřejné.  1.                              vyd. Praha : C.H. Beck, 2008, s.105-111                               13  Volně přeloženo autorem z Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2003). International                              law. Cambridge University Press. p. 841.                               14    Celé   znění    Statutu   dostupné   zde:   http://www.icj-                              cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4\&p2=2\&p3=0#CHAPTER_II.                               15  Antonio Cassese: International Law, Oxford 2001, 133-135.                                                                   4","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                         c. to vše s přihlédnutím k cíli samotné smlouvy. 1617                               Následující  článek  32  uvádí  doplňkové  prostředky  a  limitace  jejích                                                                           18                              užívání,  které  je  definováno  jako  subsidiární.   V článku  33  se                              Úmluva  zabývá  výkladem  vícečetného  jazykového  znění  smlouvy.                              Pravidlem  zde  je  určena  rovnost  všech  jazykových  verzí  smlouvy                              s výjimkou  výslovné  dohody  stran  nebo  výslovné  formulace                                                               19                              interpretační přednosti jedné z verzí.                              Z výše  uvedeného  můžeme  soudit,  že  Úmluva  považuje  jazykový  a                              systematický  právní  výklad  mezinárodních  smluv  za  hlavní                              interpretační  metody  s přihlédnutím  k teleologickému  výkladu.                              Úmluva  znamenala  první  a  do  současné  doby  nejpodstatnější                              písemnou  kodifikaci  dřívějších  obyčejových  pravidel.  Velmi                              podstatné  z hlediska  vymahatelnosti  je  právní  závaznost  Úmluvy  na                              vztahy  mezi  stranami,  a  tak  se  vymyká  předešlým  kodifikačním                                       20                              pokusům.                              3.2 SROVNÁNÍ S PRÁVEM EU                               Podstatnou  část  tohoto  článku  autor  věnuje  popisu  rozdílností                              intepretace  práva  EU  od  výše  zmíněných  systémů  a  především                              zakotvením  interpretačních  pravidel  v primárním  a  sekundárním                              právu.  K odkazům  na  detailnější  vysvětlení  daných  pravidel  a                              výkladových  metod  autor  užívá  judikáty  ESD,  které  jsou  k danému                              tématu esenciální.                               Evropské  právo  má  jistá  specifika,  ze  kterých  vychází  i  základy                              interpretace jako je mnoho-národnost této organizace a s tím spojená                              mnohojazyčnost  právních  pramenů  nebo  například  částečně  vlastní                                16                                  Čepelka,  Č.  Právo  mezinárodních  smluv:  Vídeňská  úmluva  o  smluvním                              právu s komentářem. Praha: Karolinum, 1999, s. 56                               17                                 Text článku 31 odst.1 zní:   mlouva mus  b t vy ládána v dobré v  e  v                              souladu  s  obvy l mv znamem    ter    e  dáván  v raz m  ve  smlouv   v   e ich                              cel ovésouvislosti  a rovn ž s p ihlédnut m   p edm tu a účelu smlouvy.“                              18  Text článku 32 zní:  Doplň ov ch prost edk  v  ladu, včetn  p .pravn ch                              materiál na smlouv  a o olnost   za nichž byla smlouva uzav ena  lze použ t                              buď  pro  potvrzen   v znamu    ter   vypl vá  z  použit   člán u  31   nebopro                              určen    v znamu     dyž   v  lad   proveden    podle   člán u   31:                              a)buď  ponechává  v znam  ne ednoznačn m  nebo  ne asn m;  nebo                              b) vede   v sled u   ter   e z ejm  protismysln  nebo nerozumn .”                              19  Text článku 33  odst.1 zní: “Byla-li smlouva původně vyhotovena ve dvou                              nebo  v ce azyc ch   má   e    text  ste nou  platnost  v   aždém  z  těchto                              jazyků po ud  smlouva  nestanov   nebo  se  strany  nedohodnou   že  v                              př paděrozd lnosti  e rozhodu  c  určit  text.”                               20   Rozehnalová,  Naděžda;  Týč,  Vladimír.  Evropský  justiční  prostor  (v                              civilních otázkách). 2.nezměn. vyd. Brno : Masarykova univerzita, 2006, s.                              381.                                                                   5","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 terminologie,  která  vyžaduje  specifickou  interpretaci  a  přístup.                              Evropská  Unie  jako  mezinárodní  organizace  a  její  právní  systém  se                              odlišuje svou povahou, kdy státy přenesly některé své pravomoci na                              nadnárodní  úroveň  a  tak  se  vystavily  situacím,  kdy  i  přes  svůj                              nesouhlas musí přijmout právní normu, interpretovat ji či ji aplikovat.                              Tento  fakt  vede  ke  snaze  o  jednotnost  výkladu  práva  EU  a  jeho                                        21                              závaznost.                              Evropské právo nezapře své kořeny v právu mezinárodním a často na                              něj  odkazuje  i  judikatura  Soudního  dvora  Evropské  Unie  (dále  jen                                                                                      22                               ESD“), např. v judikátu The Queen v Minister of Agriculture  ESD                              použil  interpretační  metody  mezinárodního  práva  a  odkázal  na                              ustanovení  Úmluvy  při  aplikaci  na  právní  vztahy  mezi  členskými                                   23                              státy.                              Interpretační  pravidla  v rámci  systému  jsou  také  odlišná  na  základě                              rozdělení  právních  předpisů  na  primární  a  sekundární  právo,  kdy                              primární  právo  ve formě  zakládajících  smluv  nese  jistou  ústavně-                                              24                              právní  povahu,   která  jej  předurčuje  v jisté  obecnosti  a                              nekonkrétnosti,  která  musí  být  zajištěna  jistým  a  jednotlivým                                        25                              výkladem.   Na  druhé  straně  sekundární  právo  je  od  primárního                              odvozeno,  je  vytvářeno  společnými  unijními  orgány  a  vyznačuje  se                              větší  specifičností.   de  se  výklad  práva  soustřeďuje  na  unifikaci  a                              harmonizaci  pravidel,  které  ve  svém  důsledku  mohou  působit                                                                               26                              v různých právních systémech členských zemí odlišně.                               Při  určování  interpretačních  pravidel  hraje  důležitou  roli  judikatura                              ESD, který, jak bylo uvedeno výše, zajišťuje jednotný výklad norem a                              dohlíží tak nad jeho správnou aplikací. ESD je také autorem mnoha                               evropských“  právních  pojmů,  které  pomáhají  unifikovat  intepretaci                              některých unikátních pravidel, které právní systém EU nabízí.                                 21                                 TICHÝ, L. a kol. Evropské právo. 3. vyd. Praha : C.H. Beck, 2006, s. 227                              22  Rozsudek C-432/92, The Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and                              Food, ex parte S. P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd a ostatní.                              23  Na právní vztahy mezi EU a třetími stranami bybylo spše vhodnější použít                              Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International                              Organizations or between International Organizations, done at Vienna on 21                              March 1986. Více k tomu to tématu  TICHÝ, L. a kol. Evropské právo. 3. vyd.                              Praha : C.H. Beck, 2006, s. 188.                               24  Armin Von Bogdandy, Founding Principles of EU Law: A Theoretical and                              Doctrinal Sketch, European Law Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, March 2010, pp.                              95–111.                               25                                 POLLARD, David; ROSS, Malcolm. European Community law : text and                              materials. London : Butterworth, 1994, s. 218-219.                              26                                  Empel/van  Gerven  (eds.),  Fifty  Years  of  European  Legal  Integration,                              Kluwer, to be published fall 2002, manuscript p.21.                                                                   6","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Právo  EU  podléhá  na  jednu  stranu  klasickým  interpretačním                              metodám,  které  jsou  různými  způsoby  modifikovány  pro  potřeby                              systému a několika specifickými metodami a pojmy, kterými se autor                              zabývá  níže  v texu.  Mezi  výkladové  metody,  známé  již                              z mezinárodního a vnitrostátního práva, které se ovšem odlišují, patří:                                 1. Jazykový  výklad  zde jako  obvykle  při  výkladu  pojmů  přichází                                  první.  Jazyk  je  zde  s právem  spojený  stejně  jako  v domácím  či                                                                                           27                                  mezinárodním právu (Rozsudek Meridionale Industria Salumi),                                  podléhá  však  jistým  specifikům  mnohojazyčnosti  a  specifické                                  terminologii, které se autor věnuje dále v textu.                                  2. Systematický  výklad,  který  je  především  významný  pro                                  systémové  rozdělení  primárního  a  sekundárního  práva  (Marthe                                           28                                  Klensch).  Také je třeba brát v potaz určení pořadí jednotlivých                                  kapitol  v zakládajících  smlouvách.  Především  Smlouva  o                                  Fungování  Evropské  Unie  řadí  své  politiky  dle  důležitosti  a                                  konzistenci interpretace smluv a protokolů vztahujících se k jedné                                                        29                                  instituci (Albert Wagner ).                                3. Teleologický výklad přichází typicky společně se systematickým                                  výkladem při nejasnosti výkladu jazykového. V evropském právu                                  je  ovšem  v jistých  případech  účel  a  smysl  normy  velice  těžké                                  specifikovat a interpretovat. Děje se tak především u primárního                                  práva, kde má ESD velké pole působnosti vykládat komunitární                                  pravidla a pojmosloví dle svého uvážení a často tak činí v souladu                                                     30                                  se zásadou effet utile , které se autor věnuje níže v textu.                                 4. Historický  výklad  je  jednou  z nejdiverzifikovanějších  metod                                  v právu  EU  a  jeho  použití  je  tak  velmi  omezené.  Rozdělení  na                                  primární  a  sekundární  prameny  práva  historický  výklad                                  komplikuje.  V případě  primárního  práva  je  metoda  omezena                                  nedokonalou  dostupností  oficiálních  dokumentů  a  v případě                                  sekundárního  práva  je  limitované  použití  omezeno  samotnou                                                                                    32                                                              31                                  judikaturou ESD, např Stauder  nebo Komise vs. Itálie.                                27                                   de  ESD  zařadil  mezi  obecně  uznávané  metody  interperetace  metodu                              jazykovou  a  vedle  ní  i  systémovou  a  teleologickou.  Více  v  Spojený                              případech 212/80 až 217/80 Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Srl                              Meridionale Industria Salumi a ostatní.                              28                                  Spojené  případy  201  a  202/85  Marthe  Klensch  and  others  v  Secrétaire                              d'État à l'Agriculture et à la Viticulture.                               29                                 Rozsudek ESD 101/63 Albert Wagner v Jean Fohrmann and Antoine Krier                              30   Tato  zásady  bývá  někdy  definována  i  jako  výkladová  metoda,  srovnej                              TICHÝ, L. a kol. Evropské právo. 3. vyd. Praha : C.H. Beck, 2006, s. 230-                              231.                               31                                 Zde se se ESD odvolal na připomínkové řízení proběhnuvší předpřijetím                              předmětného  rozhodnutí  uvnitř  Evropské  komise  a  odkaz  na  tyto                                                                 7","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Mezi  další  metody  výkladu  patří  metoda  srovnávací  neboli                              komparativní  a  výklad  logický.  Tyto  metody  bývají  někdy                              ztotožňovány  s metodami  předchozími  nebo  považovány  za                                                      33                              kombinace  těchto  metod.   Kromě  těchto   tradičních“  metod  má                              evropské  právo  další  specifika,  které  je  třeba  zmínit  ve  výkladu                              intepretace. Některé z nich vycházejí z metod popsaných výše, některé                              je  rozšiřují  a  mění.  Velice  výstižně  se  je  podařilo  shrnout  ESD                                                34                              v rozsudku CILFIT.  Mezi tyto specifika dle autora patří:                                5. Specifický  výklad  pojmů  neboli  terminologie,  který  je  velice                                  typický  pro  rychle  se  rozvíjející  se  právní  systémy,  jakým  je                                  právě ten evropský. ESD se v této roli projevil velice aktivně a je                                  znám velký počet nových právních pojmů, kterým ESD přiřadil                                  tzv. komunitární nebo autonomní výklad. Typickým příkladem je                                  komunitární  pojem  worker  neboli  pracovník  jako  označení  pro                                  osoby  ekonomicky  aktivní  -  zaměstnané i samostatně  výdělečně                                        35                                  činné.     Dle  ESD  (North  Kerry  Milk  Products)  je  jednou                                  z možností,  jak  odstranit  rozdíly  v jazykovém  výkladu                                  jednotlivých  právních  systémů  členských  zemí  terminologii                                  unifikovat neboli vytvořit pojmy,  které bude mít stejný význam                                                                       36                                  v souladu s teorií autonomní interpretace.                                6. Jazykové rozdíly, které se vymykají pojetí jazykového výkladu,                                  jak  jej  známe  z vnitrostátního  prostředí.  V EU  existuje  23                                  připomínkyv samotném odůvodnění rozhodnutí. Více v rozsudku ESD 29/69                              Erich Stauder vs. City of Ulm – Sozialamt.                              32                                  Rozsudek  429/85  Commission  of  the  European  Communities  v  Italian                              Republic:      lad  ustanoven   sm rnice   založen   na  doslovném  zn n                              nem žeb t   nahrazen   v  ladem   založen m   na   prohlá en     ady,                              zaznamenaném v zápisuz  ednán   na n mž byla sm rnice p i ata.”                               33                                 TÝČ, Vladimír.   áklady práva Evropské  unie pro ekonomy. 5. aktualiz.                              vyd. Praha : Linde, 2006, s.122, více viz podkapitola č. 11.1.                              34                                  Rozsudek  ESD  283/81,  Srl  CILFIT  and  Lanificio  di  Gavardo  SpA  v                              Ministry of Health                              35                                  Viz  např  .  rozsudek  ESD  75/63  Mrs  M.K.H.  Hoekstra  (née  Unger)  v                              Bestuur  der  Bedrijfsvereniging  voor  Detailhandel  en  Ambachten                              (Administration of the Industrial Board for Retail Trades and Businesses).                               36   ajímavý článek na toto téma Tamás Szabados, The Role of Language in                              Legal Interpretation: The Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European                              Uniona Discussion Paper. Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence - Eötvös Loránd                              University  –  Faculty  of  Law  and  Political  Sciences,  Eötvös  Loránd                              University.                   Available                    here:                              http://jmce.elte.hu/index.php?option=com_content\&view=article\&id=12:the-                              role-of-language-in-legal-interpretation-the-case-law-of-the-court-of-justice-                              of-the-european-union\&catid=6:impact-of-eu-law-on-national-legal-                              languages\&Itemid=15                                                                   8","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                       37                                  pracovních   jazyků.    Toto   multi-jazykové   prostředí  je                                  bezpochyby velkým problémem pro interpretaci právních pojmů a                                  pramenů.  ESD  judikoval  stejnou  váhu  pro  všechny  jazykové                                                    38                                  verze (EMU Tabac)  a pro nejasnost mezi jazykovými verzemi                                  judikoval  nutnost  porovnat  jednotlivé  jazykové  verze  a  použití                                                                  39                                  jiných  metod  výkladu  (Rockfon)   zejména  systematické  a                                                                    41                                                          40                                  teleologické (Bouchereau) (Lubella) . Další řešením je již výše                                  zmíněný autonomní komunitární výklad pojmů, který nepřipouští                                  odchylky.                                                             42                                7. Effet utile, maximální účinek  neboli cíle a světlo komunitárního                                  systému je specifickým pravidlem komunitárního práva řadící se                                  k teleologickému  výkladu.  Interpretační  nejasnost  v primárním                                  právu  představuje  široké  pole  působnosti  pro  judikaturu  ESD.                                  Projevy  zásady  effet  utile  můžeme  sledovat  především  v třech                                                      43                                  oblastech a principech :                                      a. Autonomie  práva  EU,  která  byla  formulována  trojicí                                                                                        45                                                                                44                                        legendárních  rozsudků  Van  Gend  en  Loos ,  Costa   vs                               37                                 Dle Evropské Komise: angličtina, bulharština, čeština, dánština, estonština,                              finština,  francouzština,  irština,  italština,  litevština,  lotyština,  maďarština,                              maltština,  němčina,  nizozemština,  polština,  portugalština,  rumunština,                              řečtina,   slovenština,   slovinština,   španělština   a   švédština.                              http://ec.europa.eu/languages/languages-of-europe/eu-languages_cs.htm                               38   rozsudek  ESD  C-296/95  The  Queen  v  Commissioners  of  Customs  and                              Excise,  ex  parte  EMU  Tabac  SARL,  The  Man  inBlack  Ltd,  John                              Cunningham                               39                                  Rozsudek  ESD  C-449/93  Rockfon  A/S  v  Specialarbejderforbundet  i                              Danmark,  C-236/97  Skatteministeriet  v  Aktieselskabet  Forsikrinsselskabet                              Codan.                               40  Rozsudek ESD 30/77 Régina v Pierre Bouchereau: “odlišné jazykové verze                              komunitárníhopředpisu  musí  být  vykládány  jednotně,  tudíž  v  případě                              odlišností mezi verzemi musíbýt předmětné nejasné ustanovení vykládáno s                              ohledem na účel a obecnousystematiku norem, jichž je součástí.”                               41  Rozsudek ESD C-6 /95 Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich B ker GmbH                              \& Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Cottbus.                              42  Týč , V. Pů sobení práva Evropské unie ve sféř e č eského právního ř ádu                              –  úvodní  studie.  In:  Sborník  z  workshopu  konaného  na  Právnické  fakultě                              MU v Brně  dne 26.9.2006 Evropský kontext vývoje č eského práva po roce                              2004. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2006, s. 25.                               43   Převzato  z  Sehnálek,  D.  Effet  utile  a  jeho  projevy  př  i  interpretaci                              komunitárního práva. In Právník, 2009, roč . 148, č . 8, s. 787-789.                               44   Rozsudek  ESD  26/62  NV  Algemeine  Transport-  en  Expeditie                              Onderneming  van  Gend  \&  Loos  v  Netherlands  Inland  Revenue                              Administration.                               45                                 Rozsudek ESD 6/64 Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L.                                                                 9","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                            46                                        Enel  a  Simmenthal ,  které  stojí  za  komunitárním  pojetí                                        nadřazenosti  práva  EU  nad  národními  právními  systémy                                        pravidlem přímé aplikovatelnosti neboli přímého účinku.                                       b. Přímý  účinek,  neboli  bezprostřední  aplikovatelnost,  který                                        byl  původně  vyhrazen  pouze  pro  přímý  harmonizační                                        nástroj evropského práva – Nařízení – byl s pomocí zásady                                                                                           47                                        effet  utile  a  díky  judikátům  ESD  v čele  s Van  Duyn                                        rozšířen  i  na  směrnice,  ovšem  v omezené  míře  a  to                                        v případě možnosti jednotlivce dovolat se svých práv proti                                        státu.                                        c. Nepřímý  účinek  směrnice je  krásným  příkladem  přeměny                                        základů právního řádu v souladu se zásadou maximálního                                                                                 48                                        účinku,  kdy  ESD  v rozsudku  Von  Colson   judikoval                                        povinnost členských států, kterým je směrnice adresována                                        přijmout veškerá opatření tak, aby zajistila plnou účinnost                                        směrnice v souladu s účelem, který sleduje a tím tak může                                        omezovat  právo  členských  států  na  volby  prostředků  a                                        formy dosažení cíle směrnice.                                        d. Odpovědnost  státu,  která  byla  judikována  známým                                                              49                                        rozsudkem  Frankovich,   kde  ESD  zpochybnil  plnou                                        účinnost  norem  komunitárního  práva  za  absence                                        odpovědnosti  členského  státu  za  škodu  způsobenou                                        jednotlivci při porušení práva EU.                                       e. Požadavek na jednotný, objektivní a předvídatelný výklad,                                        který   je   předpokladem   úspěšného   a   celistvého                                        interpretačního  systému  v rámci  evropského  práva.  I  přes                                        některé  pochybnosti  o  příliš  prointegračnímu  až                                        aktivistickému  výkladu  ustanovení  a  někdy  až  účelovým                                        změnám  pravidel  jako  v případech  Van  Duyn  či  Von                                        Colson, je třeba mít na paměti, že systém evropského práva                                        je velice živý a neustále se rozrůstající a zásada effet utile                                        ve   spojení   s teleologickým   přístupem   vyjasňuje                                        interpretační  linii  přísně  v pomyslném  směru  k účelu  a                                        efektivnosti norem práva EU.                               Užití  interpretačních  metod  má  subjektu  pomoci  zorientovat  se                              v pravidlech a dojít ke správnému smyslu a obsahu právní normy. Při                              kombinaci několika výkladových  metod je pravděpodobné, že různé                                46                                 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA.                              47  Rozsudek ESD 41/74 Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office.                               48                                 Rozsudek ESD 14/83 Sabine von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann v Land                              Nordrhein-Westfalen.                              49                                 Rozsudek ESD ve spojeném případu C-6/90 a C-9/90 Andrea Francovich                              and Danila Bonifaci and others v Italian Republic.                                                                   10","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 subjekty mohou dojít k různým závěrům. Nicméně je třeba ocenit, že i                              přes svou dynamičnost a komplexnost jsou pravidla interpretace práva                              EU dobře čitelná a díky bohaté judikatuře široce aplikovatelná.                               4. ZÁVĚR                               Autor se v tomto příspěvku pokouší o krátký přehled základů právní                              interpretace   ve   srovnání   výkladových   metod   národního,                              mezinárodního a především evropského práva. Interpretace národních                              předpisů zde slouží spíše jen jako vodítko pro pochopení složitějších                              interpretačních metod mezinárodního a evropského práva.                               Výklad  evropského  práva  podlého  mnoha  specifikům.  Klasické                              interpretační  metody  jako  historická,  logická  nebo  jazyková  metoda                              jsou  zde  doplněny  dynamickými  metodami  a  pravidly  maximálního                              účinku  neboli  effet  utile,  jazykovými  rozdíly  či  autonomním                              výkladem  za  pomocí  vlastní  právní  terminologie  unifikované                              judikaturou  Soudního  Dvora  Evropské  Unie,  který  representuje  pro-                              integrační sílu mezi institucemi Evropské Unie.                               I  přes  možnou  účelovost  prosazování  maximálního  účinku  a  účelu                              evropského  práva  v některých  rozsudcích  nelze  soudu  upřít  snahu  o                              celistvý a progresivní výklad práva v zájmu fungování komunitárního                              právního řádu.                               Literature:                              -  Armin  Von  Bogdandy,  Founding  Principles  of  EU  Law:  A                                 Theoretical and Doctrinal Sketch, European Law Journal, Vol. 16,                                 No. 2, March 2010                              -  Boguszak,  J.  –  Čapek,  J.  –  Gerloch,  A.  Teorie  práva  .  Praha:                                 EUROLEX Bohemia, 2001.                              -  A. Cassese, Modern Constitutions and International Law, 192 HR                                 (1985-III).                              -  Antonio Cassese: International Law, Oxford 2001                              -  Čepelka, Čestmír; ŠTURMA, Pavel. Mezinárodní právo veřejné. 1.                                 vyd. Praha : C.H. Beck, 2008.                              -  Čepelka,  Č.  Právo  mezinárodních  smluv:  Vídeňská  úmluva  o                                 smluvním právu s komentářem. Praha: Karolinum, 1999.                              -  Empel/van  Gerven  (eds.),  Fifty  Years  of  European  Legal                                 Integration, Kluwer, to be published fall 2002, manuscript.                              -  Harvánek,  J.  a  kol.,  Teorie  práva,  Plzeň  Vydavatelství  a                                 nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk, 2008.                              -  Holubová Václava a kolektiv, Nový akademický slovník cizích slov                                 A-Ž: ACADEMIA, 2005.                               -  K hn   .  Srovnávací  metoda  výkladu  práva  ve  srovnávací                                 perspektivě . InPrávník , 2002, roč . 141, č . 10.                              -  Malanczuk  Peter,  AKEHURST’S  MODERN  INTRODUCTION                                 TO INTERNATIONAL LAW, (7th rev. ed. 1997).                                                                     11","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 -  Malenovský,  Jiří.  Mezinárodní  právo  veřejné  :  obecná  část.  3.                                 opravené a doplňkové vydání Brno : Masarykova univerzita, 2002.                              -  Orakhelashvili, A. The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public                                 International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.                              -  Polland, David; ROSS, Malcolm. European Community law : text                                 and materials. London : Butterworth, 1994.                              -  Rozehnalová, Naděžda; Týč, Vladimír. Evropský justiční prostor (v                                 civilních otázkách). 2.nezměn. vyd. Brno : Masarykova univerzita,                                 2006,                              -  Sehnálek,  D.  Effet  utile  a  jeho  projevy  př  i  interpretaci                                 komunitárního práva. In Právník, 2009, roč . 148, č . á.                              -  Shaw,  Malcolm  Nathan  (2003).  International  law.  Cambridge                                 University Press.                              -  Tamás  Szabados,  The  Role  of  Language  in  Legal  Interpretation:                                 The  Case  Law  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Uniona                                 Discussion  Paper.  Jean  Monnet  Centre  of  Excellence  -  Eötvös                                 Loránd University – Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Eötvös                                 Loránd                  University.                Dostupný                                 zde:http://jmce.elte.hu/index.php?option=com_content\&view=articl                                 e\&id=12:the-role-of-language-in-legal-interpretation-the-case-law-                                 of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union\&catid=6:impact-of-                                 eu-law-on-national-legal-languages\&Itemid=15                              -  Tichý, L. a kol. Evropské právo. 3. vyd. Praha : C.H. Beck, 2006                              -  Týč,  Vladimír.   áklady  práva  Evropské  unie  pro  ekonomy.  5.                                 aktualiz.  vyd.  Praha  :  Linde,  2006,  s.122,  více  viz  podkapitola  č.                                 11.1.                              -  Týč , V. Působení práva Evropské unie ve sféř e č eského právního                                 ř  ádu  –  úvodní  studie.  In:  Sborník  z  workshopu  konaného  na                                 Právnické  fakultě  MU  v  Brně    dne  26.9.2006  Evropský  kontext                                 vývoje č eského práva po roce 2004. Brno: Masarykova univerzita,                                 2006.                              -  Weyr, František. Teorie práva. Brno : Orbis, 1936.                               Rozsudky:                              -  Rozsudek  C-432/92,  The  Queen  v  Minister  of  Agriculture,                                 Fisheries  and  Food,  ex  parte  S.  P.  Anastasiou  (Pissouri)  Ltd  a                                 ostatní                               -  Spojené případy 212/80 až 217/80 Amministrazione delle  finanze                                 dello Stato v Srl Meridionale Industria Salumi a ostatní.                              -  Spojené  případy  201  a  202/85  Marthe  Klensch  and  others  v                                 Secrétaire d'État à l'Agriculture et à la Viticulture.                              -  Rozsudek  ESD  101/63  Albert  Wagner  v  Jean  Fohrmann  and                                 Antoine Krier                              -  Rozsudek ESD 29/69 Erich Stauder vs. City of Ulm – Sozialamt.                              -  Rozsudek  429/85  Commission  of  the  European  Communities  v                                 Italian Republic                                                                     12","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 -  Rozsudek ESD 283/81, Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v                                 Ministry of Health                              -  Rozsudek ESD 75/63 Mrs M.K.H. Hoekstra (née Unger) v Bestuur                                 der  Bedrijfsvereniging  voor  Detailhandel  en  Ambachten                                 (Administration  of  the  Industrial  Board  for  Retail  Trades  and                                 Businesses).                              -  Rozsudek ESD C-296/95 The Queen v Commissioners of Customs                                 and  Excise,  ex  parte  EMU  Tabac  SARL,  The  Man  inBlack  Ltd,                                 John Cunningham                              -  Rozsudek ESD C-449/93 Rockfon A/S v Specialarbejderforbundet i                                 Danmark,    C-236/97    Skatteministeriet   v   Aktieselskabet                                 Forsikrinsselskabet Codan.                              -  Rozsudek  ESD  30/77  Régina  v  Pierre  Bouchereau:  “odlišné                                 jazykové  verze  komunitárníhopředpisu  musí  být  vykládány                                 jednotně,  tudíž  v  případě  odlišností  mezi  verzemi  musíbýt                                 předmětné  nejasné  ustanovení  vykládáno  s  ohledem  na  účel  a                                 obecnousystematiku norem, jichž je součástí.”                              -  Rozsudek ESD C-6 /95 Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich B ker                                 GmbH \& Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Cottbus.                              -  Rozsudek ESD 6/64 Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L.                              -  Rozsudek ESD 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v                                 Simmenthal SpA.                              -  Rozsudek ESD 41/74 Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office.                              -  Rozsudek ESD 14/83 Sabine von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann v                                 Land Nordrhein-Westfalen.                              -  Rozsudek  ESD  ve  spojeném  případu  C-6/90  a  C-9/90  Andrea                                 Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v Italian Republic.                                  Contact – email                              badzgo@gmail.com                                                                                          13","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                    APLIKÁCIA PRÁVA EÚ V ROZHODOVACEJ                                 ČINNOSTI SLOVENSKÝCH OKRESNÝCH A                                               KRAJSKÝCH SÚDOV                                                      RÓBERT BARDAČ                                Právnická fakulta, Trnavská univerzita v Trnave, Slovenská republika                                Abstract in original language                              rozhodovacej  činnosti  slovenských  okresných  a  krajských  súdov.                              Autor  sa  venuje  predovšetkým  priamej  použiteľnosti,  nadradenosti,                              priamemu  účinku  a  nepriamemu  účinku  práva  EÚ  a  poukazuje  na                              súvisiace nedostatky v aktuálnej rozhodovacej praxi týchto súdov.                               Key words in original language                              aplikácia  práva  EÚ;  slovenské  súdy;  priama  použiteľnosť;                              nadradenosť; priamy účinok; nepriamy účinok                               Abstract                              The article deals with specific problems regarding application of EU                              Law  in  the  judicial  practice  of  Slovak  district  and  regional  courts.                              Author  pays  particular  attention  mainly  to  the  direct  applicability,                              supremacy,  direct  and  indirect  effect  of  EU  Law  and  points  to  the                              related gaps in actual decisional practice.                               Key words                              application of EU Law; Slovak courts; direct applicability; supremacy;                              direct effect; indirect effect                               1. ÚVOD                                                                                1                              Aplikáciu  právneho  poriadku  Európskej  únie  (EÚ)   v  celej  šírke                              aspektov, ktoré to zahŕňa, považujeme za stálu výzvu pre slovenské                              všeobecné súdy a súčasne oblasť, v ktorej majú značné rezervy. To má                              podľa nášho názoru príčiny jednak v nedostatočnej príprave v oblasti                              vzdelávania,  najmä  u  sudcov  a  súdneho  aparátu,  ktorí  s  úniovým                              právom  neboli  konfrontovaní  v  rámci  vysokoškolského  štúdia.  Na                              sudcoch  a  celom  justičnom  aparáte  je  však  povinnosť  úniové  právo                              aplikovať  a  ho  aj  aplikovať  správne.  To  má  dosah  aj  v  politickej                              rovine,  pretože  bez  správnej  a  jednotnej  aplikácie  úniového  práva                                                                              2                              nemôže byť dosiahnutý integračný úspech celej únie.  S ohľadom na                              to, že v \"bežnej\" aplikačnej praxi vyvoláva polemiky pochopiteľne aj                                    1                                 V  príspevku  označujeme  právny  poriadok  EÚ  promiscue  aj  ako  úniové                              právo, aj ako právo EÚ, a to v tom zmysle ako má tento pojem význam po                              nadobudnutí účinnosti Lisabonskej zmluvy.                               2  Porovnaj Łazowski, 2010, s. 26.                                                                   14","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                                      3                              \"bežná\"  hierarchia  právnych  predpisov,   možno  bez  zveličovania                              povedať, že recepcia úniového právneho poriadku, ku ktorej došlo k                              vstupu  Slovenskej  republiky  do  Európskej  únie  v  máji  2004                              predstavuje  ešte  náročnejšiu  úlohu.  Tá  znásobuje  už  i  tak                              komplikované  otázky  intraprávneho  pluralizmu.  Łazowski  udáva,  že                              otázkami, ktoré ako prvé riešia/riešili sudcovia v členských krajinách                              pristúpených  do  Európskej  únie  otázky  aplikácie  práva  EÚ  boli                              predovšetkým  (i)  aplikácia  daňových  predpisov,  (ii)  \"jazykový                              problém\"  s  prekladmi  úniových  aktov  (a  aj  judikatúry)  a  (iii)                              predvstupová aplikácia, resp. aplikácia vo veciach, v ktorých došlo k                                                                                       4                              vzniku relevantných skutkových okolností pred vstupom do EÚ.                               Tento  príspevok  ponúkne  krátky  pohľad  na  vybrané  problémy  pri                                                                                            5                              aplikácii práva EÚ slovenským okresnými súdmi a krajskými súdmi,                              pričom pôjde o pohľad skôr empirický než analytický a skôr o pohľad                              s  použitím  príkladov  pars  pro  toto  než  o  prehľad  s  komplexným                              náhľadom,  pretože  by  priestor  vymedzený  pre  tento  príspevok                              dostatočne neumožňuje.                               2. APLIKÁCIA  ÚNIOVÉHO  PRÁVA  OKRESNÝMI  SÚDMI  A                              KRAJSKÝMI SÚDMI VO VŠEOBECNOSTI                               Tento  príspevok  sa  zameriava  na  aplikačnú  prax  slovenských                              okresných  a  krajských  súdov.  Tie  sú  v  rámci  justičnej  sústavy  v                              Slovenskej  republiky  \"nižšími  súdmi\"  a  ich  vecnú  a  funkčnú                              príslušnosť  stanovujú  vnútroštátne  pravidlá.  Tak  okresné,  ako  aj                              krajské  súdy  sú  úniovými  súdmi  v  tom  zmysle,  že  sú  povolené  k                              aplikácii  práva  EÚ.  To  im  vyplýva  zo  záväzku  lojality  upraveného                              v čl. 4 ods. 3 Zmluvy o Európskej únii (ďalej len \"ZEÚ\"):                               \"… členské štáty prijmú všetky opatrenia všeobecnej alebo osobitnej                              povahy,  aby  zabezpečili  plnenie  záväzkov  vyplývajúcich  zo  zmlúv                              alebo z aktov inštitúcií Únie. Členské štáty pomáhajú Únii pri plnení                                       3                                Napríklad vo vzťahu k otázke, či je možné aplikovať priamo právnu normu                              vyplývajúcu z ústavy, resp. ústavný princíp, čo riešil Najvyšší súd Slovenskej                              republiky vo veci Januch c/a Colné riaditeľstvo (Rumana, 2011, s. 229).                              4  Porovnaj Łazowski, 2010, s. 27.                                5                                 Sústavu  týchto  súdov  tvorí  podľa  zákona  č.  371/2004  Z.  z.  o  sídlach  a                              obvodoch  súdov  Slovenskej  republiky  a  o  zmene  zákona  č.  99/1963  Zb.                              Občiansky súdny poriadok v znení neskorších predpisov v znení neskorších                              predpisov celkovo 54 okresných súdov a 8 krajských súdov, ktoré sa venujú                              civilnej a obchodnej agende, agende správneho súdnictva a trestnej agende.                              Postavenie  krajského  súdu  má  aj  Špecializovaný  trestný  súd,  ale  ním  sa                              vzhľadom  na jeho špecifickú agendu nebudeme pre účely nášho príspevku                              ďalej zaoberať.                                                                   15","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 jej  úloh  a  neprijmú  žiadne  opatrenie,  ktoré  by  mohlo  ohroziť                                                     6                              dosiahnutie cieľov Únie\".                              Vzájomné  vzťahy  medzi  normami  s  výlučne  vnútroštátnym                              \"rodokmeňom\"  a  normami  s  rodokmeňom  majúcim  pôvod  v                              normotvorbe orgánov EÚ alebo súdnych orgánov EÚ majú vertikálny                                       7                              charakter.  Existujú stále polemiky, do akej miery je aplikácia práva                              EÚ aplikáciou ex officio a teda do akej miery zaväzuje súdy členských                              krajín aj bez návrhov jednotlivých účastníkov sporu. Literatúra udáva,                              že je judikatúra Súdneho dvora sa drží toho, že súdy majú povinnosť                              aplikovať úniové právo aj bez iniciatívy strán sporu, rovnako ako  v                              porovnateľných  situáciách  aplikujú  bez  iniciatívy  strán  sporu  aj                                                8                              vnútroštátne  právo.   V  prípade  hospodárskej  súťaže  a  ochrany                                                               9                              spotrebiteľa majú ísť súdy ešte ďalej.                              Pri  riešení  úloh  okresných  a  krajských  súdov  pri  aplikácii  práva                                                                             10                              zohráva dôležitú úlohu vecná a funkčná príslušnosť.  V závislosti od                              druhu sporu býva spravidla okresný súd súdom prvej inštancie, pričom                              v  takom  prípade  krajský  súd  koná  ako  odvolací  súd,  súd  druhej                              inštancie.  Z  tohto  pravidla  existujú  početné  výnimky,  napríklad  pri                              rozhodovaní  o  výkonu  rozhodnutia,  v  exekučných  konaniach,                              konkurzných  a  reštrukturalizačných  konaniach,  ale  aj  napríklad  pri                              rozhodovaní  kontumačným  rozsudkom  a  pod.,  kedy  sú  konania                              zásadne jednoinštančné a odvolanie nebýva prípustné. Ďalej existujú                                                                                    11                              situácie,  kedy  krajský  súd  koná  ako  súd  prvej  inštancie.   To  má                                6                                 Zásadu  lojality  možno  nájsť  aj  v  čl.  86  Zmluvy  o založení  Európskeho                              spoločenstva uhlia a ocele a predstavuje rovnakú interpretačnú prizmu ako čl.                              4 ods. 3 ZEÚ (porovnaj rozsudok Súdneho dvora zo 16. decembra 1960 vo                              veci  6/60,  Jean  Humblet  v.  Belgicko,  Recueil  1960,  p.  01125;  všetky                              rozhodnutia Súdneho dvora EÚ citované v tejto práci sú dostupné v databáze                              Úrad  pre  publikácie,  EUR-lex,  2011).  Porovnaj  tiež  čl.  192  Zmluvy  o                              založení Európskeho spoločenstva pre atómovú energiu.                              7  Porovnaj Káčer, 2011, s. 99-101.                               8                                Bobek, 2011, s. 257.                              9  Porovnaj Bobek, 2011, s. 257-266.                               10                                 Funkčná príslušnosť určuje súd, ktorý určitú vec prejednáva a rozhoduje v                              inštančnom postupe, t. j. rozhoduje o riadnom alebo mimoriadnom opravnom                              prostriedku (cf. Mazák, 2007, s. 57).                               11  Podľa § 9 ods. 2 zákona č. 99/1963 Zb. Občiansky súdny poriadok v znení                              neskorších  predpisov  je  to  (a)  v  sporoch  o  vzájomné  vyporiadanie  dávky                              poskytnutej  neprávom  alebo  vo  vyššej  výmere,  než  patrila,  medzi                              zamestnávateľom  a  príjemcom  tejto  dávky  podľa  právnych  predpisov  o                              sociálnom  zabezpečení,  (b)  v  sporoch  medzi  príslušným  orgánom                              nemocenského  poistenia  a  zamestnávateľom  o  náhradu  škody  vzniknutej                              nesprávnym  postupom  pri  vykonávaní  nemocenského  poistenia,  a  (c)  v                              sporoch týkajúcich sa cudzieho štátu alebo osôb požívajúcich diplomatické                              imunity  a  výsady,  ak  tieto  spory  patria  do  právomoci  súdov  Slovenskej                              republiky.                                                                   16","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 zásadný  vplyv  pre  stanovenie  súdu  poslednej  inštancie,  o  ktorom                              hovorí ustanovenie čl. 267 ods. 3 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie.                              Otázka  súdu  poslednej  inštancie  preto  nemusí  byť  vyriešená                              paušálnym záverom o tom, že je to práve krajský súd alebo práve len                              najvyšší súd, pretože ním v závislosti od riešenej veci môže byť tak                              okresný súd, krajský súd alebo najvyšší súd.                                Aplikácia práva je praktickou súčasťou právneho diskurzu a kľúčovú                              úlohu  tu  zohráva  nájdenie  správneho  rozhodnutia  (regulatívna                              ekonómia),  a  nájdenie  správneho  odôvodnenia  tohto  rozhodnutia                                                  12                              (naratívna  ekonómia).   Práve  druhé  uvedené,  odôvodnenie  súdneho                              rozhodnutia, predstavuje východisko pre skúmanie otázok týkajúcich                              sa  aplikácie  úniového  práva.  V  súčasnosti  neexistuje  v  Slovenskej                              republike databáza sprístupňujúca rozhodnutia slovenských okresných                              a  krajských  súdov  v  celosti.  Zdrojom  časti  súdnych  rozhodnutí                              okresných súdov a krajských súdov je len verejne prístupná databáza                              Ministerstva spravodlivosti Slovenskej republiky (ďalej len \"MS SR\")                              Jednotný  automatizovaný  systém  právnych  informácií  (JASPI)                                                                                           13                              dostupná cez bežné užívateľské rozhranie na webovom sídle MS SR.                              Nevýhodou je, že databáza JASPI obsahuje len vybrané rozhodnutia                              okresných a krajských súdov (ktoré rozhodnutia neobsahuje uvádzame                              ďalej),  ktoré  sú  navyše  anonymizované.  Samotné  kritériá  selekcie                              rozhodnutí týkajúcich sa aplikácie úniového práva možno založiť na                              textových reťazcoch, resp. ich kombináciách, ktoré umožňuje vybrať                              zo zdrojov rozhodnutí cielený súbor s požadovanými reťazcami.                                Literatúra  udáva,  že  základnou  oblasťou,  v  ktorej  sa  právo  EÚ                              aplikuje je správne právo, pretože je to práve tá oblasť, ktorú úniové                                                                                 14                              právo najviac reguluje a v ktorej začalo svoju pôsobnosť.  Vzhľadom                              na to, že agendu správneho práva vykonávajú slovenské súdy v prvom                              stupni spravidla krajské súdy (autorovi nie je známy prípad, kedy by v                              súčasnosti  rozhodoval  okresný  súd  v  správnom  súdnictve  ako  súd                              prvého stupňa) a v druhom stupni ako odvolací súd Najvyšší súd (ten                              v  zákonom  stanovených  prípadoch  vykonáva  pôsobnosť  správneho                              súdu  prvej  inštancie).  Isté  obmedzenie  pri  riešení  problematiky                              aplikácie práva Únie  krajskými súdmi preto predstavuje skutočnosť,                              že databáza JASPI neobsahuje rozhodnutia krajských súdov v agende                              správneho  súdnictva.  Dovoľujeme  si  však  odhadnúť,  že  základné                              okruhy úniového práva, ktorými sa krajské súdy zaoberajú vo svojej                              rozhodovacej  činnosti,  sú  právo  hospodárskej  súťaže  a  verejné                              obstarávanie  ako  výrazné  politiky  Európskej  únie.  Rovnako                              neobsahuje databáza JASPI rozhodnutia vydané v trestnom konaní. V                                 12                                 Porovnaj Procházka, 2005, s. 178.                              13     Ministerstvo   spravodlivosti   Slovenskej   republiky.   Jednotný                              automatizovaný systém právnych informácií : JASPI – WEB. 2011. V tejto                              databáze  sú  dostupné  všetky  rozhodnutia  okresných  a  krajských  súdov                              citované v tejto práci.                               14  Porovnaj Bobek, 2011, s. 121-122.                                                                   17","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 rámci  nášho  príspevku  sme  sa  preto  sledovali  len  dostupnými                              rozhodnutiami, ktoré sa týkajú civilných sporov.                               3. CITAČNÁ PRAX                               Predpokladom pre hodnotenie aplikačnej činnosti slovenských súdov                              je  dôležitá  citačná  prax  úniových  právnych  aktov  a  judikatúry.  Istý                              námet ponúka sám Súdny dvor vo svojich rozhodnutiach, neexistuje                                                      15                              však  záväzné  usmernenie.   Odkazy  na  akty  EÚ  a/alebo  judikatúru                              Súdneho  dvora  v  rozhodovacej  činnosti  slovenských  okresných  a                              krajských  súdov  nie  sú  až  tak  výnimočné  (často  ide  o  odkazy  na                              \"ustálenú  judikatúru\"),  no  pomerne  výnimočné  sú  v  tej  súvislosti                              odkazy  (i)  na  konkrétnu  judikatúru,  z  ktorej  súdy  čerpajú  a  (ii)  na                              konkrétne  ustanovenia  úniových  aktov,  ktoré  aplikovali.  V                              rozhodovacej  činnosti  súdov  tradície  nejde  vôbec  o  ojedinelý  jav,                              pričom  za  nedostatočné  možno  považovať  aj  odkazovanie  na                              rozhodnutia  len  so  spisovými  značkami,  bez  uvedenia  zdroja,  kde                                                         16                              možno rozhodnutie dohľadať.                              Napríklad  Krajský  súd  v  Nitre  sa  v  spore  týkajúcom  sa  zmluvy  o                              obstaraní zájazdu zaoberal výkladom smernice Rady č. 90/314/EHS z                              13.  júna  1990  o  balíku  cestovných,  dovolenkových  a  výletných                              služieb,  konkrétne  vo  vzťahu  k  pojmu  \"škoda\".  Dospel  k  tomuto                              záveru:                               \"účelom  a  cieľom  smernice  je  zabezpečiť  ochranu  spotrebiteľa,  pre                              ktorého má náhrada škody za vadne poskytnutú dovolenku osobitný                              význam. Na pozadí takýchto okolností je potrebné vykladať aj pojem                              škody. V smernici je pojem škody zakotvený len všeobecne, no podľa                              názoru  ESD  táto  v  uvedenom  ustanovení  priznáva  aj  náhradu                              imateriálnej ujmy. Záver judikatúry ESD k čl. 5 smernice je taký, že                              tento treba vykladať tak, že zaručuje spotrebiteľovi zásadne nárok na                              náhradu  imateriálnej  ujmy  utrpenej  ako  následok  nesplnenia  alebo                                                         17                              vadného plnenia povinností \".                               Nijako bližšie neuviedol, čo myslí pod \"záverom judikatúry ESD\" k                              citovanej  smernici.  Podľa  §  157  ods.  2  Občianskeho  súdneho                              poriadku:                               \"v  odôvodnení  rozsudku  súd  uvedie,  čoho  sa  navrhovateľ  (žalobca)                              domáhal  a  z  akých  dôvodov,  ako  sa  vo  veci  vyjadril  odporca                              (žalovaný),  prípadne  iný  účastník  konania,  stručne,  jasne  a  výstižne                              vysvetlí,  ktoré  skutočnosti  považuje  za  preukázané  a  ktoré  nie,  z                              ktorých  dôkazov  vychádzal  a  akými  úvahami  sa  pri  hodnotení                                 15                                 Návod je dostupný napríklad v publikácii Kühn, 2006, s. 121-123.                              16  Porovnaj Kühn, 2006, s. 113.                               17                                 Uznesenie Krajského súdu v Nitre z 20.12.2007, sp. zn. 26Cob/112/2007.                              Tiež rozsudok Krajského súdu v Nitre z 2.5.2007, sp. zn. 7Co/5/2007.                                                                   18","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 dôkazov riadil, prečo nevykonal ďalšie navrhnuté dôkazy a ako  vec                              právne  posúdil.  Súd  dbá  na  to,  aby  odôvodnenie  rozsudku  bolo                              presvedčivé\".                               Domnievame  sa,  že  v  prípade,  že  súd  použije  za  základ  svojho                              rozhodnutie právne relevantný argument z judikatúry Súdneho dvora                              len v nekonkrétnej podobe, nebude takéto rozhodnutie spĺňať citované                              parametre zákonnosti stanovené citovaným ustanovením Občianskeho                              súdneho poriadku.                                                                     18                              Podobne  napríklad  v  dvoch  prípadoch   sudca  Okresného  súdu                              Košice I  Ladislav  Gábor  použil  odkazy  na  úniové  právo  pre                              podporenie  svojich  záverov,  ktoré  podoprel  vnútroštátnym  právom                              nasledovne:                               „treba si zvyknúť na to, že záväzkové vzťahy nie je možné vnímať len z                              pohľadu kreditor a debitor, ale aj z pohľadu, že ide o spotrebiteľa. V                              jeho  prípade  princíp  zmluvnej  slobody  musí  súd  zvlášť  citlivo                              posudzovať a konfrontovať ho s princípom zmluvnej spravodlivosti a s                              požiadavkou ekvity. Dôkazom tejto politiky Európskej únie je niekoľko                              smerníc a rozsudkov Európskeho súdneho dvora“.                               V rozhodnutí však nijako nekonkretizoval, ktoré smernice mal alebo                              ktoré  rozsudky  Súdneho  dvora  považoval  v  tomto  smere  za                              relevantné.  Otázne  je,  do  akej  miery  bolo  potrebné,  aby  pri                              \"dostatočnosti\" vnútroštátneho práva pre vyriešenie veci odkazoval aj                              na  úniové  právo,  no  ak  tak  urobil,  domnievame  sa,  že  tieto  odkazy                              mali  byť  dostatočne  podporené  aj  po  citačnej  stránke.  Citačnú  prax                              slovenských okresných a krajských súdov si tak dovoľujeme hodnotiť                              ako nedostatočnú.                               Vyskytujú  sa  však  aj  pozitívne  príklady.  Okresný  súd  Žilina  sa  v                              prejednávanej reštrukturalizačnej veci zaoberal s predbežnou otázkou,                              či v danej veci nešlo o štátnu pomoc. Túto otázku vyriešil kladne, čo                                                                                    19                              podporil aj viacerými odkazmi na judikatúru Súdneho dvora.                                 18  Rozsudky Okresného súdu Košice I z 19.11.2010, sp. zn. 29Cb/183/2008 a                              z 24.7.2009, sp. zn. 29Cb/271/2006.                               19   Pre  rozsiahlosť  rozhodnutia  uvádzame  výňatok:  \"podľa  ustálenej                              judikatúry  Európskeho  súdneho  dvora,  definícia  pomoci  je  širšia  ako                              definícia dotácie, keďže zahŕňa aj také opatrenia, ktoré v rôznych formách                              znižujú obvyklé náklady podnikov (napr. vec C-143/99 A.-W. P. GmbH e W.                              \&  P.  Z.  GmbH  proti  F.  F.  K.  [2001]  ECR  I-6717,  ods.  90).  Uplatnenie                              konkurzného  resp.  reštrukturalizačného  konania  na  zadlžený  podnik                              nepredstavuje samo osebe štátnu pomoc (napr. vec C-342/96, Španielsko v.                              Komisia  [1999]  ECR  I-2459,  ods.  46),  avšak  z  konania  resp.  nekonania                              orgánov  verejnej  moci  v  takomto  konaní,  môže  pre  takýto  podnik                              predstavovať  určitú  hospodársku  výhodu.  V  prejednávanej  veci  môže  byť                              štátna  pomoc  vyplynúť  z  odkladu  splatnosti  pohľadávok  veriteľov,  ktorí  sú                              orgánmi  verejnej  správy,  keďže  týmto  je  dlžník  v  stave  získať  finančné                              prostriedky  do  svojej  dispozície  bez  povinnosti  platiť  z  nich  úroky  z                                                                  19","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 4. PRIAMA POUŽITEĽNOSŤ                               Priama  použiteľnosť  sa  definuje,  v  súlade  s  jej  počiatočným                              vymedzením  v  rozsudku  Súdneho  dvora  vo  veci  Simmenthal                              nasledovne:                               \"Priama  aplikovateľnosť  znamená,  že  ustanovenia  komunitárneho                              práva musia ukázať úplnosť svojich účinkov rovnakým spôsobom vo                              všetkých  členských  štátoch,  a  to od  ich  vstupu do platnosti a  počas                                                    20                              celej doby ich platnosti\".                               Priamo uplatniteľný akt nemusí byť automaticky aj priamo účinný a                              naopak. Ide o dve odlišné atribúty úniového aktu. Podľa ustanovenia                              čl. 288 ods. 2 ZFEÚ sú priamo uplatniteľné len nariadenia:                               \"nariadenie má všeobecnú platnosť. Je záväzné vo svojej celistvosti a                              je priamo uplatniteľné vo všetkých členských štátoch\".                               Pojem  priamej  uplatniteľnosti  vo  vzťahu  k  nariadeniam  zrejme                              nespôsobuje nejaké problémy, pretože najviac sa približuje aplikácii                              práva  vyplývajúceho  z  vnútroštátneho  práva.  Inak  povedané,                              domnievame  sa,  že  slovenský  vnútroštátny  sudca  bude  aplikovať                              úniové  akty  spôsobom  akým  aplikuje  zákony  a  iné  vnútroštátne                              právne  predpisy.  To  podľa  nás  súvisí  s  reliktmi  socialistickej                              koncepcie statickej interpretácie práva, ktorá, zjednodušene povedané,                                                                               21                              stotožnila text zákona s jeho významom, a vice versa.  Vnútroštátny                              sudca  okresného  alebo  krajského  súdu  môže  byť  v  dôsledku  svojej                              každodennej  skúsenosti  aplikácie  práva  na  dôslednej  textovej  báze                              konfrontovaný s požiadavkou interpretovať úniové právo, vzniknuté v                              úplne  inom  hodnotovom  rámci,  iným  spôsobom  než  vnútroštátne                              právo alebo s uplatnením iných výkladových metód. Dochádza teda k                              zmene paradigmy vo výbere správneho kvalifikačného kritériá, ktoré                              je v procese interpretácie funkciou výkladu subsumpčných podmienok                                                                     22                              obsiahnutých  v  hypotéze  právnej  normy.   Samostatnosť  úniového                              práva okrem toho predpokladá, že súčasťou tohto právneho poriadku                                                       23                              je  aj  vlastný  právny  jazyk,   právne  princípy,  inštitúty,  či  pojmový                                omeškania či iné sankcie spojené s predchádzajúcim nesplnením povinností                              plynúcich  z  verejného  práva  (inak  povedané,  podstata  tkvie  v  časovej                              hodnote  peňazí)\"  (uznesenie  Okresného  súdu  Žilina  z  22.4.2010,  sp.  zn.                              4R/1/2009).                              20  Body 14, 15 a 17 rozsudku Súdneho dvora z 9. marca 1978 vo veci 106/77,                              Amministrazione  delle  Finanze  dello  Stato  v.  Simmenthal  SpA.  Citované                              podľa  Rozsudok  \"Simmenthal\".  In:  Výber  z  rozhodnutí  Súdneho  dvora                              Európskych spoločenstiev, 2005, č. 4, s. 33.                               21  Porovnaj Kühn, 2009, s. 83.                               22                                 Porovnaj Procházka, 2005, s. 49.                              23  Csach, 2006, s. 337.                                                                   20","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 aparát,  ktoré  môžu  byť  odlišné  od  tých,  ktoré  používajú  jednotlivé                                                  24                              vnútroštátne poriadky.  Súdny dvor k odlíšeniu komunitárneho pojmu                              od zmyslu pojmu používaného vnútroštátnymi poriadkami uvádza, že                               „z  potreby  jednotného  uplatňovania  práva  Spoločenstva  a  zásady                              rovnosti  vyplýva,  že  znenie  ustanovenia  práva  Spoločenstva,  ktoré                              neobsahuje žiadny výslovný odkaz na právo členských štátov s cieľom                              určiť  jeho  zmysel  a  rozsah  pôsobnosti,  v  zásade  vyžaduje  v  celom                              Spoločenstve autonómny a jednotný výklad, ktorý musí zohľadňovať                                                                                          25                              kontext ustanovenia a cieľ sledovaný príslušnou právnou úpravou“.                              Autonómny  prístup  pri  gramatickom  výklade  predpokladá,  že  je                              potrebné  pojmom  úniového  práva  prikladať  v  prvom  rade  taký                              význam, aký majú v práve úniovom, nie v niektorom vnútroštátnom                              právnom  poriadku.  Príkladom  použitia  autonómneho  prístupu  k                                                                               26                              nejednoznačným pojmom sú napríklad pojmy podnik,   či právnická                                    27                              osoba,  ktoré by sa napríklad vnútroštátnemu sudcovi nemuseli prima                              facie  javiť  ako  problematické.  Okrem  toho  Súdny  dvor  vo  svojom                              rozhodnutí CILFIT upozorňuje, že pri výklade komunitárneho práva                              treba  mať  túto  skutočnosť  vždy  na  pamäti,  pretože  „výklad                              komunitárneho  práva  zahŕňa  aj  porovnanie  jednotlivých  jazykových                                     28                              verzií“.   Tieto  faktory  by  mal  vnútroštátny  sudca  zohľadňovať  pri                              aplikácii  na  prvý  pohľad  \"jasných\"  pojmov  vo  vnútroštátnych                              právnych predpisoch a úniových aktoch.                               Príklad  uplatnenia  priamej  použiteľnosti  možno  nájsť  napríklad  vo                              veci riešenej Okresným súdom Košice I pod sp. zn. 29Cb/196/2005, v                                24  Príkladom môže byť definícia „škody“ uvedená v čl. 9 smernice Rady č.                              374/85/EHS  z  25.  júla  1985  o  aproximácii  zákonov,  iných  právnych                              predpisov a správnych opatrení členských štátov o zodpovednosti za chybné                              výrobky.  Na  rozdielnosť  komunitárnych  pojmov  upozorňuje  už  aj                              komunitárna judikatúra, podľa ktorej „aj v prípade presnej zhody jazykových                              verzií,  že  komunitárne  právo  používa  terminológiu  jemu  vlastnú.  Treba                              zdôrazniť,  že  právne  pojmy  nemajú  nevyhnutne  rovnaký  obsah  v                              komunitárnom  práve  a  v  rôznych  národných  právach“.  Porovnaj  bod  19                              rozsudku Súdneho dvora z 6.10.1982 vo veci 283/81, Srl CILFIT et Lanificio                              di Gavardo SpA c/a Ministère de la santé, Recueil 1982, p. 03415.                               25   Rozsudok  Súdneho  dvora  z  21.2.2008  vo  veci  C-426/05,  Tele2                              Telecommunication GmbH c/a Telekom-Control-Kommission, Recueil 2008,                              p. I-00685.                              26                                  K  vymedzeniu  pojmu  podnik  napríklad  rozsudok  Súdneho  dvora  z  23.                              apríla  1991  vo  veci  C-41/90,  Klaus  Höfner  et  Fritz  Elser  c/a  Macrotron                              GmbH, Recueil 1991, p. I-01979.                              27  Rozsudok Súdneho dvora z 28. októbra 1982 vo veci 135/81, Groupement                              des agences des voyages c/a Komisia, Recueil 1982, p. 3799.                               28   Pozri  bod  18  rozsudku  Súdneho  dvora  z  6.10.1982  vo  veci  283/81,  Srl                              CILFIT et Lanificio di Gavardo SpA c/a Ministère de la santé, Recueil 1982,                              p. 03415.                                                                   21","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 ktorej  sa  žalobca  (fínska  spoločnosť  vyrábajúca  mobilné  telefóny)                              domáhal prijatia opatrenia podľa ustanovenia čl. 5 ods. 1 nariadenia                              Rady (ES) č. 1383/2003 z 22. júla 2003, ktoré sa týka colného konania                              pri  tovare  podozrivom  z  porušovania  niektorých  práv  duševného                              vlastníctva  a  opatrení,  ktoré  sa  majú  prijať  pri  tovare,  u  ktorého  sa                              zistilo,  že  sa  takéto  práva  porušili  (ďalej  len  „nariadenie  č.                                          29                              1383/2003“).   Domáhal  sa  určenia,  že  tovary  (kryty  na  mobilné                              telefóny NOKIA) zaistené rozhodnutím Colného úradu Bratislava č.                              77546/2005-5242  z  24.10.2005  a  rozhodnutím  Colného  úradu                              Bratislava  č.  77547/2005-5242  z  24.10.2005  sú  napodobeninou                              (falzifikátom) podľa nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1383/2003 a zákona č.                              200/2004 Z. z. Na základe odborného posudku Okresný súd Košice I                              dospel  k  záveru,  že  v prípade  zaisteného  tovaru  ide o pirátsky  tovar                              tak,  ako  to  vymedzuje  čl. 2  ods.  1  písm.  b) smernice  č. 1383/2003,                              podľa ktorého sa tým rozumie tovar,                               \"ktorý je kópiou alebo obsahuje kópie vyrobené bez súhlasu držiteľa                              autorského  práva,  príslušného  práva  alebo  dizajnového  práva  bez                              ohľadu  na  to,  či  je  registrovaný  vo  vnútroštátnom  práve  alebo  je                              registrovaný osobou oprávnenou držiteľom práva v krajine výroby v                              prípadoch,  ak  by  výroba  týchto  kópií  predstavovala  porušenie  tohto                              práva podľa nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 6/2002 z 12. decembra 2001 o                              priemyselných vzoroch spoločenstva alebo porušenie práva členského                              štátu, v ktorom sa žiada o colné konanie\".                               Okresný súd tak priamo aplikoval citované ustanovenie nariadenia č.                              1383/2003 vymedzujúce pojem pirátsky tovar a žalobe vyhovel.                                                                                           30                              Sudca  Okresného  súdu  Košice  I  Ladislav  Gábor  v  16  veciach                              aplikoval ustanovenie čl. 5 ods. 1 nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a                              Rady  (ES)  č.  861/2007  z    11.  júla  2007,  ktorým  sa  ustanovuje                              Európske  konanie  vo  veciach  s  nízkou  hodnotou  sporu  pri  riešení                              otázky,  či  nariadiť  pojednávanie  na  prejednanie  veci.  V odôvodnení                              týchto rozhodnutí uviedol, že                               „pojednávanie  nie  je  potrebné  nariaďovať  vo  veciach  s  nízkou                              hodnotou  sporu  (článok  5  ods.  1  Nariadenia  EP  a  Rady  (ES)  č.                              861/2007  z  11.7.2007,  ktorým  sa  ustanovuje  Európske  konanie  vo                              veciach s nízkou hodnotou sporu“.                                  29                                 Rozsudok Okresného súdu Košice I z 24.4.2008, sp. zn. 24.4.2008.                              30  Rozsudky Okresného súdu Košice I z 26.2.2009, sp. zn. 29Cb/120/2008; z                              26.2.2009,  sp.  zn.  29Cb/121/2008;  z  26.2.2009,  sp.  zn.  29Cb/122/2008;  z                              27.2.2009,  sp.  zn.  29Cb/123/2008;  z  27.2.2009,  sp.  zn.  29Cb/126/2008;  z                              27.2.2009,  sp.  zn.  29Cb/150/2008;  z  28.8.2009,  sp.  zn.  29Cb/186/2008;  z                              26.2.2009,  sp.  zn.  29Cb/44/2008;  z  26.2.2009,  sp.  zn.  29Cb/46/2008;  z                              26.2.2009,  sp.  zn.  29Cb/49/2008;  z  26.2.2009,  sp.  zn.  29Cb/65/2008;  z                              31.3.2009,  sp.  zn.  29Cb/199/2006;  z  15.1.2010,  sp.  zn.  29Cb/118/2009;  z                              14.1.2011, sp. zn. 29Cb/213/2010; z 14.1.2011, sp. zn. 29Cb/214/2010; a z                              18.2.2011, sp. zn. 29Cb/140/2010.                                                                   22","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 K tomu treba poznamenať dve veci. Po prvé, nenariadiť pojednávanie                              v  týchto  veciach  súdu  umožňovalo,  vzhľadom  na  to,  že  išlo  len  o                              drobné  spory,  aj  ustanovenie  §  115a  ods.  2  Občianskeho  súdneho                              poriadku,  ktoré  napokon  paralelne  v  odôvodnení  sudca  aj  odcitoval                              (tento  prípad  by  sme  teda  nazvali  \"paralelná  aplikácia\",  hoci                              požiadavka  nadradenosti  úniového  práva  to  eo  ipso  vylučuje).  Po                              druhé, sudcom citované a aplikované nariadenie sa  ratione materiae                              nevzťahovalo  na  vec  ním  riešenú.  Toto  nariadenie  v  čl.  2  ods.  1                              vymedzuje  svoju  vecnú  pôsobnosť,  okrem  iného,  na  cezhraničné                                    31                              spory.   V  tomto  postupe  môžeme  vidieť  snahu  vniesť  do  veci                              \"trendy\" úniový rozmer a podporiť ním záver, ktorý už i tak vyplýva z                              vnútroštátneho  práva.  Domnievame  sa,  že  postup  by  mal  byť  (v                              prípade, že sa súd \"vecne trafí\" do vecného záberu úniového aktu) s                              ohľadom na nadradenosť úniového práva azda opačný, ak vôbec.                                                                               32                              Okresný súd Košice II aplikoval v šiestich prípadoch,  v ktorých išlo                              o spory  zo  spotrebiteľských  zmlúv,  ustanovenie  čl.  16  ods.  2                              nariadenia  č.  44/2001,  podľa  ktorého  „druhý  účastník  zmluvy  môže                              žalovať  spotrebiteľa  len  na  súdoch  členského  štátu,  v  ktorom  má                              spotrebiteľ  bydlisko“.  Vo  všetkých  týchto  prípadoch  mali  žalovaní                              sídlo  v územnom  obvode  Okresného  súdu  Košice  II  a  preto  súd                              implicitne  vyslovil  svoju  právomoc.  V  tomto  prípade  išlo  o                              bezproblémovú  aplikáciu  práva  EÚ  s  ohľadom  na  nadradenosť                              nariadení  EÚ  (len  ako  poznámku  si  dovoľujeme  uviesť,  že  ani  v                              jednom prípade nevyvstala otázka výkladu pojmu \"bydlisko\", t. j. či sa                              tým rozumie bydlisko de facto alebo de iure).                               Bezproblémová  aplikácia  bola  aj  v  desiatkach  vecí  rozhodnutých                              Okresným súdom Žilina v rámci rozhodovania o začatí konkurzného                                                                33                              konania  a  pri  vyhlasovaní  konkurzu.   Vzhľadom  na  množstvo  vecí                              uvedieme len jeden príklad. Súd spolu s vyhlásením konkurzu uložil                              správcovi  povinnosť  bez  zbytočného  odkladu  informovať  známych                              veriteľov dlžníka, ktorí majú zvyčajné miesto pobytu, trvalé bydlisko                              alebo registrované sídlo v iných členských štátoch Európskej únie ako                              v Slovenskej republike, spôsobom  v  zmysle čl. 40 Nariadenia Rady                              (ES) č. 1346/2000 zo dňa 29. mája 2000 o konkurznom konaní. Súd                              teda  v  danej  veci  aplikoval  priamo  citované  nariadenie,  ku  ktorému                                   31                                  Podľa  čl.  2  ods.  1  nariadenia  Európskeho  parlamentu  a  Rady  (ES)  č.                              861/2007  z    11.  júla  2007,  ktorým  sa  ustanovuje  Európske  konanie  vo                              veciach s nízkou hodnotou sporu \"toto nariadenie sa uplatňuje v občianskych                              a obchodných veciach pri cezhraničných sporoch …\".                               32  Rozsudky  z  sp.  zn.  14C/150/2008,  4.12.2009;  z  1.7.2009,  sp.  zn.                              14C/151/2008, 1.7.2009; z 7.2.2011, sp. zn. 29C/118/2010; z 31.1.2011, sp.                              zn. 29C 36/2010; z 17.2.2011, sp. zn. 31C 121/2010; a z 9.3.2011, sp. zn.                              38Cb/120/2005.                               33                                 Keďže ide o početné množstvo rozhodnutí ako príklad uvádzame uznesenie                              Okresného súdu Žilina z 8.12.2008, sp. zn. 1K/11/2008.                                                                   23","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 súčasne  v  odôvodnení  dodal,  že  \"má  v  Slovenskej  republike  priame                              účinky v zmysle čl. 249 Zmluvy o založení Európskeho spoločenstva\".                               5. APLIKÁCIA SMERNÍC                               5.1 PRIAMY ÚČINOK                                Priamym účinkom sa rozumie spôsobilosť úniovej normy byť priamo                              (bezprostredne)  aplikovaná  na  daný  prípad  vnútroštátnym  orgánom                                            34                              aplikácie práva.  To závisí od viacerých okolností a určitá norma za                              nejakých skutkových okolností priamy účinok mať môže a za iných                              mať  nemusí  (všetko  závisí  od  konkrétneho  skutkového  a  právneho                                              35                              kontextu  sporu).   Pokúsime  sa  uviesť  niekoľko  rozhodnutí,  kde                              možno badať snahu uplatniť priamy účinok smerníc.                               Napríklad  vo  výroku  rozsudku  sudkyňa  Okresného  súdu  Košice  I                              Magdaléna Korčáková určila, že \"zmluvná podmienka, ktorej obsahom                              je  oprávnenie  dodávateľa uplatniť  si  zmluvnú  pokutu  za  oneskorené                                                                                        36                              zaplatenie  splátky  je  neprijateľnou  zmluvnou  podmienkou\".   Z                              hľadiska práva EÚ zdôvodnila svoj záver tým, že smernica (EHS) č.                              93/13  o  nekalých  podmienkach  v  spotrebiteľských  zmluvách  (ďalej                              len \"smernica č. 93/13\") je prebratá do právneho poriadku Slovenskej                              republiky, pričom podľa ustanovenia čl. 6 ods. 1 tejto smernice                               \"členské štáty zabezpečia, aby nekalé podmienky použité v zmluvách                              uzatvorených  so  spotrebiteľom  zo  strany  predajcu  alebo  dodávateľa                              podľa ich vnútroštátneho práva neboli záväzné pre spotrebiteľa, aby                              zmluva bola podľa týchto podmienok naďalej záväzná pre strany, ak                              je jej ďalšia existencia možná bez nekalých podmienok\".                                Sudkyňa použila odkaz na smernicu len ako podporný argument pre                              svoje  závery,  ktoré  boli  primárne  založené  na vnútroštátnom  práve.                              Samotný odkaz na smernicu by sa sám o sebe javil ako nedostatočný.                               V dvoch  veciach  sa  Okresný  súd  Košice  II  zaoberal  aplikáciou                              smerníc  v súvislosti  s ochranou  spotrebiteľov.  Sudkyňa  Viera                              Obermanová     posúdila   ustanovenie   všeobecných   zmluvných                              podmienok dodávateľa služby stanovujúce výšku úroku z omeškania                              0,5 % denne za neplatné, pre jeho neprijateľnosť, t. j. pre rozpor s § 53                              ods.  5  a  §  39  Občianskeho  zákonníka.  Skonštatoval,  že  na  túto                              okolnosť musel prihliadnuť aj bez návrhu a uviedol, že výška úrokov                              z omeškania                               „prekračuje  maximálnu  sadzbu  pripustenú  zákonom  a  na  túto                              okolnosť bolo treba prihliadať zo strany súdu aj bez návrhu dlžníka -                                34                                 Bobek, 2011, s. 40.                              35  Bobek, 2011, s. 50.                               36                                 Rozsudok Okresného súdu Košice I z 30.9.2010, sp. zn. 27Cb/197/2009.                                                                   24","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 spotrebiteľa a poskytnúť mu ochranu podľa noriem spotrebiteľského                              práva v širšom slova zmysle (Smernica Rady 93/13/EHS z 5.4.1993,                                           37                              vrátane OZ)“.                              Odkaz na citovanú smernicu č. 93/13 ale bližšie súd nekonkretizoval                              ani  bližšie  nerozvádzal.  V rozhodovacej  činnosti  Okresného  súdu                                                                                 38                              Rožňava sa do 30. marca 2011 vyskytuje 5 rozhodnutí,  ktoré majú                              relevanciu  vo  vzťahu  k  aplikácii  práva  EÚ,  pričom  všetky  sa  týkali                              spotrebiteľského  acquis  a aplikácie smerníc  z  tejto  oblasti.  V týchto                              spotrebiteľských sporoch aplikoval súd ustanovenia smernice č. 93/13                              (konkrétne  čl.  3  ods.  1  a 2)  a v odôvodnení zhodnotil  smernice  ako                              „interpretačné  pravidlo“  a aplikáciu  smerníc  ako  potrebnú  vždy,  ak                              bola zmluva spísaná vopred a spotrebiteľ nemohol mať žiadny vplyv                                                                                   39                              alebo  dosah  na  obsah  jednotlivých  ustanovení  zmluvy.   Potrebu                              \"aplikácie smerníc\" súd bližšie nezdôvodnil so zreteľom na to, že  v                              horizontálnych vzťahoch smernice nemajú priamy účinok.                               5.2 NEPRIAMY ÚČINOK                               Nepriamym účinkom úniového práva sa rozumie povinnosť členských                                                                                           40                              štátov EÚ vykladať vnútroštátne právo v súlade s úniovým právom.                              Táto  požiadavka  je  logickým  vyústením  nadradenosti  úniových                              právnych  noriem  nad  právnymi  normami  majúcimi  pôvod  v                              normotvorbe vnútroštátnych orgánov. Tento systémový atribút práva                              EÚ sa aplikuje vždy, bez ohľadu na to, či úniová právna norma má                                                     41                              priamy  účinok  alebo  nie.   Náznaky  nepriameho  účinku  sa  prvýkrát                              vyskytli v rozsudku Súdneho dvora vo veci Mazzalai:                                   37  Rozsudok Okresného súdu Košice II z 9.3.2010, sp. zn. 15C/144/2010.                               38   Ide  o  rozsudky  z  30.3.2011,  sp.  zn.  10C/42/2011;  z  24.5.2010,  sp.  zn.                              10Cb/1/2010;  z  10.2.2009,  sp.  zn.  4C/126/2009;  z  11.3.2010,  sp.  zn.                              4C/31/2010; a z 22.4.2010, sp. zn. 4C/52/2010.                               39                                 V priamej reči: \"podľa čl. 3 ods. 1 smernice Rady č. 93/13/EHS smernicu                              je nevyhnutné využívať ako interpretačné pravidlo k ustanoveniam právneho                              poriadku,  upravujúcich  režim  spotrebiteľských  zmlúv.  Toto  stanovisko  je                              podporené  aj  rozsudkom  Európskeho  súdneho  dvora  z  27.06.2000  v                              spojených prípadoch C-240/98, C-241/98, C-242/98, C-243/98 a C-244/98,                              O. G. E. S. proti R. M. Q. U. S. E. S. proti J. M. S. A. P., J. L. C. B., M. B. a                              E.  V.  F.,  v  ktorom  sa  konštatuje,  že  účinná  ochrana  spotrebiteľa  sa  môže                              dosiahnuť,  len  ak  národný  súd  prehlási,  že  má  právomoc  zhodnotiť                              neprimerané  podmienky  z  úradnej  povinnosti.  ...  Smernicu  je  potrebné                              aplikovať  tiež  vtedy,  keď  bola  zmluva  spísaná  vopred  a  povinný  (ako                              spotrebiteľ)  nemohol  mať  žiadny  vplyv  alebo  dosah  na  obsah  jednotlivých                              ustanovení zmluvy\".                               40                                 Bobek, 2011, s. 145.                              41  Porovnaj Kaczorowska, 2010, s. 320.                                                                   25","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 \"v zmysle čl. 177 Súdny dvor má právomoc vyjadriť svoj predbežný                              názor  týkajúci  sa  interpretácie aktov  inštitúcií  Spoločenstva,  vrátane                                                             42                              otázky, či sú priamo uplatniteľné\".                              Explicitná  zmienka  o  nepriamom  účinku  sa  v  rozhodnutiach                                                                                 43                              okresných  a  krajských  súdoch  vyskytuje  len  zriedkavo.   Do  úvahy                              prichádza,  že  nepriamy  účinok  je  používaný  súdmi  implicitne  alebo                              vôbec. Prikláňame sa skôr k prvej variante.                               Napríklad  sudca  Okresného  súdu  Košice  I  Robert  Zsiga  v troch                              rozsudkoch uviedol, že smernicu č. 93/13                               \"je  nevyhnutné  využívať  ako  interpretačné  pravidlo  k  ustanoveniam                              právneho poriadku, upravujúcich režim spotrebiteľských zmlúv. Toto                              stanovisko je podporené aj rozsudkom Európskeho súdneho dvora z                              27.06.2000 v spojených prípadoch C-240/98, C-241/98, C-242/98, C-                              243/98 a C-244/98, O. G. E. S. proti R. M. Q. U. S. E. S. proti J. M. S.                              A. P., J. L. C. B., M. B. a E. V. F., v ktorom sa konštatuje, že účinná                              ochrana spotrebiteľa sa môže dosiahnuť, len ak národný súd prehlási,                              že  má  právomoc  zhodnotiť  neprimerané  podmienky  z  úradnej                              povinnosti.  ...  Smernicu  je  potrebné  aplikovať  tiež  vtedy,  keď  bola                              zmluva  spísaná  vopred  a  povinný  (ako  spotrebiteľ)  nemohol  mať                                                                                           44                              žiadny vplyv alebo dosah na obsah jednotlivých ustanovení zmluvy\".                              Spomínané  \"interpretačné  pravidlo\"  chápeme  synonymicky  v  tom                              zmysle, že je to označenie povinnosti  súdu vykonať eurokonformný                              výklad a priznať nepriamy účinok. Potiaľ možno súhlasiť, že smernica                              je \"interpretačným pravidlom\", t. j. ide o aplikáciu smernice v širšom                              zmysle  slova.  Pokiaľ  však  sudca  myslel  aplikáciu  smerníc  v  užšom                              slova  zmysle  na  spôsob  priameho  účinku,  mal  by  sa  prirodzene                              vyporiadať  aj  s  otázkou  existencie  priameho  účinku  smernice  (v                              odôvodnení  rozhodnutia  nebolo  napríklad  uvedené  ani  to,  o  ktoré                              ustanovenie  ide),  prípadne  s  otázkami  absencie  priameho  účinku                              smerníc v horizontálnych vzťahoch (ako to bolo v tomto prípade).                                Napríklad Okresný súd Košice II v spore zo spotrebiteľskej zmluvy v                              odôvodnení  rozhodnutia  sa  explicitne  zmienil  o  nepriamom  účinku                                                                              45                              smerníc, avšak bez bližšej konkretizácie. Išlo o vec,  v ktorej súd v                              súvislosti s priznaním úrokov z omeškania vo výške 0,08 % denne z                                42  Bod 7 rozsudku Súdneho dvora z 20. mája 1976 vo veci 111/75, Impresa                              Costruzioni comm. Quirino Mazzalai v. Ferrovia del Renon, European Court                              reports 1976, p. 00657.                               43                                  Napríklad  v  databáze  JASPI  sa  medzi  1.5.2004  do  30.6.2011  uvádza                              spojenie  \"nepriamy  účinok\"  pre  všetky  slovenské  súdy  za  obdobie  len                              celkovo v 19 rozhodnutiach.                              44  Rozsudky Okresného súdu Košice I z 1.3.2011, sp. zn. 26Cb/219/2009; zo                              7.12.2010, sp. zn. 26Cb/225/2009 a z 8.3.2011, sp. zn. 26Cb/254/2009.                               45                                 Rozsudok Okresného súdu Košice II z 10.11.2010, sp. zn. 41C/78/2010.                                                                   26","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 dlžnej  sumy  skúmal  primeranosť  zmluvného  dojednania  v  časti                              dohody  o  sadzbe  úrokov  z  omeškania  s  ohľadom  na  jeho  súlad  s                              ustanovením § 53 Občianskeho zákonníka a nepriamo s ohľadom na                              prílohu smernice č. 93/13. Skonštatoval, že                               \"napriek tomu, že Obchodný zákonník, ktorý je vzhľadom na predmet                              záväzku potrebné aplikovať na daný skutkový stav, pripúšťa možnosť                              účastníkov dojednať úrok z omeškania, je potrebné skúmať, či forma                              zabezpečenia  riadneho  a  včasného  splnenia  peňažného  záväzku  s                              ohľadom  na  zásadu  zmluvnej  spravodlivosti,  zodpovedá  požiadavke                              primeranosti s ohľadom na obsah ust. § 53 Občianskeho zákonníka,                              nepriamy účinok smernice č. 93/13/ES o neprimeraných podmienkach                                                         46                              v spotrebiteľských zmluvách\".                               Následne posúdil výšku dojednaného úroku v sadzbe 0,08 % denne z                              dlžnej sumy ako neprijateľnú a preto neplatnú. Vytknúť možno už len                              to,  že  odkaz  na  smernicu  nebol  konkrétnejší  a  to  sa  týka  aj                              vnútroštátneho právneho predpisu, ktorého výklad mal byť preklenutý                              nepriamym účinkom.                               6. ZÁVER                               Z  uvedených  bodov  si  dovoľujeme  urobiť  nasledovné  závery  o                              prístupe okresných a krajských súdov k aplikácii úniového práva:                               okresné súdy a krajské súdy aplikujú právo EÚ v relatívne početnom                              množstve, pričom možno za najpočetnejšiu agendu označiť (i) spory                              zo  spotrebiteľských  zmlúv  (v  týchto  veciach  sa  z  hľadiska  druhu                              právneho  aktu  pertraktujú  spravidla  smernice)  a  (ii)  spory  s  cudzím                              prvkom (v týchto veciach sa najviac pertraktujú spravidla nariadenia),                                                                          47                              ak sa cudzí prvok týka iného členského štátu EÚ,                              prístup k aplikácii práva EÚ sa nám javí závislý od konkrétnych osôb                              sudcov, ktoré úniové právo aplikujú: (i) väčšinou ide na konkrétnych                              sudcov o tých istých sudcov, čo (ii) potvrdzujú aj často úplne totožné                              formulácie v odôvodneniach súdnych rozhodnutí, pričom (iii) zrejme                              dochádza k \"distribúcií formulácií\" týkajúcich sa aplikácie úniového                              práva  v  odôvodneniach  rozhodnutí  medzi  jednotlivými  súdmi                              (napríklad jedna a tá istá konkrétna formulácia sa objavuje často aj v                              odôvodneniach súdov rôznych súdov), čo môže byť na úkor špecifík                              jednotlivých skutkových okolností každej jednej veci,                               prístup  okresných  a  krajských  súdov  sa  nám  v  prípadoch,  kedy  sa                              rozhodnú  aplikovať  úniové  právo,  javí  ako  povrchný.  Máloktoré                                 46                                 Rozsudok Okresného súdu Košice II z 10.11.2010, sp. zn. 41C/78/2010.                              47                                 Rozhodnutia v agende správneho a trestného súdnictva neboli predmetom                              tohto  príspevku,  pretože  to  znemožňuje  existujúca  databáza  rozhodnutí                              JASPI  (neobsahuje  rozhodnutia  krajských  súdov  vo  veciach  správneho  a                              trestného súdnictva).                                                                   27","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 rozhodnutie umožňuje bližšie pochopiť, či súd použil pri smerniciach                              priamy  účinok  alebo  nepriamy  účinok,  pričom  v  prípade  priameho                              účinku  nerozlišujú  horizontálny/vertikálny  účinok.  Výnimočne  súdy                              uvedú označenie aplikačnej povinnosti explicitne (t. j. či išlo o priamy                              alebo nepriamy účinok). Rovnako v prípade priamej použiteľnosti sa                              neobjavujú otázky týkajúce sa problematiky výkladu úniových aktov.                                Literature:                              -  Bobek, M. et al.: Vnitrostátní aplikace práva Evropské unie, Praha:                                 C.H. Beck, 2011, 606 s., ISBN 978-80-7400-377-6                               -  Csach,  K.:  Význam  výkladu  sekundárneho  európskeho  práva  pre                                 výklad národného práva. In: Právny obzor, roč. 89, 2006, č. 4, s.                                 331-340                              -  Kaczorowska,  A.:  European  Union  Law,  Oxon:  Routledge,  2011,                                 977 s., ISBN 978-0-415-58246-9                              -  Káčer,  M.:  Pluralizmus  súdnej  sústavy.  In:  Procházka,  R.  (ed.):                                 Vnútroštátne súdy a európske súdy: spojené alebo paralelné svety? :                                 vnútroštátna  aplikácia  európskeho  práva  a  úloha  európskej                                 judikatúry  v  nej  :  zborník  z  medzinárodnej  vedeckej  konferencie                                 konanej  7.  mája  2010  na  Trnavskej  univerzite  v  Trnave,  Plzeň:                                 Vydavatelství a nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk, 2010, s. 97-106, ISBN                                 978-80-7380-307-0                              -  Kühn,  Z.  et  al.:  Judikatura  a  právní  argumentace  :  teoretické  a                                 praktické  aspekty  práce  s  judikaturou,  Praha:  Auditorium,  2006,                                 234 s., ISBN 80-903786-0-9                              -  Kühn, Z.: Ideologie aplikace práva v době reálního socialismu. In:                                 Bobek,  M.,  Molek,  P.,  Šimíček,  V.  (eds.):  Komunistické  právo  v                                 Československu  :  kapitoly  z  dějin  bezpráví,  Brno:  Masarykova                                 univerzita, Mezinárodní politologický ústav, 2009, s. 60-92, ISBN                                 978-80-210-4844-7                              -  Łazowski, A.: It Works! The European Union in the wake of 2004                                 and 2007 enlargements. In: Łazowski, A. (ed.): The application of                                 EU Law in the New Member States, The Hague: T•M•C ASSER                                 PRESS, 2010, p. 7-29, ISBN 978-90-670-274-1                              -  Mazák, J. et al.: Základy občianskeho procesného práva, Bratislava:                                 Iura Edition, 2007, 809 s., ISBN 978-80-8078-145-3                              -  Ministerstvo  spravodlivosti  Slovenskej  republiky:  Jednotný                                 automatizovaný systém právnych informácií : JASPI – WEB, 2011,                                 dostupné na: <http://jaspi.justice.gov.sk>                              -  Procházka,  R.:  Dobrá  vôľa,  spravodlivý  rozum,  Bratislava:                                 Kalligram, 2005, 259 s., ISBN 80-7149-788-6                              -  Rumana, I.: Správne súdnictvo a súdny precedens. In: Maslen, M.                                 (ed.):  Správne  súdnictvo  a  jeho  rozvojové  aspekty  :  zborník                                 príspevkov vedeckej konferencie s medzinárodnou účasťou konanej                                 7. - 8. marca 2011 v Trnave : (projekt VEGA č. 1/0319/10 Správne                                 súdnictvo), Bratislava: Ikarus.sk, 2011, s. 227-231, ISBN 978-80-                                 970760-0-9                               -  Úrad  pre  publikácie.  EUR-lex,  2011,  dostupné  na:  <http://eur-                                 lex.europa.eu/RECH_jurisprudence.do>                                                                   28","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                  Contact – email                              robert@bardac.sk                                                                                                                                               29","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                           INTERPRETATION OF INDIRECT                                DISCRIMINATION AFTER THE ENACTMENT                                    OF THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL                                         RIGHTS OF EUROPEAN UNION                                                       PETR BOUDA                                       Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Czech Republic                                Abstract in original language                              Článek se zabývá otázkou, zda a jak se změnila interpretace zákazu                              nepřímé diskriminace ve smyslu českého antidiskriminačního zákona                              po  přijetí  Lisabonské  smlouvy,  jejíž  součástí  je  Listiny  základních                              práv  Evropské  unie.  V  první  části  článku  je  vymezena  nepřímá                              diskriminace,  ve  druhé  části  článku  jsou  rozebírána  relevantní                              ustanovení Listiny EU s ohledem na judikaturu ESD.                               Key words in original language                              interpretace, nepřímá diskriminace, Charta základních práv Evropské                              unie, proporcionalita, české soudy, Lisabonská smlouva                               Abstract                              The article answers the question whether and how the interpretation of                              prohibition  of  indirect  discrimination,  contained  in  the  Czech  Anti                              Discrimination Act, has been changed after the ratification of Lisbon                              Treaty that includes Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European                              Union.  First  part  of  this  article  describes  the  concept  of  indirect                              discrimination, the second part analyses the relevant provisions of the                              European Union`s Charter with regard to the judgments of the ECJ.                               Key words                              interpretation; indirect discrimination; Charter of the human rights of                              the European union; proportionality; Czech courts; Lisbon treaty                               1. INTRODUCTION                               In This article represents part of my work about the interpretation of                              the  indirect  discrimination  in  the  Czech  republic.  The  question  that                              has  to  be  answered  in  this  article  is  simple:  how  –  if  ever  –  the                              enacment  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European                              Union influenced the interpretation of the indirect discrimination by                              the  Czech  courts.  First  of  all,  I  should  define  the  term  indirect                              discrimination, used in the Anti Discrimination Act, after that, I will                              describe the relevant provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights                              of the European Union (\"European Union`s Charter\" hereinafter).                               2. DEFINITION OF INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION                               The prohibition of the so called indirect discrimination is contained in                              the  Czech  Antidiscrimination  Act  number  198/2009  collection  on                              equal  treatment  and  on  legal  means  of  protection  against                              discrimination.  The  Anti  Discrimination  Act  itself  is  a  result  of  the                                                                  30","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 more  than  five  years  long  implementation  of  the  European  Union                              directives,  namely  the  Council  Directive  number  2000/78/EC                              (establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment                              and  occupation)  and  the  Directive  number  2006/54/EC  (on  the                              implementation  of  the  principle  of  equal  opportunities  and  equal                              treatment  of  men  and  women  in  matters  of  employment  and                              occupation). The Czech Anti Discrimination Act came into force on                              1st of September 2009. Two months later the Lisbon treaty (including                              the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) came into                              force as well.                               Despite the fact that the Anti Discrimination Act entered into force on                              1st of September 2009, more than two years ago, only very few cases                              of discrimination have been decided before the Czech courts yet. I did                              a little research: I asked all courts in the Czech republic to tell me the                              numbers  of  judgments  in  which  the  discrimination  under  the                              provisions of the Anti Discrimination Act has been asserted by one of                              the parties. I also asked the courts to tell me numbers of pending legal                              proceedings  in  which  one  of  the  parties  asserted  that  he  or  she  has                              been  discriminated.  As  for  the  results,  all  the  Czech  courts  have                              passed only 4 judgments in so far and started 11 legal proceedings that                              are currently pending on the courts. Another 2 legal proceedings have                              been  settled  out  of  court.1  Due  to  these  facts  my  article  about  the                              interpretation  of  the  indirect  discrimination  will  be  much  more                              theoretical than practical.                                2.1 PRIMARY DEFINITION OF INDIRECT                              DISCRIMINATION                               We  may  recognise  two  definitions  of  indirect  discrimination,                              contained both in the EU directives and the Anti Discrimination Act.                               According to the general definition contained in section 3 paragraph 1                              of  the  Anti  Discrimination  Act,  the  indirect  discrimination  occurs                              where  an  apparently  (prima  facie)  neutral  provision,  criterion  or                              practice would put one person2 at a particular disadvantage compared                                1  It should be  noted here that the electronic database of decisions used by                              Czech  courts  does  not  allow  to  search  for  the  cases  of  (direct  or  indirect)                              discrimination so many of the courts had to ask the judges whether they had                              been  decided  any  cases  of  discrimination  under  the  Czech  Anti                              Discrimination Act or not. So the results of my research are not flawless.                               2                                 Despite  the  fact  that  the  Czech  legislators  used  the  word  „one  person“                              instead of \"persons\", the Czech courts will have to compare two social groups                              not an individual (possible victim of discrimination) with the social group.                              This conclusion is based on the decisions of the European Court of Justice in                              which two social groups have been compared, usually by statistical evidence                              of  the  disproportionate  effect  of  prima  facie  neutral  provision,  criterion  or                              practice on certain social group. See, for example, decision of the European                              Court of Justice from the 27th June 1990, C-33/89, Maria Kowalska v Freie                              und Hansestadt Hamburg; decision of the European Court of Justice from the                              27th October 1993, C-127/92, Dr. Pamela Mary Enderby v Frenchay Health                                                                  31","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 with  other  persons  unless  that  provision,  criterion  or  practice  is                              objectively justified by legitimate aim and the means of achieving that                              aim are appropriate and necessary.3 This means that the Czech courts                              should  carry  out  the  test  of  proportionality  to  decide  whether  the                              unequal  (or  disadvantageous)  treatment  can  be  considered  as  an                              indirect discrimination or not.4                                The Anti Discrimination Act provides protection only to the particular                              social groups defined on one or more characteristics that distinguish                              them  from  the  other  groups  and  may  serve  as  grounds  for  indirect                              discrimination.  Such  characteristics  (or  discrimination  grounds)  are                              enumerated  in  the  section  2  paragraph  3  of  the  Act.5  It  should  be                              noted here that the Czech legislators went beyond the EU directives                              by  adding  \"nationality\"  as  one  of  the  discrimination  grounds.                              However, the legislators failed to add this discrimination ground on                              the list of discrimination grounds used by the section 133a of the Civil                              procedure  code  which  means  that  in  the  cases  of  indirect                              discrimination  on  the  ground  of  nationality,  the  court  would  not  be                              able  to  shift  the  burden  of  proof  from  the  victim  of  indirect                              discrimination  to  the  discriminator.6  In  the  case  of  indirect                                Authority and Secretary of State for Health; decision of the European Court                              of Justice from the 23th October 2003, C-4/02 and C-5/02, Hilde Schönheit                              v. Stadt Frankfurt am Main a Silvia Becker v Land Hessen.                               3   The  section  3  paragraph  1  of  the  Anti  Discrimination  Act:  \"Indirect                              discrimination shall be deemend to be such conduct or omission, when on the                              ground of any apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice one person is                              disadvantaged in comparison with other, on the grounds given in Section 2                              paragraph 3 of the Act. It shall not be deemed indirect discrimination when                              this provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by the legitimate                              aim and means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.\"                               4                                Boučková, P. et al: Antidiskriminační zákon. Komentář. Prague: C.H.Beck,                              2010, p. 156.                              5                                The section 2 paragraph 3 of the Anti Discrimination Act prohibits indirect                              discrimination  on  a  ground  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  nationality,  sex                              (including  pregnancy,  maternity  or  paternity  nad  sexual  identification),                              sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, belief or opinions.                              6                                The section 133a of the Civil procedure code (Act number 99/1963 Coll.)                              states that: \"If the complainant claims facts before the court from which it can                              be  derived  that  there  has  been  direct  or  indirect  discrimination  by  the                              defendant:                               a) based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion, belief, opinions, disability,                              age  or  sexual  orientation  in  the  area  of  working  activities  or  other  paid                              employment  including  access  thereto,  occupation,  business  or  other  self-                              employment  including  access  thereto,  membership  of  employees'  or                              employers' associations and membership of, and involvement in, professional                              chambers                               b) based on racial or ethnic origin in the provision of healthcare and social                              care,  in  access  to  employment  and  vocational  training,  access  to  public                                                                  32","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 discrimination based on the other grounds than contained in the Anti                              Discrimination Act the victim should seek legal protection under the                              relevant provisions of the Czech civil code.7                               2.2 SECONDARY DEFINITION OF INDIRECT                              DISCRIMINATION                                The  second  definition  of  indirect  discrimination,  contained  in  the                              section 3 paragraph 2 of the Anti Discrimination Act8 is limited to the                              disabled persons only and may occur in a case that the employer or the                              provider  of  public  services  refuses  or  fails  to  take  \"appropriate                              measures\" to enable a person with a disability to have access to certain                              employment  or  use  certain  services  available  to  the  public.  The                              employer or provider are obliged to take appropriate measures unless                              such measures represent an unreasonable burden to them. The Czech                              legislators went beyond the directive 2000/78/EC that prohibited such                              form  of  indirect  discrimination  only  in  the  area  of employment  and                              working  conditions.  However,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  why  the                              Czech legislators limited the obligation to take appropriate measures                              to the public services only. Selling goods publicly as well as providing                                       contracts, access to housing, membership of special-interest associations and                              in the sale of goods in a shop or supply of services, or                               c) based on sex in access to goods and services, it shall be the defendant’s                              responsibility  to  demonstrate  that  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  has  not                              been violated.\"                              7  Section 13 of the Civil code (Act number 40/1964 Coll.):                                1.  The  individual  shall  be  entitled  in  particular  to  demand  that  unlawful                              violation of his or her personhood be abandoned, that consequences of this                              violation be removed and that an adequate satisfaction be given to him or her.                                2. If the satisfaction under paragraph 1 appears insufficient due to the fact                              that  the  individual's  dignity  or  honour  has  been  considerably  reduced,  the                              individual shall also have a right to a pecuniary satisfaction of the immaterial                              detriment.                               3. The amount of the satisfaction under paragraph 2 shall be specified by the                              court with regard to intensity and circumstances of the arisen infringment.                               8   Section  3  paragraph  2  of  the  Anti  Discrimination  Act:  \"Indirect                              discrimination on grounds of disability shall also mean refusal or failure to                              take appropriate measures to enable a person with a disability to have access                              to  a  certain  employment,  working  activities,  career  progression  or  other                              promotion,  to  use  employment  advice,  or  participate  in  other  vocational                              training,  or  to  use  services  available  to  the  public,  unless  such  a  measure                              represents an unreasonable burden.\"                                                                   33","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 of education or health care do not fall within the ambit of section 3                              paragraph 2 of the Anti Discrimination Act.9                               Despite  the  using  of  vague  term  \"appropriate  measures\",  the  Czech                              courts may resolve cases of indirect discrimination of disabled persons                              relatively  easy  because  the  section  3  paragraph  3  of  the  Anti                              Discrimination Act provides four well-defined criterias to determine                              whether  the  appropriate  measure  demanded  by  the  disabled  person                              represents an unreasonable burden or not.10 Section 3 paragraph 4 of                              the  Act  contains  the  same  request  as  the  article  5  of  the  directive                              2000/78/EC so the measures required by the Czech legal regulations                              do not represent an \"unreasonable burden\" to the employer or provider                              of public services and have to be considered as appropriate measures                              automaticaly.11                               It is obvious from the two definitions of indirect discrimination that                              the prohibition of indirect discrimination must be interpreted                               accordingly to the relative conception of equality (because not every                              case of different treatment can be considered as a discrimination under                              the Anti Discrimination Act)12 and                               accordingly  to  the  material  equality  (because  under  the  formal                              equality  where  the  same  provision  is  used  to  deal  with  the  de  iure                              same social groups there can be no discrimination).                                    9                                Boučková, P. et al: Antidiskriminační zákon. Komentář. Prague: C.H.Beck,                              2010, p. 167.                              10                                  Section  3  paragraph  3  of  the  Anti  Discrimination  Act:  \"In  determining                              whether any specific measure represents an unreasonable burden, regard shall                              be given to: the degree of benefit which the person with a disability has from                              the implementation of the measure; to the financial tenability of the measure                              for  the  natural  or  legal  person  intended  to  implement  the  measure;  to  the                              availability  of  financial  and  other  assistance  for  the  implementation  of  the                              measure and to the capacity of substitute measures to satisfy the needs of the                              person with the disability.\"                              11                                 Section 3 paragraph 4 of the Anti Discrimination Act: \"A measure which a                              natural  or  legal  person  is  obliged  to  take  in  accordance  with  special                              provisions shall not be considered to be an unreasonable burden.\"                               12  According to the judgments of the Czech constitutional court the \"right to                              the  equal  treatment\"  must  be  interpreted  accordingly  with  the  relative                              conception  of  equality.  The  absolute  conception  of  equality  would  lead  to                              severe  social  problems.  See,  for  example,  judgment  of  the  Czech                              constitutional  court  from  the  7th  June  1995,  Pl.  ÚS  4/95;  judgment  of  the                              Czech constitutional court from the 11th June 2003, Pl. ÚS 11/02; judgement                              of the Czech constitutional court from the 16th October 2007, Pl. ÚS 53/04;                              judgment of the Czech constitutional court from the 22nd January 2008, Pl.                              ÚS 54/05.                                                                   34","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 It should be also noted that the prohibition of indirect discrimination                              aims at achieving the equality of opportunities (because if it aims at                              achieving  the  equality  of  results  then  it  will  be  unnecessary  for  the                              victim of indirect discrimination to prove the disadvantagous effect of                              the  apparently  neutral  provision.  Contrary,  it  should  be  sufficient                              enought  to  prove  the  existence  of  disproportionality  between  two                              social  groups).  The  main  purpose  of  the  prohibition  of  indirect                              discrimination is to guarantee equality of opportunities as it is clear                              from  the  second  definition  of  indirect  discrimination  of  disabled                              person. For example, the employer does not have a duty to choose a                              disabled  person  instead  of  normal  one.  The  employer  has  a  duty  to                              provide  only  the  access  to  the  employment  for  the  disabled  person.                              Thus the overall purpose of the prohibition of inidrect discrimination                              is to provide equal opportunities.                               The  Czech  legislators  made  almost  verbatim  copy  of  the  European                              Union directives,13 so the definitions of the indirect discrimination in                              the Anti Discrimination Act are basically the same as the definitions                              used in the EU directives, including the vague terms that are explained                              in the decisions of the European Court of Justice. The interpretation of                              the European Court of Justice has to be accepted by the Czech courts                              deciding  the  cases  of  possible  indirect  discrimination,  including  the                              interpretation of the related terms such as reversed burden of proof or                              appropriate  measures  or  solution  of  practical  problems  such  as                              admissibility  of  statistics  as  a  proof  of  evidence.  The  Czech  courts                              must interpret the prohibition of indirect discrimination, contained in                              the Anti Discrimination Act, accordingly to the law of the European                              Union. That is why it is important to consider the effect of the Charter                              of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the interpretation of                              the indirect discrimination.                                3. CHARTER  OF  FUNDAMENTAL  RIGHTS  OF  THE                              EUROPEAN UNION                               The  main  emphasis  of  this  article  is  focused  on  the  fact  that  the                              Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union  has  become                              legally binding after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Because of                              the Article 6 of the Treaty of the European Union the Charter is on the                              same  level  as  the  Founding  Treaties  of  the  European  Union.  This                              solution  is  quite  similar  to  the  position  of  the  Czech  Charter  of                              fundamental human rights and freedoms, which is on the same level as                                13                                 Namely the Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing                              the  principle  of  equal  treatment  between  persons  irrespective  of  racial  or                              ethnic  origin;  the  Council  Directive  200/78/EC  of  27  November  2000                              establishing  a  general  framework  for  equal  treatment  in  employment  and                              occupation;  the  Council  Directive  2004/113/EC  of  13  December  2004                              implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in                              the access to and supply of goods and services and the Directive 2006/54/EC                              of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  July  2006  on  the                              implementation of the principle of equal opportunitites and equal treatment of                              men and women in matters of employment and occupation.                                                                   35","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 the  Constitution  (according  to  the  Article  112  paragraph  1  of  the                              Constitution), but it is not a part of it.14                               Despite  the  fact  that  the  Czech  president  Vaclav  Klaus  managed  to                              negotiate  an  opt-out  from  the  Lisbon  treaty,  which  is  sometimes                              mistaken  as  an  exemption  from  the  whole  Charter,  the  European                              Union`s  Charter  is  definitely  legally  binding  for  the  Czech  republic                              and its public bodies (including Czech courts). We may also presume                              that the Charter will remain legally binding in the near future.15 The                              reason  for  this  assumption  is  that  the  content  of  the  Czech  opt-out                              should be the same as the content of the Protocol number 30 on the                              application  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European                              Union to Poland and to the United Kingdom. We may conclude that                              the  fundamental  rights,  contained  in  the  European  Union`s  Charter,                              cannot  be  interpreted  in a  way  which  may  extend  the  ability  of  the                              European Court of Justice to find the legal regulations of the Czech                              republic, are inconsistent with the European Union`s Charter.16 Also,                              accordingly  to  the  Article  2  of  the  Protocol  number  30,  where  the                              European Union`s Charter provision refers to national law, it may not                              be  interpreted  extensively  or  in  a  way  that  goes  beyond  the                              interpretation of the Czech legal regulations.17                               The Czech opt-out from the European Union`s Charter does not mean                              that  the  Charter  cannot  be  applied  by  the  Czech  courts.  Neither  the                              Czech nor Polish nor British opt-out represent the complete exclusion                              from  the  European  Union`s  Charter.  The  opt-out  only  prevents  the                              courts,  namely  the  European  Court  of  Justice,  from  extensive                              interpretation  of  rights  contained  in  the  Charter,  namely  the  rights                              contained  in  the  Title  IV  of  the  Charter.18  Such  conclusion  can  be                                 14  According to the judgment of the Czech constitutional court from the 26th                              November 2008, Pl. ÚS 19/08, the  European Union`s Charter is undoubtly                              part of the founding Treaties of the European Union.                               15                                 Pitrová, L. „České záruky“ sjednané k Lisabonské smlouvě. Mezinárodní                              politika [online]. Prague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic,                              released       17th       December        2010.        Available                              from:<http://www.mzv.cz/jnp/cz/o_ministerstvu/archivy/z_medii/ceske_zaru                              ky_sjednane_k_lisabonske.html>.                               16  Right to the equality before the law and right not to be discriminated are                              contained in the Title III of the European Union`s Charter.                               17  Such conclusion is based on the teleological interpretation of the Protocol                              number 30. The grammatical interpretation of the Article 1 paragraph 2 of the                              Protocol  number  30  is  problematic  because  the  wording  of  this  provision                              indicates that the limitation contained in this provision may be relevant not                              only for the Title VI of the European Union`s Charter, but also for the other                              Titles of the Charter.                               18   Bončková,  H.  „Výjimka“  z Listiny  základních  práv  EU:  možné                              interpretace  a  dopady.  Dny  práva  –  2010  –  Days  of  Law  [online].  Brno:                              Masaryk     University,   2010,   p.    8.    Available   from:                                                                  36","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 supported by the decision made by the Czech constitutional court that                              the Charter does not extent the field of action of the European Union                              and does not apply directly in the areas of legal regulation in which                              the Czech republic did not transfer its powers to the European Union.                              The Charter has two functions: to protect the individual`s rights and to                              set up limits on the exercise of powers both of the European Union                              and national authorities.19                               4. RELEVANT ARTICLES OF THE CHARTER                               Let us move back to the European Union`s Charter and its application                              related  to  the  prohibition  of  indirect  discrimination.  Only  several                              articles  are  relevant  for  the  interpretation  of  indirect  discrimination,                              namely articles number 1, 20, 21 and articles number 51 and 52.                               4.1 ARTICLE 1                               The Article number 1 declares that the: \"human dignity is inviolable.                              It  must  be  respected  and  protected.\"  According  to  the  Explanations                              relating  to  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  („Explanations“                              hereinafter): \"the dignity of human person is not only a fundamental                              right in itself but constitutes the real basis of fundamental rights.\" The                              human dignity is defined by the European Union`s  Charter as a basic                              human right. This is a considerable advancement in the understanding                              of the human dignity as compared to the United Nation`s  Universal                              Declaration of Human Rights whose Article 1 states that: \"all human                              beings  are  born  free  and  equal  in  dignity  and  rights.\"  The                              advancement  lies  in  a  fact  that  the  the  fundamental  rights  in  the                              European Union are not aimed at the defending one person`s  rights                              only. The emphasis on the human dignity as a basic human right can                              be  considered  as  a  transition  from  the  passive  defence  of  human                              dignity to its active enforcement in the form of creating the conditions                              needed  to  preserve  the  human  dignity  in  practice.  The  Universal                              Declaration of Human Rights declares only formal conditions of the                              human dignity in the meaning that no human being can be treated as                              an  object  of  the  conduct  of  another  person.  The  European  Union`s                              Charter declares that the human dignity must be considered as a basic                              element for exercise all other rights, including the right to be treated                              equally  and  the  right  not  to  be  discriminated.    This  means  that  the                              Article  number  1  of  the  Charter  demands  providing  substantive                              conditions to exert the basic human right to dignity.                               We may conclude that the Article number 1 provides the basis for the                              interpretation of the other basic human rights contained in the Charter.                              The Czech courts should emphasize the human dignity especially in                                 <http://www.law.muni.cz/sborniky/dny_prava_2010/files/prispevky/11_evro                              pa/Bonckova_Helena_(4511).pdf >.                               19                                 Judgment of the Czech constitutional court from the 26th November 2008,                              Pl. ÚS 19/08, pages 38 and 39.                                                                   37","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 cases  where  the  courts  may  presume  that  there  has  been  indirect                              discrimination  on  a  ground  of  age  (Article  25  of  the  Charter)  or  in                              cases where the courts may presume that the working conditions of                              workers (Article 31 of the Charter) or the social security assistance,                              including  housing  assistence  (Article  34  of  the  Charter)  have  a                              discriminatory  effect  on  some  social  group.  Also  the  Czech  courts                              should  interpret  the  Article  1  of  the  Czech  Charter  of  fundamental                              rights  and  freedoms  in  areas  (or  policies)  in  which  the  European                              Union  exercises  its  exclusive  or  shared  competences  accordingly  to                              the Article 1 of the European Union`s  Charter.                               4.2 ARTICLE 20                               The Article 20 of the Charter simply states that:  \"everyone is equal                              before the law\". Unlike some other international treaties dealing with                              the  protection  of  basic  human  rights  (i.  e.  European  Convention  on                              Human Rights) the equality is not limited to the other rights contained                              in  the  Charter.  Someone  may  conclude  from  this  that  the  equality                              before the law under the European Union`s  Charter is independent,                              non-accessory  basic  human  right.  However,  such  conclusion  seems                              wrong.                               According to the Explanations the Article 20 corresponds to a general                              principle of equality before the law that is included in constitutions of                              all  member  states  and  that  \"...has  also  been  recognised  by  the                              European Court of Justice as a basic principle of Community law\".20                              Thus the Article 20 of the Charter does not contain the \"law\" but does                              contain  only  the  \"principle\",  with  all  the  consequences  described  in                              the Article 52 paragraph 5 of the Explanations. The right conclusion is                              that the equality before the law is not an independent, non-accessory                              basic human right. On the other hand, such principle is still essential                              for resolving the cases of prima facie indirect discrimination.                               For  the  Czech  courts,  including  the  Czech  constitutional  court,  the                              interpretation of the Article 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and                              freedoms, containing the principle of equality before the law, remains                              the  same  as  it  was  before  the  Lisbon  treaty  has  been  ratified.                              According to the Czech constitutional court: \"...principle of equality                              before  the  law  is  the  essence  of  the  Czech  constitutional  law.  The                              principle  is  the  fundamental  both  for  the  interpretation  and  the                              aplication of the law and it must be preserved with caution. This basic                              postulate is supplemented by the Article 3 paragraph 1 of the Charter                              of fundamental rights and freedoms...In the form of discriminatory or                                  20                                 See, for example, judgment of the European Court of Justice from the 13th                              November 1984, case 283/83, A. Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz; judgment of                              the European Court of Justice from the 17th April 1997, case 15/95, EARL                              de  Kerlast  v  Union  régionale  de  coopératives  agricoles  (Unicopa)  and                              Coopérative du Trieux and judgment of the European Court of Justice from                              the 13th April 2000, case 292/97, Kjell Karlsson and Others.                                                                   38","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 anti-discriminatory  provisions  respectivelly  the  principle  of  equality                              before the law is contained in many legal regulations.\"21                               4.3 ARTICLE 21                               The consequent Article 21 of the European Union`s  Charter contains                              the general prohibition of all forms of discrimination. It is important to                              notice that the list of grounds upon which the discrimination should be                              based is demonstrative. Thus the Article 21 of the European Union`s                              Charter  provides  broader  protection  agains  discrimination  than  the                              European Union`s Directives, prohibiting discrimination on specified                              grounds only (such as sex, race or disability). The protection against                              discrimination,  provided  by  the  Charter,  is  even  broader  than  the                              protection provided by the Article 14 of the European Convention on                              Human  Rights,  which  also  prohibits  discrimination.22  However,  for                              the Czech courts this should have a little practical effect because of                              the  limited  scope  of  the  Charter  and  also  because  of  the  Article  3                              paragraph  1  of  the  Czech Charter  of  fundamental  human  rights  and                              freedoms  that  basically  contains  the  same  list  of  \"discriminatory\"                              grounds as the Article 21 of the European Union`s  Charter.                                4.4 ARTICLES 51 AND 52                               For the correct interpretation and aplication of the European Union`s                              Charter is necessary to evaluate its Articles number 51 and 52 in Title                              VII  of  the  Charter  (such  evaluation  is  required  in  the  Article  6                              paragraph 1 of the Treaty on European Union).23 Article 51 defines                              the scope of the Charter. According to the Article 51 paragraph 1 the                              provisions of the Charter are addressed to the institutions and bodies                              of the European Union and to the member states only when they are                              implementing  law  of  the  European  Union  (i.e.  European  Union`s                              Directives).  The  term  \"implementation  of  the  EU  law\"  must  be                              interpreted extensively in accordance with the principle of effectivity                              (effet utile).24 The application of the EU law by the member states,                                 21  Judgment of the Czech constitutional court from the 30th April 2009, II.                              ÚS 1609/08, pages 4 and 5.                               22   Article  14  of  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights  declares  that:                              \"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall                              be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour,                              language,  religion,  political  or  other  opinion,  national  or  social  origin,                              association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.\"                               23                                 \"The rights, freedoms and principles in the Charter shall be interpreted in                              accordance with the general provisions in Title VII of the Charter governing                              its  interpretation  and  application  and  with  due  regard  to  the  explanations                              referred to in the Charter, that set out the sources of those provisions.\"                               24                                  The  principle  of  effectivity  has  been  defined  in  the  judgments  of  the                              European Court of Justice, namely in the case 8/55 Fédération Charbonnière                              de Belgique v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community; in                              the  case  34/62,  Bundesrepublik  Deutschland  v Commission  or  in  the  joint                                                                  39","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 implementation of the EU directives, including the application of the                              national  law that  has  been  adopted  under authority  of  the  European                              Union (which is the case of the Anti Discrimination Act) must be in                              accordance with the Charter. It is obvious that the Charter is mainly                              directed  to  the  institutions  of  the  European  Union,  not  to  the                              institutions  of  member  states.25  We  may  conclude  that  the  basic                              human rights contained in the Charter has quasi-accessory character.                              This means that the citizens of the member states cannot refer to them                              directly in any situation. They may refer to them only to the extent of                              European Union`s law. For example, where the Czech legislators went                              beyond the European Union`s law during the enactment of the Anti                              Dicrimination Act, the Charter could not be used.26                               The most important interpretative article of the Charter is the Article                              number 52 that narrowly defines the scope and interpretation of the                              laws and principles, contained in the Charter. Article 52 paragraph 1                              set several conditions that have to be fulfilled to limit the exercise of                              the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter. For example, the                              right not to be discriminated indirectly can be limited only by law and                              only in the case that the essence of the right not to be discriminated is                              respected. Concurrently such limitation may be made only when it is                              necessary and when the limitation pursues either objectives of general                              interest, recognised by the European Union27 or the need to protect                              the rights and freedoms of others. From the wording of the Article 52                              paragraph 1 is obvious that it contains the test of proportionality, that                              has been developped and used by the European Court of Justice.                               According to the Article 52 paragraph 3 during the interpretation of                              basic human rights contained in the Charter it is necessary to take into                              account also the relevant provisions of the European Convention on                              Human Rights so far as they correspond to rights guarranteed by the                                cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Andrea Francovich v Italy and Danila Bonifaci and                              others v Italy. See also Tichý, L. et al: Evropské právo. 4th edition. Prague:                              C.H.Beck, 2011, p. 239-240.                              25  However it does not mean that the Czech authorities does not have to use                              the European Union`s Charter. According to the extensive interpretation of                              the term \"implementing\" the Czech authorities must interpret the provisions                              of the Czech legal regulations accordingly to the law of the European Union.                              See Tichý, L. et al: Evropské právo. 4th edition. Prague: C.H.Beck, 2011, p.                              138.                              26  It should be noted here that the Czech constitutional court reached the same                              conclusion in its judgment from the 26th November 2008, Pl. ÚS 19/08, page                              38. The Czech constitutional court referred to the judgment of the European                              Court of Justice from the 13th April 2000, case C-292/97, Kjell Karlsson and                              others.                               27                                  According  to  the  Explanations  to  the  European  Union`s  Charter  the                              \"objectives of general interest\" are contained in the articles 3 and 4 paragraph                              1 of the Treaty on European Union and in the article 35 paragraph 3, article                              36 and article 346 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.                                                                   40","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Charter.  This  means  that  the  judgments  of  the  European  Court  of                              Human Rights must be taken into account as well.                               Article 52 paragraph 5 discriminates between the laws and principles                              and sets up rules under which it is possible to refer to the principles.                              The Articles of the Charter that contain principles can be used for the                              interpretation  purposes  only.  Such  Articles  did  not  contain  basic                              human rights basically. However, from the wording of the Charter and                              the  Explanations  it  is  not  always  evident  whether  some  Articles                              contain principles or laws or both (i. e. Art. 23, Art. 33 and Art. 34).                               Finally,  the  Article  52  paragraph  4  states  that  which  the  Charter                              recognises  basic  human  rights  as  they  result  from  the  constitutional                              traditions  common  to  the  member  states,  those  rights  shall  be                              interpreted  in  harmony  with  those  traditions.  This  provision  of  the                              Charter is problematic because that for the correct interpretation of the                              Charter  would  be  necessary  to  establish  what  are  those  rights.  The                              Explanations  refers  to  the  common  constitutional  traditions  in  the                              comments to the Art. 10, Art. 17 par. 1, Art. 20, Art. 37 and Art. 49                              par.  3  of  the  Charter.  Under  the  presumption  that  all  the  other                              provisions of the Charter must be interpreted without regards to the                              common constitutional traditions, the Czech courts have to consider                              such  traditions  during  the  interpretation  of  the  right  to  be  treated                              equally before the law (Article 20), but not during the interpretation of                              the right not to be discriminated (Article 21).                                Such conclusion is wrong despite the fact that it seems logical. First of                              all, the right to be treated equally before the law and the right not to be                              discriminated are linked together in many constitutions of the member                              states.  It  is  problematic  to  separate  them  in  a  way  that  we  may                              conclude that the common constitutional tradition should be taken into                              account  only  during  the  interpretation  of  the  former  but  not  of  the                              later.  That  is  why  the  Czech  courts  should  take  into  account  the                              common  constitutional  traditions  in  both  cases.28  As  a  supportive                              argument the Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union contains                              the list of common principles (or social values) shared by all of the                              member states. The list contains inter alia human dignity, equality and                              non-discrimination.29                                 28   Such    presumption  may  be  supported  by  the  judgment  of  the  Czech                              constitutional court, declaring that: \"...in the core of the European civilisation                              lies values common to all modern human cultures of the world. Such values                              are human freedom and human dignity; together they form a basis for the self                              determination of the human being.\" See judgment of the Czech constitutional                              court from the 26th November 2008, Pl. ÚS 19/08, page 20.                               29  Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union: \"The Union is founded on the                              values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule                              of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging                              to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in                              which  pluralism,  non-discrimination,  tolerance,  justice,  solidarity  and                              equality between women and men prevail.\"                                                                   41","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Another  problem  is the  possibility  of  „mechanical“  interpretation of                              the  Article  52  paragraph  4  of  the  Charter.  If  we  accept  that  the                              prohibition of discrimination should be interpreted accordingly to the                              common constitutional traditions, it is necessary to answer following                              question:  in  how  many  constitutions  of  the  member  states  the                              prohibition  of  discrimination  must  be  guarranteed  expressly  to                              consider  it  as  a  common  constitutional  tradition?  In  all  27  member                              state`s  constitutions?  Or  it  is  enought  that  the  prohibition  of                              discrimination  is  contained  in  majority  of  the  member  state`s                              constitutions?  Or  it  is  sufficient  enought  that  constitutions  of  some                              member  states  expressly  prohibit  discrimination  (which  was  the                              situation of the infamous Mangold v Helm case)?30                               However,  such  question  is  misleading.  To  answer  the  question,  the                              Czech  courts  would  have  to  do  a  large-scale  comparison  of  the                              constitutional law of all the member states. Such proceeding would be                              in accordance with the proceeding of the European Court of Justice.                              From  its  judgments  we  may  conclude  that  the  European  Court  of                              Justice compares constitutional law of all the member states although                              in  its  judgments  the  court  refers  to  only  some  constitutions  of  the                              member states.31                               On the other hand, it is important to notice that all the member states                              had  either  to  implement  the  European  Union`s  law,  including                              necessary  changes  in  their  constitutional  system  or  to  use  the                              \"euroconformal\" interpretation of their legal regulations.32                                  30  See judgment of the European Court of Justice from the 22nd December                              2005, C-144/04, Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm.                               31  See, for example, the judgment of the European Court of Justice from the                              14th  May  1974,  case  4/73,  J.  Nold,  Kohlen-  und  Baustoffgroßhandlung                              v Commission;  judgment  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice  from  the  13th                              December  1979,  case  44/79,  Liselotte  Hauer  v  Land  Rheinland-Pfalz;                              judgment  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice  from  the  18th  May  1982,  case                              155/79, AM \& S Europe Limited v Commission.                              32   The  Czech  Constitutional  Court  enunciated  that:  \"if  there  are  several                              possible  interpretations  of  the  constitutional  law,  including  the  Charter  of                              fundamental  rights  and  freedoms,  and  if  only  some  of  them  lead  to  the                              fulfillment of the commitment which the Czech republic undertake to fulfill                              in  connection  with  its  membership  in  the  European  Union,  then  it  is                              necessary to choose such interpretation that enables the fulfillment of such                              commitment,  not  the  interpretation  that  actually  prevents  to  fulfill  such                              commitment...if  there  are  –  under  the  domestic  methodology  –  several                              possible interpretations of the Czech constitution, and if only some of them                              lead  to  the  fulfillment  of  the  commitment  which  the  Czech  republic                              undertake to fulfill in connection with its membership in the European Union,                              then  it  is  unavoidable  to  choose  an  interpretation  that  support  the                              implementation  of  the  Article  1  paragraph  2  of  the  Czech  constitution.\"                              Judgment of the Czech constitutional court from the 3rd May 2006, Pl. ÚS                              66/04.                                                                   42","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 If  the  member  states  did  not  take  such  steps  to  make  their  legal                              regulations to be in accordance with the requirements of the European                              Union`s law, they would be held accountable (by the Commission or                              by  the  European  Court  of  Justice)  for  the  infringement  of  the                              commitments resulting from their membership in the European Union.                              In that case such state could not be considered as a de facto member                              state, at least in some area of legal regulation. We may presume that                              the constitutional traditions of the member states exist – at least in the                              areas in which the European Union exercises its powers. On the other                              hand  even  the  euroconformal  interpretation  has  its  own  limits  –                              namely in the area of the so called \"focus point of the constitution\" as                              it is defined by the Czech (or German) constitutional court. Although                              the constitutional court admitted that it is obliged to use the principle                              of  euroconformal  interpretation  of  the  law,  such  principle  does  not                              have  a  character  of  implied  novelisation  of  the  Czech  constitution.                              The \"focus point of the constitution\" remained unchanged even after                              the ratification of the Lisbon treaty.33 The Czech constitutional court                              also declared that the European Union`s Charter is fully comparable to                              the Czech Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms as well as to                              the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights.  Thus  the  European                              Union`s Charter is in accordance not only with the \"focus point of the                              constitution\"  but  also  with  all  of  the  provisions  of  the  Czech                              constitutional law.34                              5. CONCLUSION                                So,  how  the  enacment  of the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the                              European  Union  influenced  the  interpretation  of  the  indirect                              discrimination by the Czech courts?                               First  of  all,  we  must  conclude  that  the  Charter  is  legally  binding                              document that the Czech courts could not ignore as it is on the same                              level as the Founding Treaties. The Charter is part of the primary EU                              law.                               The  Czech  opt-out  from  the  Charter  only  provides  necessary                              affirmation  to  the  Czech  citizens  that  the  courts,  including  the                              European  Court  of  Justice,  should  not  interpret  basic  human  rights                              contained in the Charter extensively. The Czech opt-out is a political                              document only, not the source of the law. Even in the case that the                              opt-out will be adopted in the same form as the British or Polish opt-                              outs,  the  Czech  courts  should  have  to  interpret  the  prohibition  of                              indirect  discrimination  according  to  the  relevant  provisions  of  the                              Charter.                                   33                                 See judgment of the Czech constitutional court from the 26th November                              2008, Pl. ÚS 19/08, pages 21 and 22.                              34                                 Judgment of the Czech constitutional court from the 26th November 2008,                              Pl. ÚS 19/08, pages 39.                                                                   43","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 The  Charter  is  fully  compatible  with  the  Czech  constitutional  law,                              including the Czech Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms as it                              has been declared by the Czech constitutional court.                               The scope  of  the  Charter,  defined  in  the  Article  51,  is  limited.  The                              Czech courts have to take the provisions of the Charter into account                              only when they will be implementing the EU law. Accordingly to the                              principle  of  effectivity  (effet  utile)  the  Czech  courts  will  have  to                              interpret  the  Anti  Discrimination  Act,  including  the  Section  3,  in                              accordance with the Charter, because of the fact that the whole Anti                              Discrimination Act can be considered as an implementation of the EU                              directives.  Only  in  several  cases  where  the  Czech  legislator  went                              beyond the EU directives the Czech courts does not need to interpret                              the provisions accordingly to the Charter.                               The  Czech  courts  will  have  to  interpret  the  provisions  of  the  Anti                              Discrimination  Act  not  only  with  regard  to  the  principles  and  basic                              human rights contained in the Charter, but they will have to interpret                              such provisions accordingly with the decisions of the European Court                              of Justice.                                 Literature:                               -  Boučková,  P.  et  al:  Antidiskriminační  zákon.  Komentář.  Prague:                                 C.H.Beck, 2010, 425 p., ISBN 978-80-7400-315-8.                              -  Pitrová,  L.  „České  záruky“  sjednané  k Lisabonské  smlouvě.                                 Mezinárodní politika [online]. Prague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs                                 of  the  Czech  Republic,  released  17th  December  2010.  Available                                 from:<http://www.mzv.cz/jnp/cz/o_ministerstvu/archivy/z_medii/c                                 eske_zaruky_sjednane_k_lisabonske.html>.                              -  Bončková,  H.  „Výjimka“  z Listiny  základních  práv  EU:  možné                                 interpretace a dopady. Dny práva – 2010 – Days of Law [online].                                 Brno:  Masaryk  University,  2010,  p.  8.  Available  from:                                 <http://www.law.muni.cz/sborniky/dny_prava_2010/files/prispevky                                 /11_evropa/Bonckova_Helena_(4511).pdf >.                              -  Tichý,  L.  et  al:  Evropské  právo.  4th  edition.  Prague:  C.H.Beck,                                 2011, 953 p., ISBN 9788074003332.                               Contact – email                              182437@mail.muni.cz                                                                                44","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                          CONSIDERATIONS ON THE FIRST                                       REGISTRATION TAX AND ON THE                                POLLUTION TAX FOR MOTOR VEHICLES AS                                       STATED BY THE ROMANIAN LAW                               ACCORDING TO THE RECENT DECISIONS OF                                THE E.U`S COURT OF JUSTICE AND TO THE                                                  E.U`S TREATIES                                               CERCEL ANAMARIA CRISTINA                                              Court of Appeal of Craiova, Romania                                Abstract in original language                              According to the article 214/2 Romanian Tax Code, as it was amended                              by the Government Emergency Order No 110/2006, a special tax on                              motor vehicles had to be paid on the occasion of their first registration                              in Romania, whether it should have been a temporary or a permanent                              registration. This tax, named first registration tax was instituted since                              January 1st 2007 and its effects have occurred in the period near after                              the Romanian accession to the E.U.                               The compatibility of the first registration tax with the stipulations of                              Art.90 of EC Treaty was verified by the Romanian national Courts,                              who have constantly established that it was indeed contrary to the EU                              law on the free movement of goods. The Romanian Courts stated that,                              in the case of second hand motor vehicles brought into Romania from                              other EU countries, due to the fact that the first registration tax has                              been previously paid on the territory of one of these countries, another                              taxation which would have been imposed by the Romanian national                              law should have the effect of discouraging the free trade with this type                              of vehicles.                               Since  July  1st  2008,  the  Government  has  renounced  to  the  first                              registration  tax  on  the  second  hand  vehicles  coming  from  the  EU                              countries.  Trough  the  Emergency  Order  No  50/2008  was  instituted                              instead the pollution so named tax. The pollution tax ought to be paid                              at the first registration of a motor vehicle in Romania. Our legislation                              does not distinguish between vehicles manufactured in Romania and                              the  ones  manufactured  abroad.  Similarly,  it  does  not  distinguish                              between freshly issued and second-hand vehicles. This first national                              regulation in this matter has suffered several successive modifications,                              including the one of diminishing its amount. Thereby, the Government                              tried to avoid a possible incompatibility of the pollution tax with the                              EU law.                               In resolving the pollution tax problem, the Romanian Law Courts had                              formulated  preliminary  questions  able  to  debate  upon  the                              compatibility of this tax with EU law. In three recent cases–law: Tatu,                              Nisipeanu and Ijac v Romania, EUCJ has stated that the pollution tax                              introduced  by  the  Romanian  legislation,  applied  to  vehicles  on  the                              occasion  of  first  registration  in  Romania,  was  contrary  to  EU  law,                                                                   45","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 having the effect of discouraging the import and the traffic insertion of                              second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States. The EUCJ,                              also, has established that the Article 110 TFEU ought be interpreted as                              forbidding  to  a  Member  State  the  establishment  of  a  pollution  tax                              imposed on motor vehicles on the occasion of their first registration in                              the  respective  Member  State  whenever  the  respective  tax  should  be                              shaped in such a way that it would impeach the placing in circulation                              in the respective Member State of second-hand vehicles purchased in                              other  Member  States,  yet  without  discouraging  the  purchase  of                              second-hand  vehicles  bearing  the  same  manufacturing  year  and                              technical condition on the domestic market.                                Following these EUCJ judgments, most Romanian Law Courts have                              decided to refund to applicants the amounts previously paid according                              to  Romanian  national  rules,  because  all  of  these  tax  variants  were                              contrary  to  EU  law.  Until  the  end  of  this  year,  is  also  expected  a                              decision  of  the  Romanian  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice                              concerning  the  interpretation,  application  and  unification  of  the                              judicial practice in the matter of refunding pollution tax.                               Key words in original language                              first registration tax, pollution tax, free movement of goods, EU law,                              preliminary ruling                               1. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE TAXES LEVIED ON MOTOR                              VEHICLES ON THEIR FIRST REGISTRATION AND ON                              THEIR LEGISLATIVE EVOLUTION                               In State has always had an administrative policy for the registration of                              motor  vehicles,  as  they  represent  an  economical  value  and  the                              numerous  transactions  with  vehicles,  either  used  or  new,  could                              represent a significant budgetary source. Registration taxes were paid                              directly in a State’s bank account, and the evidence of the payment                              had  to  be  shown  to  the  Police  before  the  registration  and  before                              making  the  vehicles  available  for  traffic  or  in  the  situations  of                              ownership  transfer  over  second-hand  motor  vehicles,  when  it  were                              erased  from  the  Police  databases  as  being  owned  by  the  seller  and                              registered under the name of the new owner. The value of such taxes                              was  not  prohibitive,  as  taxation  on  public  services  is  generally                              admitted as long as it does not infringe fundamental rights.                               The  Governmental  Emergency  Order  (GEO)  nr.110/21.12.2006,                              modified  Romanian  Fiscal  Code  just  one  day  before  Romania’s                              Accession  to  the  European  Union  (EU).  This  Order  levied  a  new                              special  tax  on  first  registration  of  second-hand  motor  vehicles  in                              Romania,  which  were  previously  registered  in  other  EU  Member                              States (MSs). The tax had to be paid for motor vehicles, which did not                              exceed the authorized maximum mass of 3.5 tones. There were also                              exceptions,  such  as  special  equipped  vehicles  for  persons  with                              disabilities,  vehicles  pertaining  to  diplomatic  missions,  consular                              offices  and  their  members,  and  other  foreign  organizations  and                              persons with diplomatic status that work in Romania.                                                                    46","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 When  GEO  110/2006  entered  into  force,  Romania’s  Government                              announced  that  if  this  tax  did  not  have  been  levied  on  the  first                              registration  of  second-hand  vehicles  in  Romania,  the  direct                              consequence would have been facilitating the entrance into Romania                              of numerous second-hand motor vehicles more than 10 years old, due                              to  their  low  price.  Therefore,  the  environment  would  have  been                              affected,  as  these  vehicles  are  not  properly  equipped  with  modern                              filters to exhaust gas emissions. They would have soon become waste,                              for  which  Romania  should  have  found  solutions  to  deposit  and                              recycle.                               With all good publicity for this statement of reasons, there have been                              several public debates regarding the compatibility of this tax with the                              Treaty  on  the  European  Union.  In  order  not to  bring  upon  itself  an                              infringement procedure in the first year as a Member State (MS) of the                              EU,  Romania,  through  its  authorities,  had  modified  the  tax  and                              established certain technical criteria, such as the cylinder capacity and                              the European emissions standards (Euro 1, 2, 3 or 4). These criteria                              were established to justify environmental protection and to apply the                              ”polluter pays” principle.                               Therefore,  starting  with  July  1st,  2008,  GEO  50/2008  entered  into                              force and changed the tax on the first registration of motor vehicles in                              a pollution tax. The statement of reasons, which was annexed to the                              law  project  presented  before  the  Parliament,  maintained  the                              environmental  protection’s  argumentation.  It  showed  that  the                              enforcement of this legislative project was justified by the purpose of                              environmental  protection,  which  was  to  be  made  through  programs                              and  projects  to  improve  air  quality  and  to  maintain  it  in  the  limits                              provided  by  EU  law.  Also,  taking  into  account  the  necessity  of                              adopting  legal  measures  in  order  to  comply  with  EU  law  and  the                              jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU),                              GEO 50/2008 established that the funds raised from the tax will be                              directed to environmental projects, such as the program for renewing                              the  national  auto  fleet,  the  national  program  of  environmental                              improvement  through  the  creation  of  parks  and  other  green  spaces,                              projects for the replacement of classic heating systems with systems                              that  use  solar  energy,  geothermal  energy,  wind  energy  and  as  well                              projects  that  generate  electricity  from  renewable  sources:  wind,                              geothermal, solar, biomass, micro-hydroelectric power plants, projects                              of  renewal  the  forestation  of  highly  damaged  or  drained  fields,                              projects  of  re-naturalization  of  lands  which  used  to  belong  to  the                              natural patrimony, projects of making bicycle lanes.                               The tax provisions laid in GEO 50/2008 envisaged all motor vehicles,                              either new or second-hand, according to their technical details, such as                              the cylinder capacity, the pollution standard, the type of filters for the                              exhaustion of gas emissions, for their first registration in Romania, but                              it also included some exceptions which were initially laid down in the                              previous GEO.                               Nevertheless, GEO 50/2008 was not considered the perfect formula,                              as it suffered several changes brought by GEO 208/2008. In order to                                                                   47","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 lay  down  the  latter  GEO,  the  Government  tacked  into  account  the                              budgetary  results  developed  in  the  first  10  months  of  2008,  the                              conclusions  of  the  analysis  of  the  degree  of  economical  crisis                              deepening in October 2008 – which shown an important decrease of                              cars` markets and of the production of suppliers’ industry, and also the                              sustainable  measures  of  the  cars`  production  sector  affected  by  the                              international  financial  crisis  and  the  fact  that  the  Romanian                              Government is preoccupied with implementing measures in order to                              secure jobs in the Romanian economy (for a job in the cars` industry,                              four other jobs are created in the suppliers’ industry).                               The new GEO provided that motor vehicles with a cylinder capacity                              that does not exceed 2000 cm3 and which are registered for the first                              time in Romania or in other Member States, starting with December                              15,  2008,  are  exempted  from  paying  the  pollution  tax  according  to                              GEO 50/2008.                               GEO 208/2008 entered into force on December 10, 2008 and it was                              repealed on the next day by GEO 218/2008, which also modified GEO                              50/2008.  According  to  GEO  218/2008,  Euro  4  vehicles  with  the                              cylinder capacity which does not exceed 2000 cm3, and as well as all                              the Euro 4 vehicles that are registered for the first time in Romania or                              in other MSs between December 15, 2008 and December 31, 2009,                              are exempted from the pollution tax enforced by GEO 50/2008. Euro                              3  motor  vehicles  with  the  cylinder  capacity  which  does  not  exceed                              2000 cm3, as well as Euro 1, 2 and non-Euro motor vehicles that are                              registered  for  the  first  time  in  Romania  are  not  exempted  from  the                              pollution tax.                               2. THE SPECIAL TAX FOR FIRST REGISTRATION AND ITS                              COMPATIBILITY WITH ART 110 TFEU (FORMER ARTICLE                              90 EC); THE SOLUTIONS IN THE CASE-LAW                              The entering into force of the pollution tax provisions, as they were                              enforced between January 1st, 2007 and July 1st, 2008, has generated                              numerous  trials  between  the  tax  payers  and  the  state,  the  former                              seeking for reimbursement of the tax. They mainly argued that the tax                              was not legal, as it infringes article 90 EC, and the national judge is                              obliged to apply with priority EU law provisions. The Romanian fiscal                              authorities insisted that the tax is legal, as a result of the application of                              internal law – the Fiscal Code. The Romanian courts have established                              that  art.  90  EC  and  the  case  -  law  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the                              European Union (CJEU) are applicable in these disputes.                               According  to  Article  90,  no  Member  State  shall  impose,  directly  or                              indirectly,  on  the  products  of  other  Member  States  any  internal                              taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on                              similar  domestic  products.  In  Weigel  (2004),  CJEU  established  that                              the purpose of the EU law, in normal conditions of competition, is the                              elimination of any type of discrimination that could appear due to the                              enforcement of internal discriminatory taxes applied to products from                              another Member State. Therefore, the purpose of this Treaty Article is                              to forbid fiscal discrimination between imported and local products.                                                                   48","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 The national courts observed that in Romania the tax is not levied on                              vehicles  of  internal  production  and  registered  here.  The  national                              courts, as well, observed that the provisions of EU law in this subject                              matter  are  directly  applicable.  Taking  into  consideration  that  from                              January  1st,  2007  Romania  has  become  an  EU  Member  State,                              according to art. 148 of the Romanian Constitution, as a consequence                              of Romania’s accession to the EU, the provisions of the EU treaties, as                              well as all the other EU law provisions which are binding, shall apply                              with  priority  over  contrary  national  laws,  in  accordance  with  the                              accession Treaty (Art. 148(2)). Parliament, President and Government                              of Romania and the judicial authority guarantee the compliance with                              the  obligations  resulting  from  the  accession  Treaty.  Moreover,  the                              provisions of Law no. 157/2005 on the ratification of the accession of                              Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union state that the Romanian                              state shall also apply the provisions of the constitutive treaties of the                              EU, before the accession.                                National  courts  also  looked  at  CJEU’s  case-law,  in  cases  such  as                              Costa/Enel and Simmenthal. In Costa/Enel (1964), CJEU established                              that “the law stemming from the Treaty, an independent source of law,                              could not, because of its special and original nature, be overridden by                              domestic legal provisions, however framed, without being deprived of                              its  character  as  Community  law  and  without  the  legal  basis  of  the                              Community itself being called into question”. In the same judgment                              the  Court  defines  the  relation  between  EU  law  and  national  law,                              showing that EU law is an independent judicial order, which is applied                              with  priority  even  in  front  of  subsequent  national  law.  Law  no.                              343/2006  on  the  Fiscal  Code  first  enforced  the  Romanian  first                              registration special tax.                               In  Simmental  (1976),  CJEU  established  that  the  national  judge  is                              obliged  to  directly  apply  EU  law,  if  it  is  contrary  to  national                              provisions, without waiting their elimination from the legal order.                               Considering  these  arguments,  and  also  taking  into  account  that  in                              Romania, as a MS, there was no tax levied on the vehicles produced                              and  registered  or  re-registered  in the  country,  while  such  a  tax  was                              levied on vehicles already registered in other MSs and re-registered in                              Romania  after  being  brought  inside  its  borders,  the  national  courts                              observed a difference in treatment, which constitutes discrimination in                              the context of the fiscal judicial system and which is contrary to EC                              Treaties` provisions. These stipulations prohibit a special registration                              tax  for  intra-communitary  vehicles  acquisitions  which  are  not                              registered in the receiving state, such a tax being contrary to the free                              movement  of  goods  –  the  vehicles  from  other  MSs  are  directly  or                              indirectly  disadvantaged  in  the  competition  with  similar  national                              products.                               Regarding the argument that the tax has a protective nature towards                              the  import  of  highly  damaging  vehicles  for  the  environment,  the                              national courts did not admit this justification of the state authorities,                              as from the legal provisions relating to the tax and from the means of                              calculating  its  value  result  that  the  tax  has  purely  fiscal  nature,  no                                                                   49","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 environmental  dimension  being  in  the  criteria  for  establishing  its                              value. The first legislative act introducing such criteria was enforced                              in 2008 – OUG 50/2008.                               In conclusion, the national courts applied directly the EU law, without                              asking  for  an  interpretation  from  the  CJEU  using  the  preliminary                              rulings procedure, and decided that the incomes brought to the public                              budget from the special tax on first registration of motor vehicles had                              no legal basis between January 1st, 2007 and June 30, 2008, because                              the provisions relating to this tax are contrary to EU law. The tax also                              could not have any effects, as those effects would have infringed the                              fundaments of the European Community. As a consequence, the state                              has  no  right  in  keeping  the  amount  of  money  collected  from  taxes                              between January 1st, 2007 and June 30, 2008 and all the individuals                              who paid the tax should receive a reimbursement.                               3. THE     POLLUTION        TAX.     NATIONAL        COURTS`                              DIFFICULTIES TO ESTIMATE ITS COMPATIBILITY WITH                              ARTICLE  110  TFUE  (FORMER  ARTICLE  90  EC).  THE                              THREE  JUDGMENTS  OF  CJEU:  C-402/09  TATU,  C-263/10                              NISIPEANU AND C-336-10 IJAC.                               Starting with July 1st, 2008, OUG 50/2008 enforced the pollution tax                              on the first registration of a vehicle in Romania. By transformation of                              the first registration tax into a pollution tax, Romania did not solve the                              disputes relating to the compatibility of the provisions with EU law.                              Therefore,  the  trials  continued,  the  individuals  trying  to  obtain  the                              reimbursement of this new named - pollution tax.                               According to national law, the special auto pollution tax is paid on the                              first registration of the motor vehicle in Romania and it was conceived                              by  the  state  as  a  transition  alternative,  due  to the  fact  that,  after  its                              accession to the EU and according to the principle of free movement                              of goods, Romania eliminated from its legal system the legislative acts                              that restricted the registration of non-Euro, Euro 1 and (starting with                              January 1st, 2002) Euro 2 motor vehicles.                               The  Government  justified  the  entry  into  force  of  the  provisions  of                              GEO  50/2008  regarding  the  pollution  tax  by  the  need  for                              harmonization  of  national  law  and  EU  law  relating  environmental                              protection. The other justification was that this tax is an economical                              and financial mechanism based on the ”polluter pays” principle.                               The authorities have shown that the pollution tax is collected from all                              the  individuals  who  wish  to  register  and  to  use  a  motor  vehicle,                              regardless of its origin and age. Therefore, the idea of a discriminatory                              nature  of  the  tax  cannot  be  sustained.  Taking  into  account  the                              arguments deriving from the environmental protection and the setting                              of an algorithm to find the amount of the tax depending on exhaust                              gas  emissions,  the  national  courts  used  the  preliminary  ruling                              procedure of the CJEU for the interpretation of the compatibility of                              the pollution tax with EU law.                                                                    50","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 On April 7, 2011, CJEU pronounced a preliminary judgement in Case-                              402/09  of  Ioan  Tatu  v.  Romanian  State  by  Finances  Ministry  and                              Others,  after  receiving  a  preliminary  question  from  Sibiu  District                              Court on June 18, 2009.                               The European Court interpreted the question sent by the national court                              in  that  it  refers  only  to  the  initial  system  of  taxation  introduced  by                              GEO 50/2008, system which will be compared to the former Article                              90 EC - the current Article 110 TFEU, considering that in the main                              proceedings the appellant paid the pollution tax on October 27, 2008.                              The interpretation made by the Court envisages the conformity of the                              system  of  taxation  introduced  by  OUG  50/2008  in  its  initial  form,                              applicable  between  July  1st,  2008  and  December  14,  2008,  with                              Article 110 TFEU.                               The  European  Court  of  Justice  decided  in  case  C-402/09  Tatu  v.                              Romania that ”Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a                              Member  State  from  introducing  a  pollution  tax  levied  on  motor                              vehicles on their first registration in that Member State if that tax is                              arranged in such a way that it discourages the placing in circulation in                              that  Member  State  of  second-hand  vehicles  purchased  in  other                              Member  States  without  discouraging  the  purchase  of  second-hand                              vehicles of the same age and condition on the domestic market.”                               On July 7, 2011, The Court of Justice of the European Union decided                              in the case C-263/10 Nisipeanu upon the interpretation of Article 110                              TFEU after receiving several preliminary questions sent by the Gorj                              District Court, which had to respond to a request of a reimbursement                              of the pollution tax.                               In  its  judgment,  the  Court  reiterated  the  arguments  used  in  case  C-                              402/09 Tatu, considering that the successive changes brought to GEO                              50/2008 by GEO 208/2008, GEO 218/20083, GEO 7/2009 and GEO                              117/2009 maintain a taxation system that discourages the registration                              in Romania of second-hand vehicles bought in other Members States,                              characterized by a high rate of usage and age, while similar vehicles                              sold on the national market of second-hand vehicles are not subject to                              such  a  taxation  system.  In  these  conditions,  it  discourages  the                              purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on                              the national market.                               According  to  the  Court,  the  competence  of  the  Members  States  to                              establish new taxes is not unlimited, the prohibition of applying higher                              taxes on products from other MSs compared to the taxes applied on                              national products, as it is encompassed in Article 110 TFEU, must be                              applied every time when a tax discourages the import of goods bought                              in other MSs, protecting domestic goods on the national market.                               The  Court  stated  that  all  the  modified  versions  of  GEO  50/2008                              maintain  a  taxation  system  that  discourages  the  registration  in                              Romania  of  second-hand  motor  vehicles  bought  in  other  Member                              States, similar to those from the national market of second-hand motor                              vehicles.                                                                   51","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 The  Court  reiterated  that  the  purpose  of  environmental  protection                              could  be  realized  without  putting  the  national  products  on  a  more                              favorable position, by establishing an annual tax applicable to every                              registered motor vehicle in Romania.                               Therefore, the Court ruled that Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted                              as that setting of a pollution tax levied only on motor vehicles for their                              first  registration  in  Romania  after  the  entering  into  force  of  GEO                              50/2008,  even  though  the  tax  is  not  discriminatory,  creates  a                              protectionist effect on the market, discouraging the import of second-                              hand  motor  vehicles  without  discouraging  the  purchase  of  second-                              hand vehicles which were already on the national market before the                              entering into force of OUG 50/2008.                               In case law C-336/10 Ijac, CJEU ruled that Article 110 TFEU must be                              interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution                              tax affecting motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member                              State, if that fiscal measure is so designed as to discourage the putting                              into service, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles bought in                              other Member States, without, however, discouraging the purchase of                              second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the national                              market.                               Regarding  the  national  case-law,  the  national  courts  unanimously                              agreed  that,  indeed,  in  such  cases,  the  provisions  of  EU  law  are                              directly applicable, as they have priority in front of the national law                              according to Article 148 of Romanian Constitution, to law ratifying                              the accession Treaty to the EU and to case-law of CJEU and principles                              established in cases: Costa/Enel and Simmenthal.                               According  to  cases  -  law  of  the  Court,  the  meaning  of  a  tax  with                              equivalent effect is every pecuniary tax unilaterally imposed on goods                              due to the fact that they cross the border, no matter its name or means                              of application. A taxation system which is compatible with Article 90                              EC (Article 110 TFUE) must exclude any possibility for the imported                              products to be subject of higher taxes than similar national products                              and  must  not  have  discriminatory  effects  under  any  circumstances.                              The text of Article 90 EC envisages products made in other MSs and                              which are subject to internal taxes of any nature, higher than the taxes                              directly  or  indirectly  applied  to  similar  national  products.  The                              Romanian  state  does  not  collect  the  pollution  tax  levied  on  similar                              national products – motor vehicles already registered in Romania after                              they are sold again.                               Analyzing  the  provisions  of  GEO  50/2008  with  the  subsequent                              changes, it is clear that for a motor vehicle produced in Romania or in                              other MSs, the state does not collect such a tax if it was previously                              registered in Romania. On the other hand, such a tax is levied on a                              motor vehicle produced in Romania or in another MS if that vehicle is                              registered  for  the  first  time  in  Romania.  Being  legally  organized  in                              this  manner,  the  pollution  tax  diminishes  the  introduction  on  the                              Romanian  market  of  second-hand  vehicles  already  registered  in                                                                    52","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 another  MS,  the  buyers  being  fiscally  oriented  to  purchase  second-                              hand vehicles already registered in Romania.                               As a consequence of the entering into force of GEO 218/2008, the will                              of the legislator to influence the choice of consumers became evident:                              the  pollution  tax  levied  on  new  vehicles,  Euro  4,  with  a  cylinder                              capacity  less  than  2.000  cm3  (and  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that,  in                              Romania, vehicles with such characteristics are produced on the local                              market) which are first registered in Romania between December 15,                              2008 and December 31, 2009, was eliminated, so that the consumers                              are  directed  towards  either  a  new  motor  vehicle  or  a  second-hand                              motor  vehicle  already  registered  in  Romania  which  have  such                              technical  characteristics.  In  this  manner  the  national  production  of                              motor vehicles is protected, such as it appears even in the Statement of                              reasons of GEO 208/2008 and 218/2008: The Romanian Government                              is preoccupied with taking measures to preserve jobs in the Romanian                              economy, and one job in the cars production industry represents four                              jobs in the supply industry.                              Therefore, it was concluded that GEO 50/2008 is contrary to Article                              90  EC  (Article  110  TFEU),  as  it  is  destined  to  diminish  the                              introduction  in  Romania  of  second-hand  motor  vehicles  already                              registered  in  another  MS,  encouraging  the  sale  of  second-hand                              vehicles already registered in Romania and, more recently, of the new                              motor  vehicles  produced  in  Romania.  After  Romania’s  accession  to                              the EU, this is inadmissible for imported goods from other Member                              States,  as  long  as  the  national  fiscal  law  diminishes  or  is  able  to                              diminish, even potentially, the consumption of imported goods, thus                              influencing the choice of the consumers (ECJ, the judgment of 7 May                              1987, case 193/85, Co-Frutta Srl cooperative).                               The Court ruled that the infringement of Article 90 EC can also be                              made through the creation of a similar difference of treatment, in the                              judgments of 11 August 1995, Joined Cases C-367/93 la C-377/93, F.                              G.  Roders  BV  s.a.  v.  Inspecteur  der  Invoerrechten  en  Accijnzen                              (discrimination  between  the  wines  of  Luxembourg  and  the  wines                              made  of  fruits  from  other  Member  States),  of  7  May  1987,  case                              184/85,  Commission  v.  Italy  (bananas  imported  in  Italy  and  fruits                              cultivated in Italy). Considering these arguments, national courts have                              admitted  the  claims  of  reimbursement  made  by  the  pollution  tax                              payers.  Because  there  are  no  legal  provisions  to  rule  a  partial                              reimbursement, the requests had been fully admitted .                               4. NO  LIMITATIONS  IN  TIME  FOR  CJEU  JUDGMENTS`                              EFFECTS                               It is important that the state’s claim regarding the limitation in time of                              the  effects  of  the  CJEU  judgments  was  rejected,  which  means  that                              Nisipeanu  case,  as  well  as  Tatu,  will  apply  retroactively,  thus                              eliminating  the  legal  basis  of  the  collection  of  the  pollution  tax                              between July 1st, 2008 and December 31, 2010.                                                                      53","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 According to a constant jurisprudence of CJEU, the interpretation that                              the Court gives to a provision of EU law based on Article 267 TFEU                              clarifies  or  defines,  where  it  is  necessary,  the  meaning  and  the                              extension of the provision as it is supposed to be understood, or it was                              supposed  to  be  understood  and  applied  since  its  entry  into  force.                              [Judgment of 27 March 1980, Case 61/79, Denkavit italiana, par. 16;                              Judgment of 2 February 1988, Case 24/86, Blaizot, par. 27; Judgment                              of 15 December 1995, Case C-415/93, Bosman, par. 141; Judgment of                              5  October  2006  in  joined  cases  C-290/05  (Nadasdi)  şi  C-333/05                              (Nemeth), par. 62].                               5. THE  INTERVENTION  OF  HIGH  COURT OF CASSATION                              AND  JUSTICE  (HCCJ)  THROUGH  ITS  PROCEDURE  OF                              JUDGMENTS IN THE INTEREST OF THE LAW                               Until CJEU gave its judgment in the cases regarding the pollution tax,                              HCCJ did not intervene in the matter through the procedure provided                              by law for interpreting and applying the provisions of GEO 50/2008,                              by analyzing their conformity with EU primary law, even though there                              were national courts that admitted fully reimbursement claims basing                              their decision on Article 90 EC (Article 110 TFEU) and other national                              courts  had  suspended  the  proceedings  until  CJEU  to  give  a                              preliminary ruling judgment.                               Through  the  decision  no.  24  from  November  14,  2011  HCCJ                              established  that  the  claim  having  as  object  the  obligation  of  public                              authorities to register of second-hand motor vehicles purchased from                              another  Member  State,  without  previous  payment  of  pollution  tax                              provided  by  GEO  50/2008  and  without  completing  the  procedure                              provided in art. 7 of the OUG 50/2008, is admissible. HCCJ also ruled                              that the previous fiscal procedure against the decision of calculation,                              does  not  apply  to  the  situation  of  reimbursement  claims  of  the                              pollution tax based.                               In other words, the eventual procedural incidents which could leave                              individuals without access to a substantial assessment of their claim                              according  to  the  CJEU  case-law  were  set  aside.  HCCJ  gave  the                              national  courts  the  possibility  to  directly  judge  on  the  substantial                              claim, without having to verify if the individual previously contested                              the act which determines the amount to be paid, based on the fiscal                              procedure, or if he or she paid the established amount of the tax.                               6.  CONCLUSIONS                               Even  if  the  reason  of  protecting  the environment  can  be  considered                              justified  when  a  Member  State  enforces  restrictions  for  a  certain                              category  of  goods,  the  manner  in  which  the  taxation  system  was                              regulated, the manner in which the amount to be paid was calculated,                              as well the amount itself, which often exceeded half of the vehicle’s                              value, almost reaching it, and the disguised protection of the internal                              cars production industry have weighted more in the interpretation of                              conformity  of  national  law  with  the  EU  Treaties`  stipulations                              regarding the free movement of goods.                                                                   54","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                Literature:                               -  Andresan-Grigoriu,  Beatrice,  Stefan,  Tudorel,  Drept  comunitar,                                 Editura C.H. Beck, 2007, 744pp, ISBN 978-973-115-157-1;                              -  Bercea,  Raluca,  Drept  comunitar.  Principii,  Ed  CH  Beck,  2007,                                 392pp, ISBN 973-115-093-2;                              -  Bufan, Radu, Buliga, Mirela, Buidoso, The principles of Tax Law                                 as Guidelines for the Interpretation and Application of Specific Tax                                 Regulations in Sehnalek, D., Valdhans, J., David, R., Kyncl, L. eds,                                 Days  of  Law  2009  the  Conference  Proceedings,  Masarykova                                 univerzita, Brno 2009, ISBN 978-80-210-4990-1;                              -  Costas,  Flavius  Cosmin,  Jurisprudenta  fiscala  a  Curtii  de  Justitie                                 Europene, Curierul Judiciar nr.11/2010, ISSN 1582-7526;                              -  Costaş,  Cosmin  Flavius,  Romanian  Tax  Provisions  Incompatible                                 with the Right to a Fair Trial, Cofola 2008 Conference: Key Points                                 and Ideas Brno, Masarykova Univerzita, 2008, ISBN 978-80-210-                                 4630-6, p. 432-437;                              -  Deleanu, Sergiu, Gyula, Fabian, Costas, Cosmin Flavius, Ionita, B.,                                 Curtea  de  Justitie  Europeana  –  Jurisprudenta  Hotarari  comentate                                 (2007), Editura Wolters Kluwer.2007, 501pp, ISBN 973881416-2;                              -  Minea, Mircea Stefan, Costas, Cosmin Flavius, Dreptul finantelor                                 publice.  Volumul  II  -  Drept  fiscal.Editia  a  2-a,  revizuita,  Ed                                 Universul juridic, 2011, 624 ISBN 973-127-534-5;                              -  Papu,  Viorel,  Aspecte  procedurale  si  executionale  premergatoare                                 recuperarii  efective  a  taxei  speciale  auto,  Curierul  fiscal  no.8-                                 9/2011, ISSN 1841-7779;                              -  Singeorzan, Daciana-Elena, Taxe si impozite. Dobanzi si penalitati                                 in materie fiscala. Practica judiciara, Ed Hamangiu, 2011, 360 pp,                                 ISBN 978-606-522-387-5.                              -  Tyc,  Vladimir,  Direct  effect  and  invocability  of  EU  law  before                                 national  courts:  international  treaties,  in  Neckar,  J.,  Radvan,  M,                                 Sehnalek, D., Valdhans, J., eds, Days of Law 2008 the Conference                                 Proceedings, Masarykova univerzita, Brno, 2008, 818p, ISBN 978-                                 80-210-4733-4;                              -  http/curia.europa.eu.                                Contact – email                              acf88@yahoo.com                                                                                 55","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                    MOŽNÉ DOPADY NESPLNĚNÍ POVINNOSTI                                   VNITROSTÁTNÍCH SOUDŮ APLIKOVAT                                              PRÁVO EU EX OFFICIO                                                     LIBOR HAVELKA                                    Právnická fakulta, Masarykova univerzita, Česká republika                                Abstract in original language                              Podle  judikatury  Soudního  dvora  EU  mají  vnitrostátní  orgány                              povinnost aplikovat právo EU ex officio vždy, když  mají obdobnou                              povinnost  aplikovat  ex  officio  vnitrostátní  předpisy  podle  práva                              vnitrostátního.  V  některých  případech  jsou  vnitrostátní  orgány                              povinny  aplikovat  právo  EU  z  moci  úřední  i  nad  rámec  tohoto                              pravidla.  Jaká  situace  ale  nastane,  pokud  se  strany  řízení  práva  EU                              nedovolají a soud sám právo EU neaplikuje? Příspěvek si klade za cíl                              vymezit  povinnost  vnitrostátní  aplikace  práva  EU  ex  officio  a                              především  nastínit  možnosti,  které  připadají  v  úvahu  v  souvislosti s                              nápravou takto vadných rozhodnutí                               Key words in original language                              ex officio aplikace práva EU, iura novit curia, procesní právo                               Abstract                              According to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU, national                              authorities have an obligation to apply EU law ex officio whenever                              there  is  a  similar  obligation  to  apply  national  rules  ex  officio  by                              national law. In some cases, national authorities are obliged to apply                              EU law ex officio beyond this rule. What situation occurs when the                              parties to the proceedings do not raise EU law issues on their own and                              the  court  itself  does  not  apply  EU  law  either?  The  article  aims  to                              define the obligation to apply EU law ex officio and in particular to                              outline  the  possible  options  available  to  overcome  these  defective                              decisions.                               Key words                              ex officio application of EU law, iura novit curia, procedural law                               1. ÚVODNÍ POZNÁMKY                               Právo EU představuje pro vnitrostátního právníka zvláštní fenomén. S                              ohledem  na  principy  určující  vnitrostátní  aplikaci  práva  EU  může                              právo EU sloužit jako východisko ze zdánlivě bezvýchodné situace a                              překlenout  nepříznivé  ustanovení  vnitrostátního  práva.  Stejně  tak  si                              lze ale představit situaci, kdy unijní právní úprava bude pro účastníka                              řízení méně výhodná než národní právo; v tom případě bude zřejmě                              doufat, že protistrana nebude unijním právem argumentovat a soud jej                              následně neaplikuje.                                      Co  když  však  nastanou  takové  okolnosti,  kdy  předmětem                              řízení  bude  právní  vztah,  na  který  dopadá  právo  EU,  ale  účastníci                              řízení se unijního práva nedovolají a ani soud sám relevantní unijní                                                                   56","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 předpis  neaplikuje?  Odpověď  závisí  na  tom,  zda  je  soud  povinen  v                              takovém případě aplikovat právo EU ex officio nebo není. Jedná se o                              otázku  odvislou  jak  od  vnitrostátního  práva,  tak  od  judikatury                              Soudního dvora EU (dále jen \"SD\").                                      Nelze samozřejmě vyloučit  hypotetický případ, kdy účastník                              řízení  neargumentuje  právem  EU  z  důvodu,  že  o  existenci  daného                              unijního předpisu nevěděl a v důsledku toho byl ve sporu neúspěšný,                              protože ani soud sám unijní právní úpravu nevyhledal a neaplikoval,                              ačkoliv  v  daném  případě  tuto  povinnost  měl.  Neúspěšný  účastník                              řízení se následně s určitým časovým odstupem o existenci unijního                              předpisu  dozví.  Existují  vůbec  v  kontextu  českého  právního  řádu                              prostředky,  kterými  by  bylo  možné  zvrátit  takto  nepříznivé                              rozhodnutí?  Cílem  tohoto  příspěvku  je  stručně  vymezit  povinnost                              vnitrostátních  soudů  aplikovat  právo  EU  ex  officio,  nastínit                              potenciální  prostředky  obrany  proti  porušení  této  povinnosti  a                                                                                   1                              především poukázat na problémy, které se s uvedeným pojí.                              2. POVINNOST APLIKACE PRÁVA EU EX OFFICIO                               Meze zohledňování práva EU z úřední povinnosti jsou odvozeny ze                              známých principů rovnocennosti a efektivity, které ve své judikatuře                              stanovil SD s ohledem na vztah práva EU a vnitrostátních procesních                              předpisů.                                      Princip rovnocennosti  promítnutý  do  povinnosti  zohledňovat                              právo  EU  ex  officio  znamená,  že  vnitrostátní  soud  má  povinnost                              vyhledat a aplikovat unijní předpis vždy, kdy má obdobnou povinnost                              ohledně  vnitrostátního  práva.  Toto  je  fakticky  základní  vodítko,                              formulované  SD  ve  věci  Van  Schijndel,  které  se  uplatní  ve  většině                                      2                              případů.                                     Věc  bohužel  není  jen  takto  jednoduchá;  v  problematice                              povinnosti  aplikace  práva  EU  ex  officio  se  částečně  odráží  někdy                                                                                      3                              těžko čitelné rozlišení použití zásad rovnocennosti a efektivity.  To lze                              ilustrovat  na  rozhodnutí  Peterbroeck,  vydané  de  facto  souběžně  s                                   1  Příspěvek vychází z českého civilního procesu - stranou je tak ponechána                              povinnost  aplikace  práva  EU  jinými  státními  orgány  než  soudy,  i  otázka                              (ne)aplikace práva EU a následných možností obrany v rámci řízení trestního                              a správního.                              2  Rozhodnutí ze dne 14. 12. 1995 ve spojených věcech C-430/93 a C-431/93,                              Van  Schijndel  \&  Van  Veen  v.  Stichting  Pensioenfonds  voor                              Fysiotherapeuten.                               3                                Viz např. Bobek, M.: Why There is no Principle of 'Procedural Autonomy'                              of  the  Member  States,  in:  de  Witte,  B.,  Micklitz,  H.  (eds):  The  European                              Court  of  Justice  and  Autonomy  of  the  Member  States,  Cambridge:                              Intersentia, 2011, pp. 305-322, ISBN 978-94-000-0026-1.                                                                   57","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                         4                              rozsudkem  Van  Schijndel.   Zde  s  ohledem  na  specifické  okolnosti                              případu  převážil  princip  efektivity  a  požadavek  efektivní  ochrany                              unijního práva.                                      V  případě  Peterbroeck  se  jednalo  o  specifické  okolnosti                              konkrétního  případu.  Existují  však  oblasti,  v  nichž  SD  zásadně                              dovodil  povinnost  zohlednění  práva  EU  nad  rámec  zásady                              rovnocennosti. Prozatím lze mezi tyto oblasti řadit právo hospodářské                                                            5                              soutěže  a  ochrany  spotřebitele.   V  těchto  dvou  oblastech  je  dle                              judikatury SD národní soud povinen ex officio aplikovat unijní právo,                              přestože tuto povinnost nemá podle vnitrostátního práva ani s ohledem                              na  právo  národní.  Příkladem  může  být  ex  officio  aplikace  směrnice                              Rady 93/13/EHS o nekalých smluvních ujednáních za účelem rušení                                                                               6                              rozhodčích  doložek  ve  spotřebitelských  smlouvách.   Tento  výčet                              oblastí,  kde  převládá  zásada  efektivity,  samozřejmě  nemusí  být                              konečný a patrně ani není. V úvahu přichází i další oblasti práva EU,                              které by mohl pravděpodobně SD považovat za \"privilegované\" jako                                                                                7                              např. zákaz diskriminace z důvodu státní příslušnosti aj.                                     Vůdčím  principem  na  poli  zohledňování  práva  EU  z  úřední                              povinnosti  ale  zůstává  rovnocennost.  V  konkrétních  řízeních  na                              vnitrostátní úrovni je proto nutné zjistit, kdy je soud podle národního                              práva aplikovat ex officio vnitrostátní právo i bez návrhu některého z                              účastníků řízení - jinými slovy, jaký je ve vnitrostátním právu rozsah                              použití zásady iura novit curia. Tato otázka nemusí mít jednoznačnou                              odpověď a leckdy bude vyžadovat i určité interpretační úsilí.                                      Například v Polsku závisí v civilním řízení dosah zásady iura                              novit curia na rozlišení hmotného a procesního práva a také na stupni                              řízení. V prvním stupni řízení musí polské soudy zohledňovat z úřední                              povinnosti jak právo hmotné, tak procesní, ale ve stupni druhém až na                              některé odchylky jen právo hmotné - procesní chyby soudu prvního                                                                                         8                              stupně jsou až na některé výjimky zhojeny a nelze k nim přihlížet.                                   4                                 Rozhodnutí  ze  dne  14.  12.  1995  ve  věci  C-312/93  Peterbroeck,  Van                              Campenhout \& Cie SCS v. Belgium.                              5                                Rozhodnutí ze dne 1. 6. 1999 ve věci C-126/97 Eco Swiss China Time Ltd.                              v.  Benetton  International  NV,  rozhodnutí  ze  dne  26.  10.  2006  ve  věci  C-                              168/05 Elisa María Mostaza Claro v. Centro Móvil Milenium SL a další.                               6   Nový,  Z.:  Spotřebitelské  úvěry  a  rozhodčí  řízení,  Jurisprudence,  Praha:                              Wolters Kluwer, 2010, roč. 19, č. 7, str. 25, ISSN 1802-3843 a v předchozí                              poznámce pod čarou uvedené rozhodnutí Mostaza Claro, bod 38.                               7                                Bobek, M., Bříza, P., Komárek, K.: Vnitrostátní aplikace práva Evropské                              unie, Praha: C. H. Beck, 2011, str. 266, ISBN 978-80-7400-377-6.                              8                                Ereciński, T.: When must national judges raise european law issues on their                              own motion?, ERA-Forum, 2010, roč. 11, č. 4, str. 525 - 526.                                                                   58","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                        V  českém  prostředí  nalézá  zásada  iura  novit  curia  své                              vyjádření v § 121 občanského soudního řádu (dále jen \"OSŘ\"), podle                              nějž  \"není  třeba  dokazovat  skutečnosti  obecně  známé  nebo  známé                              soudu  z  jeho  činnosti,  jakož  i  právní  předpisy  uveřejněné  nebo                              oznámené  ve  Sbírce  zákonů  České  republiky.\"  OSŘ  tedy  explicitně                              nehovoří i o předpisech uveřejněných v Úředním věstníku Evropské                              unie,  interpretačně  však  lze  poměrně  spolehlivě  dovodit,  že  §  121                                                             9                              OSŘ  zahrnuje  i  unijní  předpisy.   Uvedené  vyplývá  z  požadavku                              uplatňování zásady rovnocennosti, formulovaném SD.                                     Soud  musí  znát  objektivní  právo,  což  zahrnuje  vyhledání                              relevantní právní normy, její interpretaci a aplikaci; právní poznatky                                                                                           10                              by měl soud získávat ze své profesní činnosti, mimo rámec procesu.                              Platí-li uvedené pro právo české, je nutné tato pravidla vztáhnout i na                              právo unijní.                                      Samostatnou  otázku  představuje  problém  součinnosti  stran,                              resp. \"pomoci\" soudu ze strany účastníků  řízení. Pokud ve vztahu k                              českému právu platí, že účastníci řízení nemají povinnost soudu svými                                                                          11                              návrhy pomáhat (co se týče \"poznávání\" práva),   mělo by s ohledem                              na zásadu rovnocennosti stejné platit i pro právo EU. Setkat se lze ale                              i  s  jinými  názory,  požadujícími  aktivnější  roli  účastníků  řízení,                                                            12                              potažmo jejich právních zástupců.                                     Shrneme-li  tedy  obecně  dopad  judikatury  SD  na  otázku                              povinnosti  ex  officio  aplikace  unijního  práva  ve  vnitrostátních                              právních  řádech,  dojdeme  k  závěru,  že  SD  sice  určil  \"klíč\"  ke                              stanovení  této  povinnosti,  ovšem  v  důsledku  použití  tohoto  \"klíče\"                              není obsah povinnosti ex officio aplikace práva EU jednotný, neboť                              spočívá na vnitrostátním právu. V kvalitativně obdobných řízeních tak                              může  dojít  k  tomu,  že  ve  stejné  situaci  během  řízení  v  některém  z                              členských států bude mít soud povinnost zohlednit právo EU z úřední                              povinnosti a v jiném nikoliv. Paradoxně tam, kde se dle SD uplatní                              namísto  principu  rovnocennosti  ve  vztahu  k  vnitrostátním  právním                              řádům  invazivnější  zásada  efektivity  (oblast  hospodářské  soutěže  a                              spotřebitelského  práva),  bude  povinnost  ex officio  aplikace  unijního                              práva v celé jurisdikci EU.                                        9                                Bobek, M., Bříza, P., Komárek, K., op. cit. č. 7, str. 266.                              10  Winterová, A. a kol.: Civilní právo procesní, Praha: Linde Praha, 2011, str.                              226, ISBN 978-80-7201-842-0.                               11  Tamtéž.                               12                                 Kühn, Z.: Iura novit curia: aplikace starého principu v nových podmínkách,                              Právní rozhledy, roč. 12, č. 8, str. 299, ISSN 1802-3843.                                                                   59","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 3. PORUŠENÍ  POVINNOSTI  APLIKACE  PRÁVA  EU  EX                              OFFICIO V NEPRAVOMOCNÉM SOUDNÍ ROZHODNUTÍ                               Vraťme  se  nyní  k  hypotetickému  příkladu  popsanému  v  úvodu                              příspěvku, kdy ani jedna ze stran řízení neargumentuje (řekněme, že z                              toho důvodu, protože o unijní úpravě neví) právem EU a soud unijní                              normu  neaplikuje.  Následně  soud  vydá  rozhodnutí  a  jedna  ze  stran,                              která  byla  ve  sporu  neúspěšná,  se  ve  lhůtě  pro  podání  řádného                              opravného prostředku doví o existenci unijního předpisu, který by za                              předpokladu jeho aplikace pravděpodobně znamenal úspěch v řízení.                                      Otázkou,  kolem  které  se  vše  v  tomto  případě  točí,  je                              samozřejmě  koncentrace  řízení  a  možnost  argumentace  právem  EU                              jako  odvolacího  důvodu,  pokud  účastník  řízení  unijním  právem                              neargumentoval již v prvním stupni. Uvedené lze přiměřeně vztáhnout                              i na dovolání, pokud účastník řízení argumentuje právem EU poprvé                              až v dovolacím řízení.                                      Uvedenou  otázkou  se  SD  zabýval  již  v  jednom  z  prvních                              citovaných  rozhodnutí  na  téma  zohledňování  práva  EU  z  úřední                              povinnosti,  ve  věci  Van  Schijndel.  V  uvedeném  procesu  žalobci                              poprvé  argumentovali  právem  EU  až  v  řízení  před  nizozemským                              nejvyšším  soudem  (Hoge  Raad).  Nizozemské  právo  přitom  v  rámci                              kasačního  opravného  prostředku  před  nejvyšším  soudem  vylučuje                              možnost  vznášení  nových  argumentů  s  výjimkou  argumentů  čistě                              právních; tedy takových, které nevyžadují další posouzení skutkového                                    13                              stavu.   SD  v  tomto  případě  došel  v  duchu  zásady  rovnocennosti  k                              závěru, že argumentace žalobců právem EU není přípustná. Možnost                              prvotní argumentace unijním právem v odvolacím či dovolacím/jiném                              obdobném  řízení  tak  bude  spočívat  především  na  národním  právu.                              Související  problém,  který  z  hlediska  přípustnosti  argumentace                              právem  EU  během  opravného  řízení  může  hrát  klíčovou  roli,                              představuje někdy složité rozlišení skutkových a právních poznatků.                                      Co se týče českého kontextu, možnosti neúspěšné strany sporu                              z  důvodu  porušení  povinnosti  aplikace  práva  EU  ex  officio                              prvostupňovým soudem v civilním řízení nastínil již ve svém článku z                                                      14                              roku  2004  Zdeněk  Kühn.   Nabízí  se  možnost  podání  odvolání  z                              důvodu  nesprávného  právního  posouzení  věci  podle  §  205  odst.  2                              písm. g) OSŘ. V odvolacím řízení je ovšem třeba respektovat ústavní                              ochranu  proti  překvapivému  rozhodnutí,  formulovanou  Ústavním                              soudem v nálezu IV ÚS 544/98, týkajícím se čistění dámských kalhot.                              Obdobně lze podat dovolání podle § 241a odst. 2 písm. b) OSŘ, neboť                              rozhodnutí odvolacího soudu, které nezohlednilo z úřední povinnosti                              unijní  právo,  přestože být zohledněno  mělo, spočívá na  nesprávném                              právním posouzení věci.                                  13                                 Rozhodnutí Van Schijndel, op. cit. č. 2, bod 11.                              14  Kühn, Z., op. cit. č. 12, str. 298.                                                                   60","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 4.  PORUŠENÍ  POVINNOSTI  APLIKACE  PRÁVA  EU  EX                              OFFICIO V PRAVOMOCNÉM SOUDNÍ ROZHODNUTÍ                               Mnohem  zajímavější  a  kontroverznější  situace  nastává,  pokud  se                              neúspěšný  účastník  sporu  o  existenci  pro  něj  příznivého  unijního                              předpisu  doví  až  s  delším  časovým  odstupem  po  uplynutí  lhůty  k                              odvolání, aniž by odvolání (byť z jakéhokoliv jiného důvodu) podal.                              Tím  pádem  ztrácí  možnost  odvolacího,  ale potenciálně  i  dovolacího                              řízení  a  stojí  před  překážkou  pravomocného  rozhodnutí.  Hned                              zpočátku  je  třeba  předeslat,  že  takováto  procesní  pozice  je  pro                              dotčeného účastníka řízení velmi nepříhodná.                                       Na  problém  se  lze  podívat  z  úhlu  jak  unijního,  tak                              vnitrostátního práva. Co se týče mimořádných opravných prostředků                              (vyjma  dovolání),  český  OSŘ  zná  obnovu  řízení  a  žalobu  pro                              zmatečnost.  Institut  žaloby  pro  zmatečnost  čistě  teoreticky  sice                              pojmově dopadá na námi zkoumanou situaci, jelikož má sloužit jako                              nástroj  ke  \"zrušení  pravomocných  rozhodnutí  soudu,  která  trpí                              takovými  vadami,  jež  představují  porušení  základních  principů                                                             15                              ovládajících řízení před soudem,\"  ale s ohledem na taxativní výčet                              důvodů, pro něž je možné žalobu pro zmatečnost podat, tato varianta v                              podstatě padá. Obnova řízení také nenabízí příliš funkční prostředek                              nápravy,  jelikož  řeší  nedostatky  skutkového  charakteru.  Opět  pouze                              teoretickou  možnost  nabízí  hypotetická  situace,  kdy  by  z  judikatury                              SD vyplynulo, že český soud rozhodl v našem uvažovaném případě                              chybně.  Takové  rozhodnutí  by  mohlo  představovat  nové  rozhodnutí                              ve smyslu § 228 odst. 1 písm) a OSŘ, které následnou obnovu řízení                              umožňuje. V tomto případě by ale možná mnohem větším problémem                              byla  otázka,  jakým  způsobem  kauzu  k  SD  přenést.  OSŘ  tedy  příliš                              funkční nástroje nenabízí.                                      Institutem, který by  za určité konstelace mohl vznést otázku                              zákonnosti  rozhodnutí  soudu  prvního  stupně  z  pohledu  ústavnosti                              práva na spravedlivý proces, je však zřejmě institut ústavní stížnosti                              podle  §  75  odst.  2  písm  a)  zákona  o  Ústavním  soudu.  Jedná  se  o                              výjimku z povinnosti vyčerpání procesních prostředků, které zákon k                              ochraně  stěžovatelova  práva  poskytuje,  před  podáním  ústavní                              stížnosti.  Zákon  o  ústavním  soudu  stanoví  pro  podání  této  ústavní                              stížnosti  jednoletou  lhůtu  ode  dne,  kdy  ke  skutečnosti,  která  je                              předmětem  ústavní  stížnosti,  došlo.  Neopominutelným  požadavkem                              ovšem  je,  aby  takováto  stížnost  svým  významem  podstatně                              přesahovala  vlastní  zájmy  stěžovatele.  S  ohledem  na  tento  právně                              neurčitý  pojem  tak  nelze  obecně stanovit,  kdy  je  a  kdy  není  možné                                                  16                              toto ustanovení použít.                                  15                                 Bureš, J., Drápal, L., Mazanec, M.: Občanský soudní řád: komentář, Praha:                              C. H. Beck, 2001, str. 939, ISBN 80-7179-739-1.                              16                                 Šimíček, V.: Ústavní stížnost, Praha: Linde Praha, 2005, str. 141, ISBN 80-                              7201-569-9.                                                                   61","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                        Doktrína  práva  EU  k  problematice  res  judicata  a  obecně  k                              možnosti znovu otevřít pravomocné rozhodnutí inspirovala k četným                              komentářům a názorům, zejména ve vztahu k možnosti znovuotevření                                                                                           17                              správního rozhodnutí, které předestřel SD v případu Kühne \& Heitz.                              V tomto případě je však nutné důsledně odlišit rozhodnutí správní a                              rozhodnutí  soudní,  u  nichž  je  požadavek  právní  jistoty  v  podobě                              nezměnitelnosti  rozhodnutí  přece  jen  silnější,  než  u  rozhodnutí                                                                            18                              správních orgánů. Po rozhodnutí ve věci Lucchini  se zdálo, že ani                              prolomení pravomocných rozhodnutí vnitrostátních soudů nebude pro                              SD  tabu.  Navazující  judikatura  SD  ale  ukázala,  že  rozhodnutí                              Lucchini představovalo specifický případ, který se týkal rozhraničení                              pravomocí mezi členskými státy a (tehdejším) Společenstvím (jednalo                              se  o  státní  podpory).  Nelze  z  něj  tedy  paušálně  dovozovat  možnost                              znovuotevření pravomocného soudního rozhodnutí v důsledku kolize                              s právem EU.                                      Přistoupíme-li  na  domněnku,  že  rozhodnutí,  ve  kterém                              národní  soud  neaplikoval  unijní  právo,  ač  tuto  povinnost  měl,  je                              nezákonné,  ale  s  ohledem  na  překážku  věci  rozsouzené  nenalézáme                              možnost  rozhodnutí  revidovat,  přichází  následně  do  úvahy  otázka                              odpovědnosti  členského  státu  za  škodu.  Ta  má  opět  dvě  dimenze  -                              unijní,  která  spočívá  v  individuální  odpovědnosti  státu  za  škodu                              způsobenou  jednotlivci  pro  porušení  práva  EU,  stanovenou                              judikaturou SD, a dimenzi vnitrostátní, danou zákonem č. 82/1998 Sb.                              o  odpovědnosti  za  škodu  způsobenou  při  výkonu  veřejné  moci                              rozhodnutím  nebo  nesprávným  úředním  postupem.  Z  pohledu  námi                              zkoumaného  případu  jsou  problematické  obě  dimenze.  Právo  EU                              (resp. judikatura SD) sice zná odpovědnost státu za škodu při činnosti                              justice, ale ta byla doposud formulována jen ve vztahu ke škodě, která                                                                                           19                              vznikne jednotlivci v důsledku rozhodnutí soudu v poslední instanci.                              České právo naproti tomu předvídá vyčerpání opravných prostředků a                              zejména  zrušení  či  změnu  dotčeného  rozhodnutí.  O  slučitelnosti                              takovéto  úpravy  českého  zákona  o  odpovědnosti  za  škodu  státu  s                                                                             20                              právem EU byla vyjádřena již nejednou pochybnost.  Má se za to, že                              požadavek  zrušení  nebo  změny  dotčeného  rozhodnutí  podle                              uvedeného zákona de facto brání vymáhání škody v případě porušení                              unijního práva ze strany nejvýše postavených národních soudů. Pokud                              by  bylo  toto  volání  vyslyšeno  a  zákon  č.  82/1998  Sb.  by  byl                                17                                 Rozhodnutí ze dne 13. 1. 2004 ve věci  C-453/00  Kühne \&  Heitz NV v                              Produktschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren.                              18                                 Rozhodnutí ze dne 18. 7. 2007 ve věci C-119/05 Ministero dell’Industria,                              del  Commercio  e  dell’Artigianato  v.  Lucchini  SpA,  formerly  Lucchini                              Siderurgica SpA.                              19   Rozhodnutí  ze  dne  30.  9.  2003  ve  věci  C-224/01  Gerhard  Köbler  v.                              Republik Österreich.                               20  Viz např. Bobek, M., Komárek, J., Passer, J.: Vyhnáni z rajské zahrady                              neodpovědnosti: národní soudy a porušení komunitárního práva, Soudce, č.                              9, 2004, str. 2-20, ISSN: 1211-5347.                                                                   62","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 novelizován,  aby  vyhovoval  právu  EU,  mohla  by  se  jako  \"vedlejší                              efekt\"  potenciálně  otevřít  cesta  i  pro  odpovědnost  státu  za  škodu                              jednotlivci  z  námi  diskutovaného  příkladu.  V  současnosti  nabízí                              teoretickou cestu pouze § 8 odst. 3 citovaného zákona, podle nějž je                              nutné vyčerpání opravných prostředků \"nejde-li o případy zvláštního                              zřetele hodné.\" Jedná se zde tedy o obdobný problém, jako v případě                              diskutované přípustnosti ústavní stížnosti bez předchozího vyčerpání                              opravných  prostředků.  Přípustnost  jednotlivých  právních  nástrojů,                              kterými  by  se  mohl  účastník  řízení  bránit  nebo  žádat  škodu,  tak                              spočívá na neurčitých právních pojmech, které do značné míry brání                              účinné nápravě.                                5.  (NE)AKTIVITA  ÚČASTNÍKA  ŘÍZENÍ  A  ZÁSADA  IURA                              NOVIT CURIA                               Celým  předchozím  textem  prostupuje  předpoklad,  že  rozhodnutí,  ve                              kterém  národní  soud  navzdory  své  povinnosti  neaplikuje  právo  EU                              nehledě na to, že účastníci řízení právem EU neargumentují, je vadné.                              Z  tohoto  předpokladu  vycházely  i  následné  úvahy  o  možnostech                              případné  revize  takového  rozhodnutí  a  o  (ne)přípustnosti  náhrady                              škody, způsobené státem.                                      Dalo by se ovšem namítnout, že účastníka řízení nelze vnímat                              jako  pasivní  jednotku,  ale  jako  subjekt,  který  může  řízení  aktivně                              ovlivňovat a dbát o svá práva v duchu římské zásady vigilantibus iura                              scripta  sunt.  Pokud  se  tedy  svých  práv  nedomáhá,  alespoň  v                              odvolacím  či  následně  dovolacím  řízení,  nedostatek  v  podobě                              neaplikování  unijního  předpisu  je  tímto  zhojen.  Dochází  zde  ale  k                              napětí  mezi  principem  iura  novit  curia  a  výše  citovanou  zásadou                              vigilantibus iura scripta sunt. Přestože totiž dle judikatury SD by mělo                              být s unijním právem zacházeno stejně jako s právem národním, má                              unijní  právo  vůči  právu  národnímu  stále  někdy  pozici  \"popelky\"  a                              bývá  přehlíženo,  ať  již  jsou  k  tomu  důvody  jakékoliv.  Případ                              neaplikování  unijního  práva  soudem  ovšem  představuje  kvalitativně                              stejnou  situaci,  jako  kdyby  národní  soudce  v  některém  řízení                              neaplikoval  relevantní  národní  předpis.  Vzhledem  k  tomu,  že                              povědomí  o  vnitrostátním  právu  bude  u  soudců  a  často  jistě  i                              účastníků řízení nesrovnatelně větší než u práva unijního, je zřejmé, že                              situace  kdy  by  nebyl  aplikován  vnitrostátní  předpis,  bude                              pravděpodobně výjimečná. Lze se ovšem jen dohadovat, v kolika                               Literature:                              -  Bobek, M.: Why There is no Principle of 'Procedural Autonomy' of                                 the  Member  States,  in:  de  Witte,  B.,  Micklitz,  H.  (eds):  The                                 European  Court  of  Justice  and  Autonomy  of  the  Member  States,                                 Cambridge: Intersentia, 2011, ISBN 978-94-000-0026-1.                              -  Bobek,  M.,  Bříza,  P.,  Komárek,  K.:  Vnitrostátní  aplikace  práva                                 Evropské unie, Praha: C. H. Beck, 2011, ISBN 978-80-7400-377-6.                              -  Bobek,  M.,  Komárek,  J.,  Passer,  J.:  Vyhnáni  z  rajské  zahrady                                 neodpovědnosti:  národní  soudy  a  porušení  komunitárního  práva,                                 Soudce, č. 9, 2004, ISSN: 1211-5347.                                                                    63","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 -  Bureš,  J.,  Drápal,  L.,  Mazanec,  M.:  Občanský  soudní  řád:                                 komentář, Praha: C. H. Beck, 2001, ISBN 80-7179-739-1.                              -  Ereciński, T.: When must national judges raise european law issues                                 on their own motion?, ERA-Forum, 2010, roč. 11, č. 4.                              -  Kühn,  Z.:  Iura  novit  curia:  aplikace  starého  principu  v  nových                                 podmínkách, Právní rozhledy, 2004, roč. 12, č. 8, ISSN 1210-6410.                              -  Nový,  Z.:  Spotřebitelské  úvěry  a  rozhodčí  řízení,  Jurisprudence,                                 Praha: Wolters Kluwer, 2010, roč. 19, č. 7, ISSN 1802-3843.                              -  Pelikánová,  I.:  Rozum,  právo  a  interpretace,  Bulletin  advokacie,                                 Praha: ČAK, 2010, č. 12, ISSN 1210-6348.                              -  Svoboda,  K.:  Žaloba  v  civilním  řízení,  Praha:  Wolters  Kluwer,                                 2010, ISBN: 978-80-7357-535-9.                              -  Šimíček, V.: Ústavní stížnost, Praha: Linde Praha, 2005, ISBN 80-                                 7201-569-9.                              -  Winterová, A. a kol.: Civilní právo procesní, Praha: Linde Praha,                                 2011, ISBN 978-80-7201-842-0.                               Contact – email                              210721@mail.muni.cz                                                                                                                64","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                        APPLICATION OF THE NE BIS IN IDEM                                  PRINCIPLE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEDURE                                             IVANA JANKEOVÁ – TOMÁŠ KAŠČÁK                                       Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Czech Republic                                 Abstract in original language                              V rámci Schengenského priestoru môže byť založená právomoc stíhať                              a  trestať  osoby  podozrivé  zo  spáchania  trestného  činu  pre  viacero                              štátov.  Tento  príspevok  sa  zaoberá  postupom  orgánov  činných                              v trestnom  konaní  v  takýchto  situáciách  so  zameraním  na  aplikáciu                              princípu ne bis in idem v trestnom konaní.                               Key words in original language                              Princíp  ne  bis  in  idem,  trestné  konanie,  Schengenský  vykonávací                              dohovor, prejudiciálne konanie.                               Abstract                              Within the Schengen area the criminal jurisdiction to investigate and                              prosecute  persons  suspected  from  committing  a  crime  can  be                              established for more States. This article deals with procedure of the                              criminal prosecution authorities in such situations with main focus on                              the  application  of  the  ne  bis  in  idem  principle  in  the  criminal                              procedure.                               Key words                              Ne  bis  in  idem  principle,  Criminal  proceedings,  Convention                              Implementing the Schengen Agreement, Preliminary ruling.                               INTRODUCTION                               The ne bis in idem principle is a generally recognized principle                              of  a  criminal  law  which  prohibits  repeated  prosecution  of                                                                  1                              an individual  for  the  same  offence.   This  principle  represents                              one of the fundamental human rights and due to its importance                              is guaranteed by the constitutions of individual states as well by                                                   2                              international treaties.  International applicability of this principle                              results  mainly  from  the  fact  that  that  criminal  law  protects                              the most  important  values  and  principles  of  every  state  and  is                              also expression of its sovereignty. As a result sovereign states do                              not restrict the applicability of their criminal legislation only to                                 1                                 VAN BOCKEL, B. The ne bis in idem principle in EU law. Alphen aan                                 den Rijn : Kluwer Law International, 2010. s. 1 – 2.                                2                                 Examples could be Article 14 (7) of the International convention on Civil                                 and Political rights or the Article 4 of protocol no. 7 to the Convention for                                 the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms                                                                   65","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                  the territory  of  their  own  state  (territoriality  principle),  but                              extend it to the territories of other states, where the crimes were                                                                                3                              committed by their citizens (personality principle).  Taking into                              account the fact that there is constant movement of people from                              one country to another, there is a good chance that by a crime                              committed  abroad  will  fall  under  the  criminal  jurisdiction  of                              more states at once. Without the application of the ne bis in idem                              principle  a  person  can  be  repeatedly  accused  and  punish  for                              the same crime, which could disrupt the proportionality between                              the  crime  and  punishment,  as  well  as  the  legal  certainty  and                              confidence in the judicial system.                               Within the European Union the application of this principle is                              even  more  important  because  the  free  movement  of  people  is                              granted as one of the four fundamental freedoms. Also among                              the  people enjoying  this  freedom are criminals  who  would  be                              disproportionately  restricted  in  this  freedom  if  they  would  be                              subject  to  multiple  criminal  prosecutions  for  the  same  act  in                              several  states.  Based  on  this  reason,  the  Member  States  of                              the Schengen area agreed on a regulation of the prosecution of                              the persons that have been prosecuted for a certain act in one of                              the Member States.                                      th                              On  19   June  1990,  the  Member  States  of  the  Schengen  area                              agreed  on  the  Convention  Implementing  Schengen Agreement                              (hereinafter “CISA”). Article 54 of CISA regulates the multiple                              prosecution  for  the  same  act.  “A  person  whose  trial  has  been                              finally  disposed  of  in  one  Contracting  Party  may  not  be                              prosecuted  in  another  Contracting  Party  for  the  same  acts                              provided  that,  if  a  penalty  has  been  imposed,  it  has  been                              enforced, is actually in the process of being enforced or can no                              longer be enforced under the laws of the sentencing Contracting                              Party.” This  provision  expressly  prohibits  the  accumulation  of                              penalties for the same crime not only within the area of one state                              but also between the Member States. However, the CISA allows                              reservation to this article under some circumstances:                               (a) Where the acts to which the foreign judgment relates took                              place in whole or in part in its own territory; in the latter case,                              however, this exception shall not apply if the acts took place in                              part  in  the  territory  of  the  party  where  the  judgment  was                              delivered;                               (b)  Where  the  acts  to  which  the  foreign  judgment  relates                              constitute an offence against national security or other equally                              essential interests of that party;                                3                                 TOMÁŠEK, M. Europeizace trestního práva. Praha : Linde, 2009. s. 159.                                                                  66","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                  (c) Where the acts to which the foreign judgment relates were                              committed by officials of that party in violation of the duties of                              their office.                                The  condition  for  the  application  of  this  reservation  is                              an obligation  of  the  state  to  reduce  any  sentence  of                              imprisonment  by  the  time  which  has  already  been  carried  out                                                     4                              in respect of the crime.  This condition follows the principle of                              proportionality of punishment, which prevents the penalty to be                              disproportionate to the offense.                                The application of the ne bis in idem principle by the Member                              States'  bodies  pointed  out  some  uncertainties  which  required                              interpretation  by  the  European  Court  of  Justice  (nowadays                              the “Court  of  Justice”  as  it  will  be  referred  hereinafter).                              The interpretations'  difficulties  have  dealt  mainly  with                              the definition  of  multiple  prosecutions  (bis)  for  the  same  act                              (idem).                                HÜSEYIN GÖZÜTOK AND KLAUS BRÜGGE                               In the joint cases Gözütok and Brügge the Court of Justice was                              dealing with the question of which kinds of decisions prevent                              further prosecution under the Article 54 of the CISA. In Gözütok                              case, a Turkish citizen Hüseyin Gözütok had run a coffee shop                              in a Heerlen, a city in Netherlands. During the two inspections                              the police authorities found illegal drugs. As a result the Dutch                              public  prosecutor  initiated  criminal  proceedings  against                              Mr Gözütok. In respect to the lower gravity of the offence, the                              public  prosecutor  offered  to  Mr Gözütok  to  pay  a  fine  3,750                              guldens.  Mr  Gözütok  accepted  the  offer,  paid  the  fine  and                              consequently    the   prosecutor   terminated    the   criminal                                           5                              proceedings.  Later on, the German bank informed the German                              prosecuting authorities of suspicious movement in Mr Gözütok's                              bank accounts. Mr Gözütok was arrested in Germany after the                              German  prosecuting  authorities  had  received  relevant                              information  on  Mr  Gözütok's  illegal  activities. The  German                              court convicted Mr Gözütok and sentenced him to a period of                              one  year  and  five  months  imprisonment,  suspended  on                              probation. The Appeal Court changed this decision, discontinued                              the criminal proceedings against Mr Gözütok on the ground that                              under Article 54 of the CISA the German prosecuting authorities                              were  bound  by  the  definitive  discontinuance  of  the  criminal                                 4                                 Article 56 of the CISA.                               5                                 Joined case C – 187/01 and C – 385/01 Gözütok and Brügge [2003] ECR                                 I-1345, paragraphs  9 – 11.                                                                   67","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                  proceedings  in  the  Netherlands.  In  a  second  appeal  the  court                              decided to stay the proceedings and refer the matter to the Court                                                               6                              of Justice for a preliminary ruling.                               The second case concerned Mr Klaus Brügge, a German citizen                              who  was  charged  by  the  Belgian  prosecution  authorities  with                              having  intentionally  assaulted  and  wounded  Mrs  Leliaert  in                              Belgium, which constituted a violation of the Belgian Criminal                              Code. Mr Brügge faced criminal prosecution in Belgium as well                              as in Germany. In Belgium the proceedings had a criminal and                              a civil aspect due to Mrs. Leliaert's working incapacity, resulting                              from  the  assault,  claiming  pecuniary  and  non-pecuniary                                                                                   7                              damages  in  amount  of  approximately  495  Euro.   During                              the proceedings before the Belgian Court, the Public Prosecutor                              in Germany offered to Mr. Brügge an out-of-court settlement in                              return  for  payment  of  around  500  Euro.  Mr.  Brügge  accepted                                                      8                              the settlement  and  paid.   The  Belgian  District  Court  referred                              a question to the Court of Justice.                                Because  of  the  similarity  of  the  subject  matter  of  the  cases                              the Court  of  Justice  has  decided,  after  the  recommendation  of                              the Advocate General, to join and examine the cases together.                              The national courts were essentially asking whether the ne bis in                              idem principle laid down in Article 54 of the CISA also applied                              to  decisions  by  which  the  Public  Prosecutor  discontinued                                                                                            9                              criminal  proceedings  without  the  involvement  of  court.                              The Court of Justice has found that the Article 54 of the CISA                              and  the  ne  bis  in  idem  principle also  applies  to  procedures                              whereby prosecution is discontinued by the Public Prosecutor in                                                                                   10                              a Member State, without any involvement of a court.  In both                              cases  the  decision  was  made  by  the  Public  Prosecutor  as                              a criminal  prosecuting  authority  whose  power  to  do  so  arises                                  6                                  Joined case C – 187/01 and C – 385/01 Gözütok and Brügge [2003] ECR                                 I-1345, paragraph 14 – 18.                               7                                 Joined case C – 187/01 and C – 385/01 Gözütok and Brügge [2003] ECR                                 I-1345, paragraph 19 – 20.                               8                                 GŘIVNA, T. Zásada „ne bis in idem” v judikatuře Evropského soudního                                 dvora. [online]. 12.11.2009 [cit. 2011-09-10]. Institut pro kriminologii a                                 sociální           prevenci.          Dostupné            z:                                 <http://www.ok.cz/iksp/aidp_091112.html>.                                9                                 Joined case C – 187/01 and C – 385/01 Gözütok and Brügge [2003] ECR                                 I-1345, paragraph 25,                               10                                   FENYK,  J.,  SVÁK,  J.  Europeizace  trestního  práva.  Bratislava :                                 Bratislavská vysoká škola práva, 2008. s. 85.                                                                   68","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                          11                              from  national  legislation.   The  effects  of  such  a  decision  are                              dependent  upon  the  accused's  undertaking  to  perform  certain                                                     12                              prescribed  obligations.   The  accused  who  has  fulfilled  all                              obligations must be regarded as someone whose case has been                              'finally disposed of' for the purposes of Article 54 of the CISA in                                                                                      13                              relation to the acts which he is alleged to have committed.                               The Court of Justice further explicitly stated that no provision of                              the EU law made the application of the ne bis in idem principle                              conditional  upon  harmonization  or  approximation          of                              the criminal laws of the Member States. Considering the variety                              of criminal laws across Europe, the application of this principle                              presumes the mutual trust of the Member States in their justice                              systems  as  well  as  the  mutual  recognition  of  decisions  in                              criminal matters even if the outcome under their own respective                                                       14                              laws  would  be  different.   According  to  the  Court  of  Justice                              the objective of the Article 54 of the CISA, which is to ensure                              that no one by exercising his/her right to freedom of movement                              can  be  prosecuted  on  the  same  facts  in  several  states,  can  be                              achieved  only  if  it  applies  to  all  decisions  definitively                              discontinuing prosecutions in a Member State, even where such                              decisions are adopted without the involvement of a court and do                                                                         15                              not  take  the  form  of  a  judicial  decision.   If  Article  54  of                              the CISA  applies  only  to  decisions  discontinuing  prosecutions                              which  are  taken  by  a  court  or  take  the  form  of  a  judicial                              decision,  the  consequence  would  be  that  the ne  bis  in                              idem principle would be of benefit only to defendants who were                              guilty  of  offences  which,  on  account  of  their  seriousness  or                              the penalties attaching to them, preclude the use of a simplified                              method  of  disposing  of  certain  criminal  cases  by  a  procedure                                                                   16                              whereby further prosecution is barred.                                     11                                  Joined case C – 187/01 and C – 385/01 Gözütok and Brügge [2003] ECR                                 I-1345, paragraph 27.                               12                                  LAGODNYM, O. Nemožnost podání obžaloby v trestní věci v důsledku                                 právní moci rozhodnutí státního zástupce o zastavení trestního stíhání, jež                                 brání dalšímu potrestání za týž skutek. Trestněprávní revue 2003, roč. 2,                                 č. 9, s. 282.                               13                                  Joined case C – 187/01 and C – 385/01 Gözütok and Brügge [2003] ECR                                 I-1345, paragraph 30.                               14                                  Joined case C – 187/01 and C – 385/01 Gözütok and Brügge [2003] ECR                                 I-1345, paragraph 32 – 33.                               15                                  Joined case C – 187/01 and C – 385/01 Gözütok and Brügge [2003] ECR                                 I-1345, paragraph 38.                               16                                   The  opinion  of  Advocate  General  Dámaso  Ruiz  –  Jarabo  Colomer,in                                 Joined case C – 187/01 and C – 385/01 Gözütok and Brügge [2003] ECR                                 I-1345, paragraphs 107 and 114.                                                                   69","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                  MIRAGLIA                               Soon after the decision in the joint cases Gözütok and Brügge                              a new  question,  dealing  with  a  nature  of  the  decision  of                              the Public Prosecutor, occurred in connection with Article 54 of                              the  CISA.  The  Miraglia  was  the  case  where  ne  bis  in  idem                              principle  was  found  not  to  apply.  This  case  was  about                              Mr Miraglia  who  was  charged  with  having  organized,  with                                                                                           17                              others,  the  transport  of  heroin  from  Netherlands  to  Italy.                              Therefore criminal proceedings were initiated against him, one                              in  Italy  and  the  other  one  in  Netherlands.  Dutch  criminal                              proceedings were closed without any penalty or sanction having                              been imposed on Mr Miraglia after the Dutch judicial authorities                              decided  not  to  prosecute  him  on  the  ground  that  criminal                              proceedings against him in respect of the same facts had been                                               18                              initiated  in  Italy.   In  this  case  the  Dutch  judicial  authorities                              applied the ne bis in idem principle laid down in Article 54 of                              the CISA, however, this application and interpretation had been                                                                         19                              considered as incorrect by the Italian court.   Hence, the Italian                              court  referred  the  question  to  the  Court  of  Justice  whether                              “Article 54 of the CISA applied when the decision of the first                              State  (Netherlands)  consists  of  discontinuing  the  prosecution                              without  any  adjudication  on  the  merits  of  the  case  and  on                              the sole ground that proceedings have already been initiated in                                                    20                              another State (Italy)?”                              The  Court  of  Justice  applied  the  teleological  approach  to                                                                               21                              the interpretation  of  Article  54  of  the  CISA.   Therefore,                              the Court of Justice ruled that a judicial decision not to pursue                              the prosecution on the sole ground that the criminal proceedings                              have  been initiated in another  Member State  against  the  same                              defendant and in respect to the same acts, while there has been                              no determination of the merits of the case, cannot be considered                              as a decision finally disposing of the case within the meaning of                              Article 54 of the CISA. The Court of Justice added that although                              the objective of Article 54 of the CISA is to ensure that no one is                              prosecuted on the same facts in several Member States, applying                              this  provision  to  a  decision  to  close  criminal  proceedings,  as                              in this case, would make it more difficult or indeed impossible                               17                                 Case C – 469/03 Miraglia [2005] ECR I-2009, paragraphs 3 and 4.                              18                                 Case C – 469/03 Miraglia [2005] ECR I-2009, paragraph 18.                              19                                 Case C – 469/03 Miraglia [2005] ECR I-2009, paragraph 24.                              20                                 Case C – 469/03 Miraglia [2005] ECR I-2009, paragraph 27.                               21                                 TOMÁŠEK, M. Europeizace trestního práva. Praha : Linde, 2009. s. 169.                                                                  70","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                                                   22                              to penalize the unlawful conduct of the defendant.  The ne bis                              in idem principle laid down in Article 54 of the CISA does not                              apply to all decision discontinuing the criminal proceedings and                              therefore it is necessary to consider the situation case by case.                               VAN STRAATEN                                The  next  case  Van  Straaten  was  about  Mr  Straaten  who  was                              prosecuted  in  the  Netherlands  for  importing  heroin  from  Italy  into                              the Netherlands and for the possession of heroin in the Netherlands.                              However, Mr Straaten has been acquitted by way of a judgment for                              lack of evidence. This judgment was made by the Netherlands court.                              In Italy, Mr Van Straaten was prosecuted in respect of the same facts                              and  he  was  sentenced  to  a  term  of  imprisonment  of  10  years  by                                                    23                              the judgment in absentia.                              So  the  Court  of  Justice  was  faced  with  the  question  of  whether                              an acquittal  for  lack  of  evidence  can  be  considered  as  a  decision                              finally  disposing  person's  trial  for  the  purposes  of  Article  54  of                              the CISA. The answer of this question was affirmative. The Court of                              Justice restated the objective of the ne bis in idem principle in Article                              54 of the CISA and it held that the non-application of this provision to                              a  final  decision  acquitting  the  accused  for  lack  of  evidence  would                              have  the  effect  of  jeopardizing  exercise  of  the  right  to  freedom                              movement. Moreover, the bringing of criminal proceedings in another                              Member  State  in  respect  of  the  same  acts  would  undermine  the                              principles  of  legal  certainty  and  of  the  protection  of  legitimate                                          24                              expectations.  In respect to the finding in Miraglia case, the Court of                              Justice added that an acquittal for lack of evidence cannot be treated                              as a decision which is not based on a determination as to the merits of                              the case.                               GASPARINI                                In this case, the Court of Justice was faced with the question whether                              the ne bis in idem principle laid down in Article 54 of the CISA also                              applies in respect to a decision finally acquitting the accused because                              prosecution  of  the  offence  was  time-barred.  This  question  arose  in                              the criminal  procedure  against  the  shareholders  and  directors  of                              the company  Minerva.  They  agreed  to  import  through  a  port  in                              Portugal  refined  olive  oil  from  Tunisia  and  Turkey,  which  was  not                              declared  to  the  customs  authorities.  The  oil  was  then  transported                                    22                                 Case C – 469/03 Miraglia [2005] ECR I-2009, paragraphs 30 and 33.                              23                                 Case C – 150/05 Van Straaten [2006] ECR I – 9327, paragraphs 20 and 21.                               24                                 Case C – 150/05 Van Straaten [2006] ECR I – 9327, paragraphs 58 and 59.                                                                  71","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                  to Spain. The defendants devised a system of false invoicing to create                                                                           25                              the impression that the oil came from Switzerland.                               The Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice found that the oil actually                              originated  in  Tunisia  and  Turkey;  however  the  court  acquitted                              the defendants on the ground that their prosecution was time-barred.                              The criminal proceedings against the defendants had been constituted                                                              26                              in Spain for the same criminal acts.   The Spanish court in respect to                              the decision of the Portuguese court referred the question to the Court                              of Justice for a preliminary ruling.                               The Court of Justice held that Article 54 of the CISA does apply to                              a decision  by  which  the  accused  is  acquitted  finally  because  of  the                              offence is time-barred. In its reasoning the Court of Justice restated                              the  objective  of  the  Article  54  of  the  CISA  according  to  which  no                              person may be prosecuted for the same acts in several Member State                              for the same acts as those in respect of which his trial has been already                              finally  disposed  of  in  another  Member  State  provided  that                              the prosecution  is  time-barred  and  therefore  cannot  be  longer                              enforced. Non-application of Article 54 of the CISA to this kind of                                                                                           27                              situation  would  undermine  the  implementation  of  that  objective.                              The Court of Justice added that the ne bis in idem principle laid down                              in Article 54 of the CISA does apply only to persons whose trial has                                                                     28                              been finally disposed of in a Member State.                               TURANSKÝ                               The next case regarding the interpretation of Article 54 of the CISA is                              Turanský  concerned  a  Slovak  national  Mr  Turanský  who  was                              suspected  of  serious  robbery  under  the  Austrian  Criminal  Code.                              The Austrian  authorities  initiated  the  criminal  proceedings  against                              Mr Turanský  and  an  arrest  warrant  had  been  issue  for  his  arrest.                              However,  according  to  the  information  received  by  the  Austrian                              authorities  Mr  Turanský  in  the  meantime  had  returned  to  Slovakia.                              Therefore  Austrian  authorities  requested  Slovak  authorities  to  open                              proceedings  against  Mr  Turanský,  in  accordance  with  Article  21  of                                                                                           29                              the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.                               Since  the  Slovak  authorities  approved  that  request,  criminal                              proceedings  were  reopened,  however  they  were  discontinued  after                                25                                 Case C – 467/05 Gasparini and others [2006] ECR I – 9199, paragraph 16.                              26                                 Case C – 467/05 Gasparini and others [2006] ECR I – 9199, paragraphs 17                              and 18.                              27                                 Case C – 467/05 Gasparini and others [2006] ECR I – 9199, paragraphs 27                              and 28.                              28                                 Case C – 467/05 Gasparini and others [2006] ECR I – 9199, paragraph 37.                               29                                 Case C – 491/07 Turanský [2008] ECR I  - 11039, paragraphs 18 and 19.                                                                  72","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                  the Slovak  police  decided  to  terminate  it  with  the  reasoning  that                              the act of Mr Turanský does not constitute a crime under the Slovak                              Criminal  Code.  Afterward  the  Austrian  court  referred  the  case                              to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling question whether the ne                              bis in idem principle in Article 54 of the CISA applies to a decision                              made by a police authority at a stage before the charging of a person                              suspected of a crime, suspending the criminal proceedings which had                                            30                              been instituted.                              The Court of Justice held that the decision of the Slovak police does                              not,  under  the  Slovak  law,  definitively  bar  further  prosecution  at                              a national  level  and  hence  does  not  preclude  new  criminal                                                                              31                              proceedings, in respect of the same acts, in Slovakia.  Therefore, this                              decision does not have ne bis in idem effect laid down in Article 54 of                              the CISA, even if there has been some consideration of the merits of                              the  case.  The  Court  of  Justice  ruled  that  a  decision  in  order  to  be                              considered  as  a  final  disposal  for  the  purposes  of  Article  54  of                              the CISA must bring the criminal proceedings to end and definitively                                                   32                              bar further prosecution.                               VAN ESBROECK                               In  the  Van  Esbroeck  case,  the  Court  of  Justice  was  faced  with                              the question  regarding  the  interpretation  of  the  “same  acts”  in                              the scope  of  Article  54  of  the  CISA.  This  case  was  about  Mr  Van                              Esbroeck,  a  Belgian  national,  who  had  been  sentenced  by                              the Norwegian  court  to  five  years'  imprisonment  for  illegally                              importing narcotic drugs. After having served part of his sentence he                              was  released  conditionally  and  moved  back  to  Belgium.  Later  on,                              the prosecution  was  brought  against  him  in  Belgium  and  he  was                              sentenced  in  respect  to  the  same  facts  to  one  years'  imprisonment.                              Mr Van Esbroeck appealed and pleaded infringement of Article 54 of                              the  CISA.  The  Belgian  court  then  had  referred  the  question  to                              the Court of Justice of what is the relevant criterion for the purposes                              of the application of the meaning of “the same acts” for the purposes                                                     33                              of Article 54 of the CISA.                               In respect to this question the Court of Justice stated that the wording                              of Article 54 of the CISA refers only to the nature of the acts and not                              to their legal classification. The Court of Justice also pointed out that                              the application of the ne bis in idem principle implies that the states                              have mutual trust in each other's criminal justice systems. The Court                              of Justice added that the application of the ne bis in idem principle laid                              down  in  Article  54  of  the  CISA  is  not  dependent  upon  further                               30                                 Case C – 491/07 Turanský [2008] ECR I  - 11039, paragraphs 22 and 30.                              31                                 Case C – 491/07 Turanský [2008] ECR I  - 11039, paragraph 39.                              32                                 Case C – 491/07 Turanský [2008] ECR I  - 11039, paragraph 45.                               33                                 Case C – 436/04 Van Esbroeck [2006] ECR I – 2333, paragraph 14 - 17.                                                                  73","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                  harmonization or approximation of the criminal laws of the Member                                    34                              States.                               Since  the  legal  qualification  of  the  offences  is  likely  to  vary                              from  one  State  to  another,  the  criterion  of  the  identity  of                              the protected legal interest cannot be applied for the purposes of                              Article 54 of the CISA. The Court of Justice finally held that in                              those  circumstances,  the  only  relevant  criterion is  “identity  of                              the  material  acts,  understood  in  the  sense  of  the  existence  of                              a set  of  concrete  circumstances  which  are  inextricably  linked                                        35                              together.”   The  definitive  assessment  of  such  an  identity  in                              the specific case belongs to the competent national courts.                                KRETZINGER                               In this case, the Court of Justice was asked by the German court                              during  the  preliminary  ruling  to  interpret  the  meaning  of                              the notions  of  “same  acts”  and  “enforcement”  of  criminal                              penalties.  The  issue  in  the  main  proceedings  was  about                              Mr Kretzinger,  who  on  two  occasions  transported  cigarettes                              from non-Member States through Greece, Italy and Germany to                              the  United  Kingdom.  The  cigarettes  were  not  presented  for                              customs clearance at any point. Therefore, Mr  Kretzinger  was                              twice sentenced in absentia by the judgment of Italian court and                              he faced up to one year and eight months of suspended custodial                              sentence and a custodial sentence of two years which was not                              suspended. 36  Aware  of  those  judgments,  the  German  court                              sentenced  Mr  Kretzinger  to  one  year  and  ten  months'                              imprisonment in respect of the first consignment and one year's                              imprisonment in respect of the second one. The German court                              justified this judgment on the ground that two final sentences in                                                                 37                              Italy  had  not  yet  been  enforced.   Mr  Kretzinger  appealed                              against this judgment before the German Supreme Court which                              referred the question to the Court of Justice.                                Firstly, the Court of Justice was asked the similar question of                              what is the relevant criterion for the purpose of the application                              of the “same acts” within the meaning of Article 54 of the CISA.                              Following  its  opinion  in  the  Van  Esbroeck  case,  the  Court  of                              Justice  restated  that  the  only  relevant  criterion  is  the  identical                                34                                 Case C – 436/04 Van Esbroeck [2006] ECR I – 2333, paragraphs 27 - 30.                              35                                Case C – 436/04 Van Esbroeck [2006] ECR I – 2333, paragraph 36.                              36                                 Case C– 288/05 Kretzinger [2007] ECR I – 6441, paragraph 14 - 16.                               37                                 Case C– 288/05 Kretzinger [2007] ECR I – 6441, paragraphs 20 and 21.                                                                  74","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                                 38                              nature  of  the  material  acts.   Moreover,  in  respect  to                              the circumstances  in  the  Kretzinger  case,  the  Court  of  Justice                              held  that  “the  acts  consisting  in  receiving  contraband  foreign                              tobacco in one Contracting State and of importing that tobacco                              into  another  Contracting  State  and  being  in  possession  of  it                              there,  characterized  by  the  fact  that  the  defendant  ...  had                              intended  from  the  outset  to  transport  the  tobacco,  after  first                              taking  possession  of  it,  to  a  final  destination  ...  constitute                              conduct  which  may  be  covered  by  the  notion  of  ‘same  acts’                                                               39                              within the meaning of Article 54.”                               Secondly, the Court of Justice  was faced with the question of                              whether  a  suspended  custodial  sentence  must  be  treated  as                              a penalty which has been enforced or is actually in the process                              of  being  enforced.  The  Court  of  Justice  agreed  with                              the Advocate  General,  the  governments  which  submitted                              observations and the Commission, when it held that a suspended                              custodial  sentence  penalizes  the  unlawful  conduct  of                              the defendant and it constitutes a penalty within the meaning of                              Article  54  of  the  CISA.  Therefore  this  “penalty  has  to  be                              regarded as actually in the process of being enforced as soon as                              the sentences has become enforceable and during the probation                                      40                              period.”  On the other hand the Court of Justice held that this                              does  not  apply  for  the  situation  when  the  defendant  was  for                              a short  time  taken  into  police  custody  or  held  on  remand                              pending  trial  and  that  detention  would  count  towards  any                              subsequent enforcement of the custodial sentence under the law                                                                      41                              of the State in which judgment was given .                               Summarizing  the  aforementioned  case  law  we  can  see  that                              the Court  of  Justice  dealt  with  three  main  issues  by                              the interpretation Article  54  of  the  CISA.  Firstly,  the  Court  of                              Justice  discussed  the  nature  of  the  decision  discontinuing                              the prosecution. It discussed the purpose of the ne bis in idem                              principle  and  stressed  the  need  for  a  mutual  trust  in  a  legal                              systems of the Member States. The Court of Justice concluded                              that  any  decision,  even  made  by  public  prosecutor,  finally                              discontinuing the procedure has had an effect in whole Europe.                              Secondly,  the  Court  of  Justice  dealt  with  the  meaning  of                              the same act. After considering all the relevant circumstances it                                38                                 Case C– 288/05 Kretzinger [2007] ECR I – 6441, paragraph 29.                              39                                 Case C– 288/05 Kretzinger [2007] ECR I – 6441, paragraph 37.                              40                                 Case C– 288/05 Kretzinger [2007] ECR I – 6441, paragraph 42.                               41                                 Case C– 288/05 Kretzinger [2007] ECR I – 6441, paragraph 46.                                                                  75","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                  preferred  the  material  identity  of  the  act  before  its  legal                              qualification under a national law.  Lastly, the Court of Justice                              clarified  the  meaning  of  the  words  penalties  that  has  been                              enforced or is actually in the process of being enforced when it                              concluded that the penalty has to be regarded as actually in the                              process of being enforced as soon as the sentences has become                              enforceable and during the probation period. This interpretation                              provides very broad protection for the persons who have been                              charged  for  an  offence  from the  multiple  prosecution in  more                              states  and  makes  the  ne  bis  in  idem  principle  applicable  all                              across the Europe.                               LISBON TREATY AND THE NE BIS IN IDEM PRINCIPLE                                With  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Lisbon Treaty,  the  Charter  of                              Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union  (“the  Charter”)                              entered  into  primary  EU  law  and  has become  legally  binding.                              The Charter, which was proclaimed as a non-binding document                              in  the  end  of  2000  in  Nice, enshrines  certain  political,  social,                              and economic rights for the European Union citizens. Article 50                              of the Charter provides that no one shall be liable to be tried or                              punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which                              he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within                              the  EU  in  accordance  with  the  law.  The  explanatory                              memorandum  provides  that  “in  accordance  with  Article  50,                              the non bis in idem rule applies not only within the jurisdiction                              of  one  State  but  also  between  the  jurisdictions  of  several                                                                                       42                              Member States. That corresponds to the acquis in EU law.”                               Although Article  50  of  the  Charter  differs  from  Article  54  of                              the CISA,  it  is  very  similar  to Article  4  of  protocol  no.  7  to                              the Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  and                              Fundamental  Freedoms  (ECHR).  The  Charter  seems  to  try  to                              provide  a  minimum  standard  similar  to the  ECHR,  as  the EU                              will  become  a  party  to  the  ECHR. While  the  ECHR  requires                              the application  of  the  ne  bis  in  idem  principle  only  within                              the territory  of  one  state,  the  Charter  is fully  transnational  in                              the EU  having  much  broader  territorial  application.  Moreover,                              the Charter applies also to the European Union  organs,  which                                                                             43                              makes  its  application  even  broader  than  CISA.   On  the  other                                 42                                  DRAFT  CHARTER  OF  FUNDAMENTAL  RIGHTS  OF  THE                              EUROPEAN UNION [online]. 11 October 2000 [cit. 29 November 2011]. .                              Dostupné                        z                        WWW:                              <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/04473_en.pdf>.                               43                                 Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union                                                                  76","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                  hand the substantive applicability seems to be more restrictive                              than in CISA and questionable in some aspects.                                Article  50  of  the  Charter  is  quite  short and  its  wording  is not                              always unambiguous. “Finally  acquitted  or  convicted within                              the Union” can  mean  that  the  litigious  proceeding  must  take                              place  within  the  Union,  but  can  also  be  understood  as  saying                              that  the  proceeding  must  be  in  front  of  the  Member  State  or                              the Community court. Similarly, the law can refer to the law of                              the  Member  State  as  well  as  to  EU  law.  Moreover,                              the wording criminal  proceedings  for  an  offence can  be                              explained  as  limiting  the  application  of  this  principle  only  to                                                                       44                              the proceedings  classified  as  criminal.   Finally  the  word                              offence itself refers more to the identity of a legal classification                              of the act than to its factual identity.                               According  to  the Article  51  of  the  Charter,  the  provisions  of                              the Charter  are  addressed  to  the  institutions  and  bodies  of  the                              EU  ...  and  to  the  Member  States  only  when  they  are                              implementing EU law. It could be said that the ne bis in idem                              provision applies “only to those areas of EU law and systems of                              criminal law of the Member States where the EU has criminal                              law  competence  and  where  national  criminal  law  has                                                       45                              implemented  EU  law.”  This  is,  however,  a  very  narrow                              interpretation  that  would  drastically  restrict  the  effect  of                              the Article 50 of the Charter. It is more likely that the Court of                              Justice will adopt a broad interpretation of criminal proceedings                              similar to the concept of criminal charge by the European Court                              of Human Rights. Although with broad interpretation of criminal                              proceedings, the Charter applies only to the EU law. Therefore                              the proceedings not involving EU law or laws implementing EU                              law probably stay out of the protection from the Charter.                                Therefore,  it  seems  that  the  Charter  aims  to  supplement                              the CISA  in  case  of  ne  bis  in  idem  principle  when                              the proceeding is in front of the EU organs. In situations where                              national law which has been implementing the EU law applies,                              the Charter and the CISA could overlap. In such a situation the                              one more favorable version to the charged person should apply.                              While the Charter does not provide the clear definition of the ne                              bis in idem principle, interpretation by the Court of Justice will                              be  important.  Presumably  the  Court  of  Justice  will  extend                               44                                 VAN BOCKEL, B. The ne bis in idem principle in EU law. Alphen aan                              den Rijn : Kluwer Law International, 2010. s. 18.                              45                                 VAN BOCKEL, B. The ne bis in idem principle in EU law. Alphen aan                              den Rijn : Kluwer Law International, 2010. s. 18.                                                                   77","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                  the current interpretation of the CISA to the Charter and it will                              adopt  the  understanding  of  some  expression  in  Article  50  of                              the Charter from the European Court of Human Rights due to                              the similarity of both versions.                                Literature:                                  EUROPEAN UNION LEGAL DOCUMENTS                                    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union                                   Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14                                    June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the                                    Benelux  Economic  Union,  the  Federal  Republic  of                                    Germany  and  the  French  Republic  on  the  gradual                                    abolition of checks at their common borders                                   The  opinion  of  Advocate  General  Dámaso  Ruiz  –  Jarabo                                    Colomer in Joined case C – 187/01 and C  – 385/01 Gözütok                                    and Brügge [2003] ECR I-1345                                   JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE                                    Case C – 467/05 Gasparini and others [2006] ECR I – 9199                                   Case C– 288/05 Kretzinger [2007] ECR I – 6441                                   Case C – 469/03 Miraglia [2005] ECR I-2009                                   Case C – 491/07 Turanský [2008] ECR I  - 11039                                   Case C – 150/05 Van Straaten [2006] ECR I – 9327                                   Joined case C – 187/01 and C – 385/01 Gözütok and Brügge                                    [2003] ECR I-1345                                  PUBLICATIONS                                    FENYK,  J.,  SVÁK,  J.  Europeizace  trestního  práva.                                    Bratislava : Bratislavská vysoká škola práva, 2008. 233 p.                                    ISBN 978-80-88931-88-1                                   GŘIVNA,  T.  Zásada  „ne  bis  in  idem”  v  judikatuře                                    Evropského  soudního  dvora.  [online].  12.11.2009  [cit.                                    2011-09-10]. Institut pro kriminologii a sociální prevenci.                                    Dostupné z: <http://www.ok.cz/iksp/aidp_091112.html>.                                   LAGODNYM,  O.  Nemožnost  podání  obžaloby  v  trestní                                    věci v důsledku právní moci rozhodnutí státního zástupce                                    o zastavení trestního stíhání, jež brání dalšímu potrestání                                    za  týž  skutek.  Trestněprávní  revue  2003,  roč.  2,  č.  9,  s.                                    282                                   TOMÁŠEK,  M.  Europeizace  trestního  práva.  Praha :                                    Linde, 2009. 464 p. ISBN 978-80-7201-737-9                                                                      78","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                       VAN  BOCKEL,  B.  The  ne  bis  in  idem principle in  EU                                    law.  Alphen  aan  den  Rijn  :  Kluwer  Law  International,                                    2010. 288 p. ISBN 9789041131560                                  Contact – email                              ijanke88@gmail.com                                                                                                                                        79","Dny  práva  2011  –  Days  of  Law  2011  [online].  Brno:  Masarykova  univerzita,  2012  ISBN                              (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                        APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL                                   COUNTER-TERRORISM MEASURES BY                                         NATIONAL BODIES (COURTS)                                                  LUCIE NECHVÁTALOVÁ                                       Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Czech Republic                                Abstract in original language                              Článek  pojednává  o  problematice  mezinárodních  protiteroristických                              opatření,  konkrétně  se  pak  zaměřuje  na  aplikaci  sankcí  (především                              zmražení majetku) zavedených OSN proti Al Kajdě a Talibanu. Cílem                              článku  je  analyzovat,  zda  v  dané  problematice  hrají  nějakou  roli                              vnitrostátní  soudy,  a  pokud  ano,  jak  se  s  touto  problematikou  dle                              národní legislativy vypořádávají či mají vypořádat.                               Key words in original language                              Mezinárodní sankce, OSN, Al Kajda, Taliban, vnitrostátní soudy.                               Abstract                              The contribution deals with international counter-terrorsim measures,                              concretely it is focused on application of the UN sanctions (mainly of                              assets freeze) against Al-Qaida and the Taliban by member states of                              the United Nations. The aim of the contribution is to analyze if there is                              some  role  of  national  courts  in  mentioned  international  sanctions                              regime  and  if  so  how  the  courts  are  or  should  be  dealing  with  this                              issue.                               Key words                              International  sanctions;  the  United  Nations;  Al-Qaida;  the  Taliban;                              national courts.                               1. INTRODUCTION                               After  the  determination  of  international  terrorist  acts  perpetrated  by                              the members of Al-Qaida and the Taliban as a threat to international                              peace, the UN Security Council (\"UNSC\") has decided what concrete                              measures would be taken to maintain and restore international peace                                          1                              and  security.   These  measures,  namely  assets  freeze,  arms  embargo                              and travel ban, were firstly adopted in the Resolution 1267 (1999) and                                                      2                              the subsequent resolutions  have further developed them, as well as a                                1                                Under Art. 39 of the UN Charter the UN Security Council is competent to                              determine the existence of threat to international peace and security and to                              decide what measures shall be taken to maintain or restore them.                               2                                 The  UNSC  Resolutions  1267  (1999),  1333  (2000),  1363  (2001),  1373                              (2001), 1390 (2002), 1452 (2002), 1455 (2003), 1526 (2004), 1566 (2004),                              1617  (2005),  1624  (2005),  1699  (2006),  1730  (2006),  1735  (2006),  1822                              (2008),  1904  (2009),  1988  (2011)  and  1989  (2011).  All  Resolutions  were                              adopted under the Chapter VII what means (in conjunction with Art. 25 of                              the  UN  Charter)  that  all  the  UN  member  states  have  to  implement  the                                                                  80","Dny  práva  2011  –  Days  of  Law  2011  [online].  Brno:  Masarykova  univerzita,  2012  ISBN                              (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                procedure  of  listing  and  delisting  of  alleged  terrorists  and  they                                                                3                              supporters  on  the  Consolidated  List .  The  aim  of  the  measures  has                              been to affect the concrete individuals - members of terrorist groups or                              their supporters, concretely to stop them in perpetrating terrorist acts.                               This  submitted  contribution  is  concentrated  on  a  particular  issue  of                              assets freeze imposed on individuals listed  on the Consolidated List                                                                              4                              administered by the Al-Qaida and Taliban Committee . At the outset it                              demonstrates how is the measure implemented and applied by national                              bodies  in  the  Czech  Republic  and  further  it  is  analysed  a  role  of                              national courts (not only in the Czech Republic) - if they have any                              competences in this area and if so, how they are or should be dealing                              with this issue.                               2. APPLICATION OF MEASURES                               2.1 APPLICATION BY NATIONAL BODIES                               Member  states  of  the  UN  implement  the  given  UNSC  Resolutions                              including the measures and the Consolidated List by national acts.                                For demonstration how does this international legal regulation work in                              practice, for example in Czech Law there is one concrete Act, namely                                                                            5                              the Act on Carrying Out of International Sanctions , which provides a                              general  framework  for  application  of  all  international  sanctions                              imposed by the Security Council or the European Union.                                   measures to their national legal system and imposed them on the persons and                              organizations  listed  on  the  Consolidated  List.  The  last  UNSC  Resolutions                              1988  (2011)  and  1989  (2011)  has  changed  the  Al-Qaida  and  Taliban                              sanctions regime, split them and now are the measures applied only against                              Al-Qaida terrorists and their supporters.                               3                                The Consolidated List is a list where are stated names of alleged terrorists                              and their supporters who are listed and sanctioned by the above mentioned                              measures.  See  concretely:  The  List  established  and  maintained  by  the                              Committee  pursuant  to  resolutions  1267  (1999)  and  1989  (2011)                              with     respect    to     individuals,   groups,   undertakings                              and other entities associated with Al-Qaida. The Security Council Committee                              pursuant to resolutions  1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011) concerning  Al-Qaida                              and associated individuals and entities [online].  Last updated 30 December                              2011     [cited   31    December     2011].   Available   from:                              http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/aq_sanctions_list.shtml.                               4                                The Al-Qaida and Taliban Committee (also known as the 1267 Committee)                              was established by the Resolution 1267 (1999) as a subsidiary body of the                              UNSC. It decides e.g. on the listing and delisting of alleged terrorist and their                              supporters.                               5                                 Act  No.  69/2006  Coll.,  on  Carrying  Out  of  International  Sanctions,  as                              amended (\"Act on Carrying Out of International Sanctions\").                                                                   81","Dny  práva  2011  –  Days  of  Law  2011  [online].  Brno:  Masarykova  univerzita,  2012  ISBN                              (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                In the case of Al-Qaida and the  Taliban there is a slightly different                              position  of  member  states  of  the  European  Union  (e.g.  the  Czech                              Republic)  because  this  organization  considered  that  these  measures                              [stated  in  the  Resolutions  concerning  Al-Qaida  and  the  Taliban                              terrorists and their supporters] fall under the scope of the Treaty and,                              therefore, notably with a view to avoiding distortion of competition,                              Community  legislation  is  necessary  to  implement  the  relevant                              decisions  of  the  Security  Council  as  far  as  the  territory  of  the                                                     6                              Community is concerned.  Thus the EU (Council of the EU) adopted                              directly effective Regulation which implements the measures as well                              as  the  Al-Qaida  and  Taliban  Consolidated  List  (in  Annex  of  the                              Regulation) which is updated by amendments of the EU Commission                              for all EU member states. The EU member states have to establish a                              national  mechanism  which  could  apply  the  measures  on  the  listed                              natural and legal persons and have to stipulate the sanctions that could                              be imposed on perpetrators of the Regulation.                                                                              7                              In the Czech Republic there is Ministry of Finance  as a responsible                              administrative  body  for  coordination  of  implementation  and                              application  of  the  measures  and  for  imposition  of  sanctions  on                                                                               8                              perpetrators of obligations stipulated by the Regulation.                              A concrete application of the measures is primarily based on reporting                              duty  of  both  legal  and  natural  persons  to  the  above  mentioned                              administrative body in the case if they are in possession of assets of                                                            9                              the listed person or organization.  Then the administrative body has to                                                                                           11                                    10                              decide  on a restriction or a prohibition of disposing of such assets .                              There might be a remonstrance (a special appeal) against this decision                                                      12                              to the Minister of Finance.                                6                                Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002  imposing certain                              specific  restrictive  measures  directed  against  certain  persons  and  entities                              associated  with  Usama  bin  Laden,  the  Al-Qaida  network  and  the  Taliban,                              and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export                              of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and                              extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the                              Taliban of Afghanistan.                              7                                More precisely Financial Analytical Unit of Ministry of Finance (\"FAU\").                              8                                International Sanctions. Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic [online].                              Last modified 15December 2011 [cited 20 December 2011] Available from:                              http://www.mfcr.cz/cps/rde/xchg/mfcr/xsl/EN_Internat_sanction.html.                               9                                Sec. 10 par. 1 of the Act on Carrying Out of International Sanctions.                              10                                 A usual time limit is 30 days, but this limit might be extended in justified                              cases. (Sec. 12 par. 2 Act on Carrying Out of International Sanctions).                              11                                 Sec.12 par. 1 a) of the Act on Carrying Out of International Sanctions.                               12                                 Sec.12 par. 3 of the Act on Carrying Out of International Sanctions.                                                                  82","Dny  práva  2011  –  Days  of  Law  2011  [online].  Brno:  Masarykova  univerzita,  2012  ISBN                              (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                2.2 APPLICATION BY NATIONAL COURTS                               The  listing  on  the  Consolidated  List  and  subsequent  imposition  of                              international counter-terrorism measures by the Al-Qaida and Taliban                              Sanctions  Committee  on  the  individuals  constitutes  serious                              restrictions of their particular human rights. The important fact is that                              listed  persons  have  no  possibility  to  challenge  the  listing  before                              independent and impartial competent court on the international level.                              There  is  no  court  of  the  United  Nations  that  has  competence  in                                                                              13                              dealing  with  the  listing  or  delisting  of  individuals.   The  only  UN                              body  that  considers  delisting  requests  is  the  Office  of  the                                            14                              Ombudsperson.  However this body is not comparable to independent                              and  impartial  judicial  body  because  its  recommendations  are  not                                                                          15                              binding for the Al-Qaida and Taliban Committee.                              The  consequence  is  that  national  bodies  have  to  apply  measures                              interfering to human rights of persons without any discretion (because                              UNSC resolutions under the Chapter VII  are legally binding for all                              UN  member  states  and  under  Art.  103  of  the  UN  Charter  the                              obligations  arising  from  the  UN  Charter  prevail  over  obligations                              arising  from  other  international  treaties)  and  with  awareness  of  the                              fact  that  the  given  persons  had  no  possibility  to  challenge  these                              restrictions effectively.                               In this situation the last chance of the listed individuals to have their                              assets unfrozen is an independent and impartial national court that is                              competent to decide if there is a violation of individual's rights by a                              state  body  (which  froze  his/her  assets).  Because  of  the  complicated                              cases  concerning  assets  freeze,  there  are  cases  before  the  highest                              judicial instances of the UN member states.                               2.2.1 CZECH REPUBLIC                               In the Czech Republic there has not been yet any case of challenging                              the listing and the assets freeze before any Czech court.                                    13                                 MALENOVSKÝ, J. Mezinárodní právo veřejné: jeho obecná část a poměr                              k jiným právním systémům, zvláště k právu českému. 5., podst. upr. a dopl.                              vyd. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2008, s. 395.                              14                                 Par. 21 of the Resolution 1989 (2011).                              15                                  Eleventh report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Implementation                              Monitoring Team  established pursuant to Security Council resolution 1526                              (2004) and extended by resolution 1904 (2009) concerning Al-Qaida and the                              Taliban  and  associated  individuals  and  entities.  The  Security  Council                              Committee pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011) concerning                              Al-Qaida and associated individuals and entities [online]. Published 13 April                              2011     [cited   25    December     2011].   Available   from:                              http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2011/245.                                                                   83","Dny  práva  2011  –  Days  of  Law  2011  [online].  Brno:  Masarykova  univerzita,  2012  ISBN                              (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                An  application  against  the  remonstrance  of  the  Minister  of  Finance                              (more precisely an application on cancellation of the administrative                                                                                      16                              body's decision) shall be submitted to an administrative court.  If this                              administrative  court  would  reject  the  application,  the  appellant  may                              submit a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court (on                              the  grounds  stipulated  in  Sec.  103  of  the  Code  of  Administrative                              Justice) and if this Court would reject this complaint, the individual                                                                                           17                              may submit  a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court                              challenging the assets freeze that e. g. was made under a decision of                              Ministry of Finance and in accordance with the national legislation but                              contrary  to  his/her  right  to  a  fair  trial  because  he  or  she  has  no                              effective  legal  remedy  to  challenge  the  listing  or  the  assets  freeze                              before an independent and impartial judicial body because Ministry of                              Finance only carried out the decision of the UNSC or more precisely                              of the EU (EU Council and EU Commission).                               There is one important fact in the (Czech) judicial proceedings where                              is  EU  Regulation  taken  into  account  (applied)  -  the  national  court                              should suspend the proceedings and should request for a preliminary                              ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU concerning the (in)validity of                                                                                        18                              the legal act of the EU (because of the violation of human rights).  Or                              the listed individual may submit on the same grounds  an action for                              annulment of Regulation No 881/2002 to the Court of Justice of the                                                                19                              EU, in so far as it concerns him or her.                              2.2.2 SWITZERLAND                               In contrast to a theoretical situation in the Czech Republic analysed                              above, in  Switzerland there  was at least one challenge to the  assets                                                                20                              freeze and the listing of an individual.                                   16                                  Sec.  65  par.  1  of  the  Act  No.  150/2002  Coll.,  Code  of  Administrative                              Justice, as amended (\"Code of Administrative Justice\").                               17                                 Art. 87 par. 1 d) of the Act. No. 1/1993 Coll., Constitution of the Czech                              Republic,  as  amended:  The  Constitutional  Court  has  jurisdiction  over                              constitutional complaints against final decisions or other encroachments by                              public authorities infringing constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights                              and basic freedoms.                              18                                 Art. 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.                              19                                 Such action was submitted by Mr. Y. A. Kadi. See e.g.  Judgment of the                              Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 September 2008, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al                              Barakaat  International  Foundation  v  Council  of  the  European  Union  and                              Commission of the European Communities, joined cases C-402/05 P and C-                              415/05 P.                               20                                 The case is now pending before the Grand Chamber of the European Court                              of Human Rights: Nada vs. Switzerland (Application no. 10593/08).                                                                   84","Dny  práva  2011  –  Days  of  Law  2011  [online].  Brno:  Masarykova  univerzita,  2012  ISBN                              (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 The Swiss Federal Council adopted in 2000 the Anti-Taliban Order                              implementing  the  measures  against  listed  individuals  and                              organizations.  One  of  the  listed  individuals  was  Mr.  Nada  who                                                                                          21                              complained about it but all his administrative appeals were rejected.                                                                                      22                              The  case  was  brought  before  the  Swiss  Federal  Court.   The                              application for delisting of Mr. Nada was dismissed. According to the                              judgment  the  main  reason  for  dismissal  was  Art.  103  of  the  UN                              Charter where is stated the prevalence of obligations arising from the                              UN Charter (and from the Resolutions adopted under the Chapter VII                              of  the  UN  Charter)  over  the  obligations  emerging  from  other                              international treaties (even human rights treaties). Moreover the court                              held  that  the  UN  member  states  have  no  discretion  in  listing  or                              delisting  of  persons  or  organizations  and  delisting  of  Mr.  Nada                              (because of violation of fundamental human rights) by the Switzerland                              could  jeopardize  the  application  of  the  Al-Qaida  and  Taliban                                       23                              sanctions.                              2.2.3 THE  UNITED  KINGDOM  OF  THE  GREAT  BRITAIN                              AND THE NORTHERN IRELAND                                In  the  United  Kingdom  there  were  some  cases  concerning  the  Al-                              Qaida and Taliban sanctions.                               The  transposition  of  the  UNSC  Resolutions  concerning  measures                              against  Al-Qaida  and  the  Taliban  alleged  terrorists  and  their                              supporters and the Consolidated List was made into  British Law by                              Her Majesty's Treasury Orders - namely by the Terrorism Order 2006                              and  the  Al-Qaida  and  Taliban  Order  2006  (in  accordance  with  the                              (British)  United  Nations  Act  1946  which  authorises  the  making  of                              Orders  in  Council  as  are  ‘necessary  or  expedient’  to  give  effect  to                                               24                              UNSC Resolutions ).                              The listing and imposition of the sanctions stated in mentioned Orders                              was challenged by A, K, M, G and HAY before the Supreme Court of                                    21                                 Exposé des Faits:  Nada  vs. Switzerland.  The European Court of Human                              Rights  [online].  Published  17  March  2009  [cited  30  December  2011].                              Available                                                 from:                              http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html\&documentId=84871                              6\&portal=hbkm\&source=externalbydocnumber\&table=F69A27FD8FB8614                              2BF01C1166DEA398649.                               22                                  Judgment  of  the  (Swiss)  Federal  Court  of  14  November  2007,  case                              1A.45/2007/daa.                              23                                  Judgment  of  the  (Swiss)  Federal  Court  of  14  November  2007,  case                              1A.45/2007/daa., par. 6.2.                               24                                 Sec. 1 of the United Nations Act 1946                                                                  85","Dny  práva  2011  –  Days  of  Law  2011  [online].  Brno:  Masarykova  univerzita,  2012  ISBN                              (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                   25                              the  United  Kingdom.   The  court  held  that  the  Treasury  acts  ultra                              vires in issuing the Orders because the measures gravely interfere to                              the  fundamental  human  rights,  the  individuals  were  listed  on  the                                                              26                              grounds of \"reasonable suspicion\"  (that the individual/organization                                                                           27                              is  perpetrator  or  supporter  of  terrorist  acts)   and  the  listed                                                                                28                              persons/organizations have no right of access to a court.                              Even  if  this  judgment  seems  to  be  only  national  matter  and  have                              principally no impact on international law, contrary is the case. As we                                                                                 29                              can see in the Eleventh Report of the Monitoring Team  for the Al-                              Qaida  and  Taliban  Sanctions  Committee,  the  Monitoring  Team  has                              stressed  as  an  important  trend,  that  national  courts,  concretely  the                              Supreme Court of the United Kingdom as one of that courts, ruled in                                                                                          30                              favour of listed persons because of impossibility of judicial remedy.                              3. CONCLUSION                               This contribution may be concluded that there is no doubt about the                              importance  of  fighting  against  terrorism  and  the  UN  member  states                              and their national bodies are aware of this fact. A complicated issue                                25                                 Judgement of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s                              Treasury  (Respondent)  v.  Mohammed  Jabar  Ahmed  and  others  (FC)                              (Appellants) Her Majesty’s Treasury (Respondent) v. Mohammed al-Ghabra                              (FC)  (Appellant)  R  (on  the  application  of  Hani  El  Sayed  Sabaei  Youssef)                              (Respondent) v. Her Majesty’s Treasury (Appellant), 27 January 2010 (2010)                              UKSC 2 (\"Judgement of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom\").                              26                                 \"Reasonable suspicion\" is a sufficient ground for the listing and subsequent                              freezing of assets.                               27                                 Par. 197 of the Judgement of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom                              28                                 Par. 185 of the Judgement of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.                              29                                 The Monitoring Team is composed of independent experts, appointed by                              the  Secretary-General,  with  expertise  in  counter-terrorism,  financing  of                              terrorism, arms embargoes, travel bans and related legal issues and assists                              the Committee in evaluating the implementation of the sanctions regime by                              Member States. General Information on the Work of the Committee. Security                              Council       Committee        pursuant      to       resolutions                              1267    (1999)    and    1989    (2011)   concerning   Al-Qaida                              and associated individuals and entities [online]. Created 31 January 2007 [20                              December             2011].           Available           from:                              http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/information.shtml.                              30                                  Eleventh report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Implementation                              Monitoring Team  established pursuant to Security Council resolution 1526                              (2004) and extended by resolution 1904 (2009) concerning Al-Qaida and the                              Taliban and associated individuals and entities. Security Council Committee                              pursuant to resolutions  1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011) concerning  Al-Qaida                              and  associated  individuals  and  entities  [online].  Published  13  April  2011                              [cited     25      December      2011].     Available     from:                              http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2011/245, par. 31.                                                                   86","Dny  práva  2011  –  Days  of  Law  2011  [online].  Brno:  Masarykova  univerzita,  2012  ISBN                              (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                seems to be the way of the fighting. The main opponents of the way                              chosen by the UNSC are courts.                               There are various approaches of national courts to the question of their                              role  in  the  application  of  international  counter-terrorism  measures.                              Some  of  them  have  recognized  the  main  role  of  the  UNSC  in                              determining measures  that  have  to be taken to maintain  and  restore                              international peace and security, and the violation of human rights of                              the  listed  persons  do  not  take  into  consideration  because  the                              obligations  arising  from  Resolutions  prevail  over  the  obligations                              arising from other treaties, even human rights treaties. Some of them                              have not admitted implicitly that the UNSC is enabled not to adhere to                              human rights standards and the redline of the judgments is that even                              during  the  fight  against  international  terrorism  (a  threat  to                              international  peace  and  security)  there  has  to  be  a  possibility  to                              challenge  the  stipulated  restrictions  before  an  independent  and                              impartial judicial body (to have effective judicial remedy) to be sure                              that these strict restrictions are not imposed on innocent persons.                              The national courts (as well as the Court of Justice of the EU) have to                              be  considered  as  very  important  defenders  of  human  rights  in  this                              area. Their judgments evidently represent the main reason why is the                              UNSC  improving  the  listing  and  delisting  procedure  to  be  more                              consistent with human rights and consequently to affect less innocent                              people and organizations.                                 Literature:                                  LEGAL DOCUMENTS                                 International legal documents                              -  The Charter of the United Nations                              -  The UNSC Resolution 1267 (1999) of 15 October 1999                              -  The UNSC Resolution 1989 (2011) of 17 June 2011                              -  The  UNSC  Resolutions  1333  (2000),  1363  (2001),  1373  (2001),                                 1390 (2002), 1452 (2002), 1455 (2003), 1526 (2004), 1566 (2004),                                 1617 (2005), 1624 (2005), 1699 (2006), 1730 (2006), 1735 (2006),                                 1822 (2008), 1904 (2009), 1988 (2011)                                  Legal documents of the EU                              -  The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union                              -  Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002  imposing                                 certain  specific  restrictive  measures  directed  against  certain                                 persons  and  entities  associated  with  Usama  bin  Laden,  the  Al-                                 Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation                                 (EC)  No  467/2001  prohibiting  the  export  of  certain  goods  and                                 services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending                                 the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the                                 Taliban of Afghanistan                                  National legal documents                                                                   87","Dny  práva  2011  –  Days  of  Law  2011  [online].  Brno:  Masarykova  univerzita,  2012  ISBN                              (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                -  Act.  No.  1/1993  Coll.,  Constitution  of  the  Czech  Republic,  as                                 amended (Czech)                              -  Act No. 69/2006 Coll., on Carrying Out of International Sanctions,                                 as amended (Czech)                              -  Act  No.  150/2002  Coll.,  Code  of  Administrative  Justice,  as                                 amended (Czech)                              -  The Anti-Taliban Order 2000 (Swiss)                              -  The United Nations Act 1946 (British)                              -  The Terrorism Order 2006 (British)                              -  The Al-Qaida and Taliban Order 2006 (British)                                  JUDGMENTS                                 International cases                              -  Judgment  of  the  Court  (Grand  Chamber)  of  3  September  2008,                                 Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v                                 Council of the European Union and Commission of the European                                 Communities, joined cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P.                                  National judgments                              -  Judgment of the (Swiss) Federal Court of 14 November 2007, case                                 1A.45/2007/daa.                              -  Judgement  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  Kingdom,  Her                                 Majesty’s Treasury (Respondent) v. Mohammed Jabar Ahmed and                                 others (FC) (Appellants) Her  Majesty’s  Treasury (Respondent)  v.                                 Mohammed  al-Ghabra  (FC)  (Appellant)  R  (on  the  application  of                                 Hani  El  Sayed  Sabaei  Youssef)  (Respondent)  v.  Her  Majesty’s                                 Treasury (Appellant), 27 January 2010 (2010) UKSC 2.                                  PUBLICATIONS                              -  Malenovský,  J.:  Mezinárodní  právo  veřejné: jeho  obecná  část  a                                 poměr   k   jiným   právním   systémům,   zvláště   k   právu                                 českému, Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2008, 551 s, ISBN 978-80-                                 210-4474-6.                                  ELECTRONIC SOURCES                              -  Eleventh  report  of  the  Analytical  Support  and  Sanctions                                 Implementation Monitoring Team established pursuant to Security                                 Council  resolution  1526  (2004)  and  extended  by  resolution  1904                                 (2009)  concerning  Al-Qaida  and  the  Taliban  and  associated                                 individuals  and  entities.  Security  Council  Committee  pursuant  to                                 resolutions  1267  (1999)  and  1989  (2011)  concerning  Al-Qaida                                 and associated individuals and entities [online]. Published 13 April                                 2011   [cited   25   December     2011].   Available   from:                                 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2011/245.                              -  Exposé  des  Faits:  Nada  vs.  Switzerland.  The  European  Court  of                                 Human  Rights  [online].  Published  17  March  2009  [cited  30                                 December           2011].           Available          from:                                 http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html\&document                                                                    88","Dny  práva  2011  –  Days  of  Law  2011  [online].  Brno:  Masarykova  univerzita,  2012  ISBN                              (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                   Id=848716\&portal=hbkm\&source=externalbydocnumber\&table=F                                 69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649.                              -  General  Information  on  the  Work  of  the  Committee.  Security                                 Council      Committee       pursuant     to      resolutions                                 1267   (1999)   and   1989    (2011)   concerning   Al-Qaida                                 and associated individuals and entities [online]. Created 31 January                                 2007     [20     December      2011].    Available     from:                                 http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/information.shtml.                              -  International Sanctions. Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic                                 [online].  Last  modified  15  December  2011  [cited  20  December                                 2011]                     Available                    from:                                 http://www.mfcr.cz/cps/rde/xchg/mfcr/xsl/EN_Internat_sanction.ht                                 ml.                               -  The List established and maintained by the Committee pursuant to                                 resolutions    1267     (1999)      and     1989      (2011)                                 with    respect   to   individuals,   groups,   undertakings                                 and other entities associated with Al-Qaida. The Security Council                                 Committee  pursuant  to  resolutions  1267  (1999)  and  1989  (2011)                                 concerning                                          Al-Qaida                                 and  associated  individuals  and  entities  [online].  Last  updated  30                                 December  2011  [cited  31  December  2011].  Available  from:                                 http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/aq_sanctions_list.shtml.                               Contact – email                              lucienechvatalova@centrum.cz                                                                                                             89","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                      EVOLUTIVE INTERPRETATION AND THE                               MARGIN OF APPRECIATION DOCTRINE - THE                                                                                 1                                         VIEW OF NATIONAL COURTS                                                      MARTIN KOPA                                  Palacky University in Olomouc, Faculty of Law, Department of                                          Constitutional and Public International Law                                 Abstract in original language                              This  working  paper  might  provide  more  questions  than  answers                              because it is concerned with a highly complex issue of interpreting the                              European  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  and                              Fundamental  Freedoms.  Particularly,  it  focuses  on  clash  of  three                              interpretational approaches  - originalism and evolutive interpretation                              which  might  get  further  mixed  up  by  the  margin  of  appreciation                              doctrine.  All this  is  analyzed  from  the  perspective  of  national  court                              asking - how should I interpret the Convention in the instant case? It is                              a working paper of a part of an article I am preparing on this issue.                               Key words in original language                              European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human                              Rights,  originalism,  textualism,  evolutive  interpretation,  subsidiarity                              principle, margin of appreciation doctrine                               Complexity  of  human  rights  protection  in  Europe  poses  national                              courts  in  a  position  one  does  not  really  envy.  National  judges                              especially at the highest courts often have to ask themselves: \"Should                              I  stick  to  the  original  text  of  the  European  Convention  on  Human                                    2                              Rights  and its meaning or should I stick to the existing case-law of                              Strasbourg Court or should I interpret the Convention evolutively and                              subsume the case under one of the rights and freedoms safeguarded by                              the Convention although I might be creating a \"new\" right which the                              drafters of the Convention never thought of?\". There are many more                              questions we could add to this list, such as: \"Does this fall within my                              margin of appreciation or am I on the verge of violating this party's                              right?\" One last thought could also be: \"It is going to be better, if I                              send  this  to  Luxembourg,  I  will  gain  some  time  and  those  smart                              judges of the Court of Justice will tell me what to do, here.\"                               In  the  following  text,  I  will  try  to  outline  the  many  possibilities                              national courts and their judges have in their efforts to resolve the hard                              situations described above. With respect to the subsidiarity principle,                              the decision of a national judge on interpretation and application of                                1 This working paper has been written in the course of implementing a grant                              project of Student grant competition \"Antidiscrimination law and the margin                              of appreciation doctrine\" no. PF_2011_002                               2 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental                              Freedoms (hereinafter \"Convention\")                                                                   90","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 the Convention in the case before him has far reaching practical and                              imminent  consequences  on  the  observance  of  human  rights  and                              fundamental freedoms of those involved.                               1. EVOLVED VS. ORIGINAL                               Basically, when applying the Convention, one might turn to multiple                              versions  of  it,  depending  on  the  doctrine  they  espouse.  Judges  are                              bound by the law on one hand, but pretty free in the methodology of                              intepreting it which gives them an enormous power in practice, as I                              will  describe  further.  Judges  generally  have  an  option  to  choose                              between \"original\" Convention and \"evolved\" Convention. What are                              the pros and cons of such a choice?                              Firstly, let us analyze the probable minority of judges which choose                              the  \"original\"  Convention.  More  precisely,  they  turn  to  the  original                              text of the Convention and its meaning before they do anything else. If                              I  were  to  paraphrase  famous  quotation  by  Justice  David  Josiah                              Brewer,  who  served  as  an  Associate  Justice  of  the  United  States                              Supreme  Court  in  the  turning  point  of  19th  and  20th  century,  with                              respect to the Convention, I might say: \"The Convention is a written                              instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant                                                            3                              when adopted, it means now.\"  I could not have mentioned a better                              explanation  of  so-called  \"originalism\"  which  has  a  number  of                              supporters.  Probably,  the  most  significant  of  them  still  are  Antonin                              Scalia and Clarence Thomas, current Associate Justices of the U. S.                              Supreme Court. Their arguments in favor of originalism are based on                              the  formal  nature  of  law  as  its  purportedly  most  important  feature.                              They say that law does not change in time. For law to change, it has to                              be amended by those who have the competence and mainly legitimacy                              to do so. In their opinion, if the law changed in time, principle of legal                              certainty would have gone to the dogs. And therefore, in accordance                              with the theory of originalism, we ought to interpret the text of a law                              (the Convention, in our case) correspondingly to what the text meant                                                            4                              when it was legitimately adopted . In case the law needed changing,                              originalists argue that the only way to do so is by amending the law.                               There is one more strong argument put forward by originalists - they                              have easy answers to the most controversial issues. Why should there                              be a right to abortion since the drafters never gave it a thought and the                              Convention has not been amended in that respect? There simply isn't                                   3 see Letsas, G. A Theory of Interpetation of the European Convention on                              Human Rights. New York, Oxford University Press, 2009. p. 58; and mainly,                              see case South Carolina v United States 199 US 437, 448 (1905)                               4 in detail, see Scalia, A., Gutmann, A. A matter of interpretation: Federal                              Courts and the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997 or Scalia, A.,                              Ring,  K.  Scalia  dissents:  writings  of  the  Supreme  Court's  wittiest,  most                              outspoken justice. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2004.                                                                   91","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                    5                              any .  Correspondingly,  how  can  there  be  any  environmental  rights                              arising out of the Convention if there is not a word about them in the                              text of it and Member States as the only subjects who can amend the                              Convention by means of new protocols have never done so? That is                              the usual line of argument followed by fans of originalism. They also                              usually say that every day is a new day and if evolutionists were right,                              then no one could be sure of what the law in his case is, actually.                               To clarify and summarize the position of originalists, there are three                              pillars  they  love  the  most  -  textualism,  formalism  and  legitimate                              changes of law. It follows that history also has an important part in the                              originalistic  interpretation.  We  may  go  into  a  lot  more  detailed                              analysis of originalism but in my opinion, the information mentioned                              above is sufficient for the rest of this working paper.                               On the other hand, supporters of the evolutive interpretation naturally                              have the opposite opinion. They claim that the Convention is a \"living                              instrument  which…must  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  present-day                                        6                              conditions\" . In their view, this position corresponds with the object                              and purpose of the Convention which must adapt to present standards                              and not the standards existing in the 50's when the Convention was                                     7                              adopted . In other words, they respond to originalists: Why should we                              look  back  to  history,  if  we're  protecting  human  rights,  now?                              Convention as a \"dead instrument\" would be useless in today's Europe                              as  it  might  lead  to  actual  violations  of  what  is  regarded  as  human                              rights today.                               Well, what does the European Court of Human Rights respond to both                              groups of opponents? Leading case in this matter is the case Golder v                                  8                              UK . Golder was the first case where both rivals clashed for the first                              time.  The  question  was  whether  there  is  a  right  of  access  to  court                              within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention which regulates the                              right to a fair trial. It was the then British judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice                              who carried the flag of originalism against the evolutionist majority in                              his dissent to the Golder decision. His argument was in line with so-                                                                 9                              called intentionalist wing of originalists  which argues that the drafters                               5 I fully recommend to watch an interview with Justice Scalia on these issues                              available   at   the   website   of   University   of   California   here:                              <http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=20773>                               6  Harris,  D.,  O'Boyle,  M.,  Warbrick,  C.  et  al.:  Law  of  the  European                              Convention on Human Rights, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. p.                              7,  see  also  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  decision  inTyrer  v  UK,                              Judgment of 25 April 1978, application no. 5856/72                                7 Harris, D. et al.: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, p. 7                              8 Golder v UK, Judgment of 21 February 1975, application no. 4451/70                               9  Letsas:  A  Theory  of  Interpretation,  p.  60  and  p. 64,  the second  wing  of                              originalists is called textualism and it says that the text of the Convention has                              to be attributed with a meaning it had at the time of its enactment                                                                   92","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 should have expressly included this particular right in the text of the                              Convention  if  they  thought  that  it  ought  to  be  safeguarded  by  it.                              Nonetheless,  although  his  arguments  might  seem  as  persuasive  to  a                              reader,  majority  of  the  plenum  chose  to  interpret  the  Convention                              evolutively and it began the history of evolutive interpretation of the                              Convention  which  prevails  in  its  application  up  to  now.  The  well-                              known concept of a Convention which \"guarantees not rights which                                                                                           10                              are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective\"                                                                                  11                              and a concept of the Convention as a \"living instrument\"  followed.                              From  then  on,  we  may  speak  of  the  \"fall  of  originalism\"  in  the                              interpretation of the Convention.                               Why is that? In  my opinion, it is simply because law has to accord                              society and as it changes, so the law has to adapt to it. As far as human                              rights  protection  is  concerned,  values  of  European  society  have                              tremendously  changed in unforeseeable  ways.  And  it  is  not feasible                              for the Contracting States to say at one point every fortnight: \"Hey,                              haven't  the  values  changed  regarding  this  human  right?  They  have,                              right? Ok, let's adopt a new protocol.\" Neglecting these sociological                              and economic impacts on law would only lead to broadening a gap                              between reality of life and the law, namely human rights protection.                              Besides,  the  text  of  the  Convention  is  never  capable  of  being                              applicable to all possible life situations and as such, there cannot be a                              better subject to make European human rights law complete, than the                              European Court of Human Rights. Currently, courts generally have to                              participate  on  law-making  process  and  its  deficiencies,  mainly  the                              gaps in written law. European Court of Human Rights is legitimized to                              \"adapt\"  the  law  of  the  Convention  in  such  a  manner  by  the  High                              Contracting  Parties  of  the  Convention  which  fully  acknowledge  the                              Court's  case-law.  Besides,  as  George  Letsas  aptly  points  out,                                                                                         12                              Convention does not say a word about how it should be interpreted .                              But before I entangle the whole issue a little with one more doctrine,                              let's  get  back  to  national  courts,  now.  After  the  respective  theories                              have  been  outlined  and  actual  interpretative  direction  of  the                              Convention has been pointed out, imagine you are a national judge in                              one of the countries of Council of Europe and you're dealing with a                              case where \"inhuman and degrading treatment\" has been argued. The                              case concerns an Asian employee who was  verbally attacked by his                              boss by being repeatedly called names one might regard as offensive,                              another  one  might  think  the  boss  abuses  his  power  to  degrade  the                              employee. You might reckon: \"How do I objectively establish what is                                10  see  Artico  v Italy,  Judgment  of  13  May  1980,  application  no. 6694/74,                              para.  33,  see  also  Harris,  D.  et  al.:  Law  of  the  European  Convention  on                              Human  Rights,  p. 15  or  Jacobs,  F. G.,  White,  R.,  Ovey,  C.  The  European                              Convention  on  Human  Rights.  New  York  :  Oxford  Universty  Press,  2010,                              p. 74                               11 see Airey v Ireland, Judgment of 9 October 1979, application no. 6289/73                               12 Letsas: A Theory of Interpretation, p. 68                                                                   93","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 inhuman and degrading treatment\"? You might try to find an answer                              in the existing case-law of the Strasbourg Court but what if you do not                              find an explicit answer? Knowing the subsidiarity principle poses the                              obligation of protecting human rights on you in the first place, can you                              adhere  to  evolutive  interpretation  and  \"find  a  new  meaning\"  of  the                              Convention's  text  which  might  even  lead  to  \"finding  a  new  human                              right\"?  Or  should  you  stick  either  to  the  text  and  the  meaning  you                              think  it  has  or  the  existing  case-law  only  which  you  follow  to  the                              letter?  Doesn't  the  case-law  begin  to  have  similar  features  to                              originalism,  if  you  simply  follow  it  without  even  thinking  of  its                              possible evolving and future changing? How does it change, then? Is it                              only European Court of Human Rights who may indicate the direction                              in evolutive interpretation? If yes, then isn't that too late and doesn't                              that contradict the subsidiarity principle?                               These are all very actual questions that national judges have to answer                              in practice. No wonder that more and more judges tend to adopt the                              best  interpretational  method  -  common  sense.  Methodological                              correctness  of  finding  what  is  lawful in  particular  cases  gets  harder                              and  harder  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  judges  in  current  multilevel                              system of laws get easily lost. And it can get even more complicated                              with  the  margin  of  appreciation  doctrine.  Let  us  see  what                              consequences this doctrine may have in the next part of this paper.                               2. HOW BIG IS MY MARGIN OF APPRECIATION?                                Simply put, that is one more important question which may be raised                              by  a  judge  of  a  national  court.  There  are  many  cases  in  which  the                              European Court of Human Rights has stated that states enjoy \"certain\"                                                  13                              margin of appreciation  in implementation of obligations arising from                                                                                14                              the  Convention.  In  other  cases,  so-called  \"wide\"   margin  of                                                                                       15                              appreciation has been attributed to states, as well as a \"narrow\"  one.                               13 e.g. Sunday Times v the United Kingdom, Judgment of 26 April 1979,                              application no. 6538/74, para. 62 and many others                               14 out of the more recent cases see e.g. Stummer v Austria (Grand Chamber),                              Judgment of 7 July 2011, application no. 37452/02, paras. 101 and 109 or                              out of the more historical ones see James and others v the United Kingdom,                              Judgment of 21 February 1986, application no. 8793/79                               15 very interesting case in this regard is the case S. H. and others v Austria,                              Judgment of 1 April 2010, application no. 57813/00 where wide margin of                              appreciation  was  attributed  although  the  actual  analysis  suggests  a  very                              narrow margin, see its para. 69 and Kratochvíl, J. The inflation of the margin                              of  appreciation  by  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights.  Netherlands                              Quarterly of Human Rights, 2011, vol. 29, no. 3, p. 347, regarding the narrow                              margin of appreciation see also Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti and Israfilov vs                              Azerbaijan, Judgment of 8 October 2009, application no. 37083/03, para. 67                              or United Communist Party of Turkey and Others vs Turkey, Judgment of                              30 January 1998, application no. 19392/92, para. 46.                                                                     94","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Once again, national judges may get puzzled when after deciding on                              being evolutionist or originalist, they have to measure whether the law                              and  their  future  decisions  fit  within  the  width  of  the  margin  of                              appreciation states have in specific cases. How to measure that? How                              does  the  judge  know  that  he  is  still  observing  the  human  rights                              protection standard falling within the state's margin of appreciation or                              that he is actually violating the right?                               Furthermore, the margin of appreciation doctrine also has a number of                              wings of supporters. You can be a progressivist claiming that it is the                              European  Court  of  Human  Rights  only,  who  is  responsible  for                              safeguarding unified standards of protecting human rights or you can                              be  conservative  and  claim  that  under  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,                              European Court of Human Rights ought to step into the case once the                                                                                           16                              domestic authorities fail to protect human rights at domestic level .                              Especially judges falling within the first category may cast a danger if                              they admit: \"If I get it wrong, then they will get it right in Strasbourg,                              I'm  sure.\"  Therefore,  the  theoretical  concept  which  the  judge                              incorporates into his decision as to the margin of appreciation doctrine                              visibly has far-reaching consequences and in practice, it may lead to a                              whole lot of new questions. For example, what happens if the width of                              the margin of appreciation specified in the case-law of the European                              Court of Human Rights evolves and gets wider or narrower?                               3. CONCLUSION                                As I have mentioned in the beginning, this working paper was going                              to raise more questions than answers. With regard to all the theoretical                              concepts,  it  is  probably  not  even  possible  to  provide  generally                              applicable  solutions.  Practical  consequences  of  a  judge's  choice  to                              decide  as  an  originalist,  intentionalist,  textualist,  evolutionist,                              progressivist or conservativist may lead to ends we are not even able                              to imagine, now.                               It  is  worth  noting  that  all  judges  bring  their  own  values  into  their                              decision-making. Judges are not slot machines where you put factual                              background and you \"win\" a decision based only on the text of law                              and nothing else. Honestly, I am a bit scared of such an image of a                              judge as a robot. On the other hand, supporters of textualism prefer                              robotic judges, e. g. Antonin Scalia said in one if his interviews that an                              ideal rule for an honest judge when applying the law (i.e. meaning of                                   16 Greer, Steven. The Margin of Appreciation: Interpretation and Discretion                              under  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights.  Strasbourg:  Council  of                              Europe,  2000.  p.  19  et  seq.;  Letsas:  A  Theory  of  interpretation,  p.  91;                              Lavender,  Nicholas.  The  Problem  of  Margin  of  Appreciation.  European                              Human  Rights  Law  Review,  1997.  no.  4,  p.  381;  Cossey  v.  the  United                              Kingdom,  Judgment  of  27  September  1990,  application  no.  10843/84  and                              many other following this judgment                                                                   95","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                                               17                              its text when adopted) is \"Garbage in, garbage out\" . Anyway, legal                              orientation  in  the  mass  of  law  is  slowly  reaching  the  very  limit  of                              human abilities. In practice, European judges have to apply domestic                              law, international law and EU law, all of them connected with tons of                              doctrines making the work of a judge unbearable.                               Eventually, I would like to invite you to share your thoughts on the                              questions  raised  in  this  short  working  paper  which  may  help  me  in                              finding as many answers as possible that I could include in the paper                              to  be  published  in  International  and  Comparative  Law  Review. Just                              like  the  judges  in  practice,  I  do  not  want  end  up  in  front  of  my                              computer not knowing what to do.                                 Literature:                              -  Greer,  Steven.  The  Margin  of  Appreciation:  Interpretation  and                                 Discretion  under  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights.                                 Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2000. 58 pages. ISBN 9287143501                              -  - Harris, D., O'Boyle, M., Warbrick, C. et al.: Law of the European                                 Convention on Human Rights. New York: Oxford University Press,                                 2009. 902 pages. ISBN 9780406905949                              -  - Jacobs, F. G., White, R., Ovey, C. The European Convention on                                 Human  Rights.  New  York  :  Oxford  Universty  Press,  2010.  644                                 pages. ISBN 9780199543380                              -  - Kratochvíl, J. The inflation of the margin of appreciation by the                                 European Court of Human Rights. Netherlands Quarterly of Human                                 Rights, 2011, vol. 29, no. 3, pages 324 - 357                              -  -  Lavender,  Nicholas.  The  Problem  of  Margin  of  Appreciation.                                 European Human Rights Law Review, 1997. no. 4, pages 380 - 390                              -  - Letsas, G. A Theory of Interpetation of the European Convention                                 on Human Rights. New York, Oxford University Press, 2009. 300                                 pages. ISBN 9780199563883                              -  - Scalia, A., Gutmann, A. A matter of interpretation: Federal Courts                                 and  the  law.  Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press,  1997.  159                                 pages. ISBN 9780691004006                              -  -  Scalia,  A.,  Ring,  K.  Scalia  dissents:  writings  of  the  Supreme                                 Court's  wittiest,  most  outspoken  justice.  Washington,  D.C.:                                 Regnery Publishing, 2004. 338 pages. ISBN 9780895260536                              -                               Contact – email                              martin.kopa@upol.cz                                   17  see  interview  conducted  by  Peter  Robinson  of  The  Hoover  Institution                              available   under     this   particular   link    at    :     <                              http://fora.tv/2009/02/23/Uncommon_Knowledge_Antonin_Scalia >                                                                   96","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                                                                                                                     97","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                     INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF                                   EUROPEAN LAW IN CONSTITUTIONAL                              COURT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC CASE LAW                                                    SOŇA MATOCHOVÁ                                              Constitutional Court, Czech Republic                                Abstract in original language                              N/A                               Key words in original language                              Ústavní soud; princip přednosti; aplikace unijního práva.                               Abstract                              N/A.                               Key words                              Constitutional Court; Supremacy principle; Application of EU Law.                                  I.  General  Role  of  Constitutional  Courts  and  Introductory                              Remarks about the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic                               The  fact  that  in  the  legal  environment  of  the  Czech  Republic  (CR)                              national, international and European law are present, and it is true also                              about  the  European  Union  (EU)  individual  states,  determines  the                              complexity  of  the  current  legal  systems.  In  the  legal  order,  quite                              naturally, both theoretical and practical questions of mutual relations,                              preferences or possible conflicts among the above legal systems arise.                              Under  such  circumstances,  both  legal  interpretation  and  use  of                              interpretative  overbridging  principles  have  its  high  importance.  The                              fact  that  the  CR  has  acceded  to  the  existing  EU  legal  system  both                              enabled  to  use  previous  experiences  of  member  states  and                              predetermined possible solutions.                               Judicial  interpretation  has  its  place  among  different  types  of                              interpretation.  Although  its  role  in  individual  states  differs,                              constitutional  judiciary  has  significant  role  in  the  process  of  legal                              interpretation.  It  is  important  to  stress  that  substantial    role  of                              constitutional courts in relation to the EU law was not supposed in the                              early stages of the European integration. It won its way later on the                              basis of decision making  activity of some constitutional courts. The                              role  of  constitutional  courts  was  connected  with  their  role  as  a                              guardian  of  state  sovereignty  and  rule  of  law  state.  Generally,  the                              relation between constitutional case law and the Court of Justice of the                              European Union (ECJ) case law can be characterized as complicated,                              theoretically difficult and developing in the course of time. After the                              Lisabon Treaty, role of constitutional courts is strengthening together                              with national identity concept development.                                                                    98","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 As  far  as  the  real  role  of  constitututional  judiciary  in  individual                              member states, it depends both on legal regulation and factual position                              of  constitutional  courts.  There  is  no  uniform  approach  of                              constitutional  courts  towards  the  EU  law  issues  in  the  European                              context. In a very simplified manner, it is possible to speak about three                              models. The first one is that constitutional courts do not deal with the                              EU law issues, the second one, they deal with them only in restricted                              extent, e.g. from the point of view of human rights or constitutionality,                              and the third one, they review the EU law as quasi constitutional one.                               Generally, constitutional courts can review most often conformity of                              the  EU  founding  treaties  or  their  amendments  with  constitutional                              order  of  the  respective  country  or  the  constitutionality  of  both  the                              transfer  of  national  powers  to  the  EU  and its  extent.  They  can  also                              comment on the obligation to refer a preliminary question either from                              the  side  of  constitutional  court  or  ordinary  court  or  express                              overbridging principles of mutual relation between national law and                              the EU law.                              In order to answer the question which particular issues related to the                              European law can be adjudicated by the Constitutional Court of the                              Czech Republic (CC of the CR) and in what extent, it is necessary to                              come out from the CR Constitution and the Act No. 182/1993 Col., on                              the Constitutional Court. Under Art. 83 of the Constitution, the CC of                              the  CR  is  the  judicial  body  responsible  for  the  protection  of                              constitutionality. Generally, the CC of the CR has very broad powers                              both in the sphere of abstract abd concrete review. The abstract review                              is  the  review  of  norms  under  Art.  87  par.  1  letter  a)  and  b)  of  the                              Constitution.  The  concrete  review  covers  the  review  of  individual                              constitutional complaints  of  natural  and  legal  persons  under  Art.  87                              par.  1  letter  d)  of  the  Constitution.  Nevertheless,  the  very  essential                              power in this context is the preventive review of international treaties                              under Art. 10a and Art. 49, the new power effected before ratification                              of  the  reviewed  treaties  introduced  by  the  amendment  of  the                              Constitution  395/2001  Coll.,  so  called  „Euro-Amendment“  of  the                              Constitution.                               Herein, it is possible to characterise the CC of the CR as belonging to                              the courts endowed with strong competences; both preventive review                              of international treaties, abstract review and individual constitutional                              complaint are available. Generally we can speak about high standard                              of  constitutional  review  in  the  CR.  Furthermore,  the  Czech  CC                              belongs to the so-called active courts which can be demonstrated at                              least by number of adjudicated cases and their relevance. Under Art.                              89 par. 2 of the CR Constitution, the Court´s decisions are binding on                              all organs and institutions.                               If this contribution will speak about the CC of the CR case law related                              to the EU law, it will have in mind such decisions which deals in some                              way either by the relation between EU law and constitutional law or                              by  the  transfer  of  international  obligations  following  from  the                              accession of the CR into the EU, irrespective of type of proceedings.                              The  following  text  will  follow  the  CC  case  law  development  in                                                                   99","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 relation to the European law. The full text of all decisions cited below                              is  available  in  English  language  at  CC  of  the  CR  web  page                              www.usoud.cz.                               II. The References to the EU Law in the Constitutional Court of                              the CR Case Law before the Entrance into EU                                By way of introduction it is possible to mention briefly that the CC of                              the  CR  case  law  had  reacted  to  community  law  by  means  of  some                              references even before the entrance into the EU. For example, in its                              judgment  III.  ÚS  31/97  „Abuse  of  Dominant  Position“,  the  CC  in                              connection  with  interpretation  of  abuse  of  dominant  position  has                              pronounced that it is not possible to consider as unconstitutional that                              interpretation which came out from the competition rules regulated by                              the Treaty Establishing EC. The CC has explained that both this treaty                              and the EU Treaty come out from the same principles and values on                              which also the constitutional order of the CR is based.                               Further  on, in  its judgment  Pl.  ÚS  39/01  „Sugar  Quota  II“,  the  CC                              either referred to relevant ECJ case and indicated that „it cannot be                              overlooked  that  one  of  the  main  motivations  for  introducing  a                              production quota system for some agricultural and food products was                              the creation of a framework which is applied in the European Union.                              Radical  intervention  by  the  CC  against  production  quota  systems                              would  be  a  step  toward  a  conception  of  domestically  guaranteed                              fundamental rights which would not hold up after the CR’s entry into                              the European Union, which is being prepared“.                               It  is  possible  to  state  that  the  CC´s  approach  can  be  considered  as                              logical  and  well-founded  when  taking  into  account  in  its  decision-                              making  the  forthcoming  entrance  into  the  EU  and  the  process  of                              approximation of law in the sphere of competition law and agricultural                              quotas  which  was  under  way.  Besides  that,  the  CC  of  the  CR                              demonstrated its evident interest to deal with the EU law issues in the                              future.                               III. The EU Law in the Constitutional Court of the CR Case Law                              after the Entrance into the EU                               A. Introducing of Particular Issues in Relation to the EU law                               After the entrance of the CR into the EU, i. e. after 1 January, 2004,                              mainly the experts has awaited the reaction of the CC of the CR to                              some particular questions related to the EU law. It is possible to make                              examples of some some of these questions:                                     What will be the CC of the CR approach to the EU law? Will                                     it be reviewing the EU law? If yes, by which manner and in                                     what  extent?  What  will  be  the  referential  criteria  for  such                                     review?                                    On  which  constitutional  basis  will  the  EU  law  work  in                                     national legal order (including questions related to Art. 10 and                                     Art. 10a of the CR Constitution)?                                                                 100","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                       Can the CC of the CR refer a preliminary question to the ECJ?                                     Is there an ordinary court´s obligation to refer a preliminary                                     question?                                    Will  be  the  CC  of  the  CR  formulating  the  interpretative                                     principles in relation to the EU law?                                    Is the Lisbon Treaty in conformity with constitutional order of                                     the CR?                                    Can  the  existing  CC  case  law  be  considered  as  settled  or                                     uniform?                              As far as the above questions, at the moment it is possible to state that                              the  CC  of  the  CR  has  pronounced  upon  them  in  several  decisions,                              very  often  even  repeatedly.  The  CC  complied  with  this  task  in                              relatively  very  short  period  of  time,  especially  when  we  take  into                              account the complexity of raised questions. It is appropriate to stress                              that overall number of CC decisions related to the EU law questions is                              not  very  numerous  as  it  follows  from  the  Table  1  specifying  the                              overview of most important CC decisions related to the EU law. In                              years  2006  –  2010  the  CC  of  the  CR  has  dealt  with  about  ten                              significant  decisions  related  to  the  EU  law,  i.  e.  in  average  2  or  3                              decisions a year.                               Table  I.  Overview  of  most  important  CC  of  the  CR  decisions                              related to the EU law                               „Sugar Quota III“           8 March, 2006     Judgment  Pl.  ÚS                                                                            50/04                                „Burden    of    Proof   –  26 April, 2006    Judgment  Pl.  ÚS                              Discrimination“                               37/04                               „European Arrest Warrant“   3 May, 2006       Judgment  Pl.  ÚS                                                                            66/04                               „Reimbursement          of  16 January, 2007  Judgment  Pl.  ÚS                              Medications“                                  36/05                                „Squeeze Out“               27 March, 2008    Judgment  Pl.  ÚS                                                                            56/05                               „Lisbon I“                  26    November,  Judgment  Pl.  ÚS                                                          2008              19/08                               „Non-Applicability      of  2     December,  Resolution  Pl.  ÚS                              Contested                   2008              12/08                               Provision“                               „Ordinary  Court  Obligation  8 January, 2009   Judgment  II.  ÚS                              to Refer                                      1009/08                                                                      101","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 a Preliminary Question“                               „Lisbon II“                 3     November,  Judgment  Pl.  ÚS                                                          2009              29/09                               „State  Responsibility  for  9 February, 2011  Judgment  IV.  ÚS                              Damage  Caused  by  the  EU                   1521/10                              Law Violation“                                 The  following  text  based  on  the  CC  case  law  enumerates  by                              transparent manner adjudicated questions and principles expressed in                              individual decisions. So far, the CC was dealing with different aspects                              of relation to both the EU law and EU organs. It is rational and logical                              to deal with individual decisions in chronological order. The reason is                              that the late decisions both follow up and confirmed the earlier ones.                              In  this  connection  the  principle  of  binding  force  of CC  decisions  is                              important (see Pl. ÚS 11/02).                               B.  Individual  decisions  relating  to  the  EU  Law  in  the                              Constitutional Court of the CR case law                               1.“Sugar Quota Regulation III“, Pl. ÚS 50/04                               The judgment Pl. ÚS 50/04 was dealing with the complaint of group                              of  deputies  proposing  the  annulment  of  some  provisions  of                              government  regulation  laying  down  the  allocation  of  individual                              production  quotas  as  a  merit.  The  complainants  expressed  their                              conviction  that  the  newly  adopted  Regulation  No.  364/2004  Sb.,  in                              particular §§ 3 and 16 thereof, was unconstitutional and substantively                              discriminatory in relation to certain producers.                               Historically, this was the first decision of the CC of the CR dealing                              with  EU  law.  This  decision  has  attempted  to  answer  the  greatest                              possible number of questions related to community law. Nevertheless,                              it  has  brought  not  only  answers  but  it  has  also    raised  some  new                              questions  and  provoked  discussion.  Especially  the  issue  of                              interpretation  of  Art.  10  and  Art.  10a  of  the  Constitution  and                              explanation  of  quotas  implementation  by  means  of  government                              regulation were subject of experts discussion.                               From the CC reasoning, it is possible to deduce the acceptance of the                              aplication  precedence  principle  (but  not  a  doctrine  of  absolute                              preference  over  the  all  constitutional  law),  conditional  conferral  of                              powers to EU organs and recognition of current level of protection of                              fundamental rights within Community as comparable with protection                              provided in the CR. The CC has adjudicated the meritum of the case                              in  light  of  both  principles  following  from  community  and  national                              law.  Also  the  possibility  of  the  CC  to  refer  a  preliminary  question,                              assessment of criteria resulting from ECJ case law and interpretation                              of  Art.  10  and  Art.  10a  of  the  Constitution  were  elaborated.  The                                                                   102","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 following  text  will  specify  some  important  parts  of  the  above                              judgment.                               Applicational precedence of community law                               The CC has started with the question of the degree to which it is authorized                              to adjudge the constitutional conformity of legal norms tied up with the EU                              law. It stated that it is not competent to assess the validity of community law                              norms. Such questions fall within the exclusive competence of the European                              Court of Justice. Community law norms enjoy applicational precedence over                              the legal order of Member States of the EU.                              Not doctrine of absolute precedence                               Then  the  CC  has  stressed  that  even  several  high  courts  of  older  member                              States (Germany, Italy, Ireland, Denmark) have never entirely acceded to a                              doctrine of the absolute precedence of community law over the entirety of                              constitutional law. They retained a certain reserve to interpret principles such                              as the democratic law-based state and the protection of fundamental rights.                              Therefore, it should be also the obligation of the CC, the judicial body for the                              protection of constitutionality of one of the recently acceded Member States,                              to express its view on these issues.                               Transfer of certain powers                               The CC has explained that Art. 10a, which was added to the Constitution of                              the CR by Constitutional Act No. 395/2001 Sb. (the „Euro-Amendment“ to                              the Constitution), constitutes a provision that makes possible the transfer of                              certain  powers  of  Czech  state  organs  to  international  organizations  or                              institutions, thus primarily to the European Community and its organs. At the                              moment, the powers of all relevant national organs are restricted to the extent                              of the powers that are being exercised by EC organs, regardless of whether                              they are powers of norm creation or powers of individual decision-making.                               Conditional conferral of a part of the CC powers                               Nevertheless,  in  the  CC’s  view,  this  conferral  of  a  part  of  its  powers  is  a                              conditional  conferral,  as  the  original  bearer  of  sovereignty,  as  well  as  the                              powers  flowing  therefrom,  still  remains  the  CR,  whose  sovereignty  is                              founded upon Art. 1 par. 1 of the Constitution of the CR.  In other words, the                              delegation of a part of the powers of national organs may persist only so long                              as  these  powers  are  exercised  in  a  manner  that  is  compatible  with  the                              preservation  of  the  foundations  of  state  sovereignty  of  the  CR,  and  in  a                              manner  which  does  not  threaten  the  very  essence  of  the  substantive  law-                              based state.                               Referential  framework  for  the  CC,  interpretation  by  means  of                              community law principles                               The  CC  added  that  although  its  referential  framework  has  remained,  even                              after  1  May  2004,  the  norms  of  the  CR’s  constitutional  order,  it  cannot                              entirely overlook the impact of community law on the formation, application,                              and  interpretation  of  national  law. In  other  words,  in  this  field  the  CC                              interprets constitutional law taking into account the principles arising from                              Community law.                               Current standard for the protection of fundamental rights                                                                  103","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 In  the  CC’s  view,  the  current  standard  for  the  protection  of  fundamental                              rights  within  the  Community  cannot  give  rise  to  the  assumption  that  this                              standard is of a lower quality than the protection accorded in the CR, or that                              the standard of protection markedly diverges from the standard up till now                              provided in the domestic setting by the CC.                               Interpretation of Art. 10a of the Constitution                               The CC also  has  interpreted  Art. 10a of the Constitution  of the  CR and it                              explained that it operates in two directions:  it forms the normative basis for                              the  transfer  of  powers  and  is  simultaneously  that  provision  of  the  Czech                              Constitution  which  opens  up  the  national  legal  order  to  the  operation  of                              Community law, including rules relating to its effects within the legal order                              of the CR                              The preliminary question                               The CC has dealt with the question as to whether it can be considered a court                              in the sense of Art. 234 of the EC Treaty, or in which type of proceedings,                              and although it has not adjudicated this question in detail, it did not excluded                              such possibility in the future.                               2. „European Arrest Warrant“, Pl. ÚS 66/04                               The  group  of  both  senators  and  deputies  sought  the  annulment  of                              Criminal  Law  and  Criminal  Procedure  Code  provisions  which                              implemented European Arrest Warrant in accordance with Framework                              Decision on the European Arrest Warrant. According to complainants,                              the contested provisions enabling the CR to surrender its own citizens                              to other Member States of the European Union were in contradiction                              with Art. 14 par. 4 of the Constitution of the CR.                               Judgment Pl. ÚS 66/04, so called European Arrest Warrant, came in                              very short time period after the judgment  Pl. ÚS 50/04 and reiterated                              some  of  its  conclusions.  In  this  judgment,  the  CC  coped  especially                              with  the  third  pillar  issues  (not  more  topical  at  the  moment  due  to                              abolition  of  pillar  system  by  the  Lisbon  Treaty)  and  with  difficult                              question  whether  the  amendment  of  Constitution  was  necessary  in                              order  to  extradite  a  citizen  to  the  criminal  prosecution  in  other                              member  state.  In  this  connection,  the  CC  clarified  the  concept  of                              interpretation in conformity with European integration principles.                               Third pillar issues                               Generally,  it  is  possible  to  remark  that  implementation  of  the  third                              pillar  to  legal  order  was  problematic  as  the  Maastricht  Treaty                              disunited  system  in  relation  to  the  implementation  of  obligations  in                              community  and  European  union  law  whereas  the  European  Arrest                              Warrant  come  under  union  law.  Consequently,  the  framework                              agreements did not entail direct effect and the obligation to implement                              them was not enforceable by the ECJ. Also the CC dissenting opinion                              pointed to the problematic character of the framework agreements and                              asserted  that  the  framework  agreements  were,  by  their  nature,                              intergovernmental agreements. The problem solving had been seen in                                                                   104","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 the  removal  of  pillar  structure  which  was  finally  effected  by  the                              Lisbon Treaty.                               Interpretation in conformity with the process of European integration                               In  this  case,  Art.  14  par.  4  was  subject  of  adjudication.  The  first                              sentence of Art. 14 par. 4 of the Charter provides that every citizen                              has  the  right  to  freely  enter  the  Republic.  The  second  sentence                              provides that no citizen may be forced to leave his homeland. The CC                              explained that the prohibition on “forcing one to leave his homeland”                              can be interpreted either broadly or narrowly.                               Then the CC continued that from Article 1 par. 2 of the Constitution,                              in conjunction with the principle of cooperation enshrined in Art. 10                              of the EC Treaty, follows a constitutional principle according to which                              national  legal  enactments,  including  the  Constitution,  should                              whenever  possible  be  interpreted  in  conformity  with  the  process  of                              European  integration  and  the  cooperation  between  European  and                              Member State organs. It follows therefrom that interpretation must be                              selected which supports the fulfillment of those obligations, not one                              which would hinder their fulfillment. These conclusions apply as well                              to the interpretation of Art. 14 par. 4 of the Charter.                               3. „Reimbursement of Medications“, Pl. ÚS 36/05                               The group of senators proposed the annulment of a provision of the                              Act on Public Health Insurance due to its conflict with Art. 36 par. 1                              of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms (hereinafter                              „Charter“)  and  with  community  law  (Art.  6  par.  2  of  the  Directive                              89/105/EEC  relating  to  the  transparency  of  measures  regulating  the                              prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the                              scope  of  national  health  insurance  systems). The  complainants                              claimed  that  authorized  persons  were  denied  the  right  to  judicial                              protection.                               This judgment is another CC of the CR contribution related to the EU                              law. The review in subject matter was realized firstly from the point of                              view  of  Art.  36  of  the  Charter  and  then  from  the  point  of  view  of                              relevant provisons of EU directive. Thus, the CC of the CR came to                              the same conclusions in both respects.                               Interpretation  of  EU  general  principles  corresponding  to  fundamental                              rights                               In its Judgment No Pl. US 50/04 the CC explained that Community                              law could not serve as a referential criterion for its adjudication of the                              constitutionality  of  domestic  enactments.   On  the  other  hand,  the                              European  Communities,  just  the  same  as  is  the  CR,  are  law-based                              communities.   The  European  Communities  are  constructed  on  the                              respect and esteem for the essential attributes of a law-based state.  As                              can  be  deduced  from  the  jurisprudence  of  the  European  Court  of                              Justice, its interpretation of general legal principles corresponding to                                                                    105","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 the fundamental rights contained in national constitutional catalogues,                              is quite similar to the CC’s approach.                               The European Court of Justice has already twice resolved analogous                              issues concerning the level of reimbursement of cost of medicines by                              the national health insurance system. Decisions on inclusion in a list,                              are  covered  by  Art.  6  of  the  Directive,  so  that  they  must  be                              accompanied by the procedural safeguards contained therein. The CC                              had to take this line of argument into account when interpreting Art.                              36 par. 1 or par. 2 of the Charter. Under the existing legal situation,                              the interested persons also cannot obtain judicial protection. The same                              deficiencies of which the European Court of Justice were critical in                              relation  to  the  Directive  are  also  evident  in  the  provisions  under                              review  in  relation  to  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  and  Basic                              Freedoms.                               4. „Squeeze Out“, Pl. ÚS 56/05                               A group of senators sought the annulment of §183i to §183n of the                              Commercial Code which regulated the right to buy out securities, (the                              “buy-out right” or “squeeze-out”). The complainents objected a whole                              range of legal regulation defects, at the first place the conflict with the                              legal  regulation  of  the  buy-out  of  securities  as  contained  in  the                              European  Parliament  and  EC  Directive  2004/25/EC,  so  called  the                              “Thirteenth Directive”.                                The CC of the CR referred to its previous case law and reiterated that                              it is not competent to review community law as its reference point of                              view is constitutional law. The non-use of statute that is inconsistent                              with the EU law is in the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. Therefore,                              the  CC  left  aside  the  part  of  complaint  alleging  the  conflict  with                              community law.                               Constitutional  order  as  a  reference  point  of  view,  jurisdiction  of                              ordinary courts                               Before the CC reviewed the complaint, it had to deal with the part of                              the petitioner’s filing, which is based primarily on an alleged conflict                              between  the  regulation  of  the  right  to  a  forced  buy-out  and  the                              Thirteenth Directive. Here, the CC referred to its previous case law                              (judgments  Pl.  ÚS  50/04,  Pl.  ÚS  36/05)  and  reiterated  that  the                              reference  point  for  review  of  the  constitutionality  of  statutes  under                              Art. 87 par. 1 letter a) and  and Art. 88 par. 2 of the Constitution of the                              CR is the constitutional order. The CC does not have jurisdiction, in                              such proceedings, to review whether domestic law is consistent with                              community law. The community law as directly applicable law. The                              non-use of a statute that is inconsistent with the law of the Community                              is in the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, which, in cases of doubt                              about the application of the law, have the opportunity, or obligation, to                              turn to the European Court of Justice with a preliminary issue under                              Art. 234 of the TEC.                                                                     106","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 5.  „Obligation  of  Ordinary  Court  to  Refer  a  Preliminary                              Question“, II. ÚS 1009/08                               In its constitutional complaint, the complainant objected that several                              of its fundamental rights have been violated, in particular, its right to                              fair  process  under  Art.  36  par.  1  of  the  Charter.  According  to  the                              complainant, the violation of its right to fair process also occurred in                              view of the 9th paragraph of the Preamble to Directive 2001/83/EC,                              which  emphasized  the  protection  of  innovative  firms  from  being                              disadvantaged. This violation consisted in the fact that it was denied                              the opportunity to be a party to the administrative proceeding on the                              registration of the medicinal product.                               Judgment II. ÚS 1009/08 followed up the previous CC case law in the                              sphere  of  the  EU  law  (reference  framework  of  CC  review,  binding                              character  of  community  law).  Moreover  it  developed  right  and                              obligation of ordinary court to refer a preliminary question. In relation                              to  last  instance  court,  the  CC  concluded  that  under  certain                              circumstances,  i.  e.  if  the  last  instance  court  does  nor  refer  a                              preliminary question voluntarily, it violates the right to a lawful judge.                                The obligation to refer preliminatry question                              In  consequence  of  the  CR‘s  accession  to  the  EU,  Czech  courts                              acquired  the  entitlement,  and  in  certain  circumstances  also  become                              subject  to  the  obligation,  to  address  the  European  Court  of  Justice                              („ECJ“)  with  preliminary  questions.  On  the  basis  of  the  third  sub-                              paragraph  of  Article  234  of  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European                              Community, a Member State court, against whose decisions there is                              no  judicial  remedy  under  national  law,  is  obliged  to  refer  a                              preliminary question to the ECJ.                               Right to lawful judge                               CC  hold  that  although  the  referral  of  a  preliminary  question  is  a                              Community law matter, the failure, in conflict with Community law,                              to  make  a  reference  may,  in  certain  circumstances,  also  entrain  a                              violation  of  the  constitutionally-guaranteed  right  to  one’s  lawful                              judge. A violation of the right to one’s lawful judge comes about in                              the  case  where  a  Czech  court  (against  whose  decision  there  is  no                              longer any further remedy afforded by sub-constitutional law) applies                              Community law but fails, in an arbitrary manner, that is, in conflict                              with  the  principle  of  the  law-based  state  (Art.  1  par.  1  of  the                              Constitution of the CR), to refer a preliminary question to the ECJ.                               The CC asserted that it deems as arbitrary action such conduct by a                              court of last instance applying a norm of Community law where that                              court has entirely omitted to deal with the issue whether it should refer                              a preliminary question to the ECJ and has not duly substantiated its                              failure to refer, including the assessment of the exceptions which the                              ECJ  has  elaborated in its jurisprudence.  In  other  words,  it is  a case                              where the court entirely fails to take into consideration the existence                                                                    107","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 of  the  peremptory  rule,  which is  binding  on  it,  contained in  Article                              234 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.                               6. „Non-Applicability of Contested Provision“, Pl. ÚS 12/08                               The  ordinary  Court  in  connection  with  its  decision-making  activity                              claimed  in  the  proceedings  before  the  CC  (Art.  95  par.  2  of  the                              Constitution) the annulment of a provision of the Act on the Operation                              of  Radio  and  Television  Broadcasting,  on  the  basis  of  which  the                              Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting rejected on the merits                              party´s  to  proceeding  request  to  be  granted  a  license  to  digital                              broadcasting. The contested provision precluded the grant of a license                              to  broadcast  radio  and  television  programs  to  an  entrepreneur                              responsible for a network of electronic communications. According to                              the petitioner, such a restriction was both in conflict with Art. 26 par.                              1 of the Charter enshrining the freedom to engage in commercial or                              other economic activity and with some provisions of the EU law.                               Non-application of contested provision                               The CC has explained that it leaves entirely to the discretion of the                              ordinary  court  whether  it  will  concern  itself  with  reviewing  the                              conflict  with  European  Community  law  of  the  statutory  provision                              which it should apply or will focus on the review of its conflict with                              the constitutional order of the CR. If it primarily focuses on the review                              of the conflict with European Community law and asserts, as in this                              case, that the statutory provision under review is in conflict therewith,                              it must draw from its conviction the consequences in accord with the                              Court of Justice’s jurisprudence, that is, that the contested provision                              not be applied.                               Ordinary  court´s  obligation  to  justify  its  conclusion  related  to  the  EU                              law                               The  CC  has  explained  that  it  is  in  principle  not  within  the  CC’s                              competence to interfere with an ordinary court’s considerations as to                              whether its conclusion on the conflict of the contested provision with                              European Community law is well-founded or not. It does, however,                              draw attention to the fact that such conclusion must be duly reasoned,                              otherwise it could become the subject of review on the part of the CC,                              in  the  context  of  a  proceeding  on  a  constitutional  complaint,  as  to                              whether  the  court’s  interpretation  of  the  decisive  legal  norms  is                              foreseeable  and  reasonable,  whether  it  corresponds  to  the  settled                              reasoning  of  judicial  practice,  or  whether,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  an                              arbitrary interpretation which lacks meaningful reasoning, whether it                              diverges  from  the  bounds  of  the  generally  (consensually)  accepted                              understanding of the affected legal institutes, alternatively whether it                              does not represent an extreme or excessive interpretation.                               Prohibition to restrict already achieved procedural level of protection                               The  CC  stipulated  in  its  previous  case  law  the  requirement  that  no                              amendment  to  the  Constitution  may  be  interpreted  in  a  sense  in                                                                  108","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 consequence  of  which the  already  achieved  procedural level for the                              protection of fundamental rights and freedoms would be limited (see                              Judgment No. Pl. ÚS 36/01), which requirement also projects into the                              limits to the transfer of powers to the European Union on the basis of                              Art. 10a of the Constitution. Nevertheless, provided in the instant case                              the Municipal Court did not apply the contested provision, it would                              not be due to its conflict with a human rights convention, rather due to                              its conflict with provisions of European Community law, which has an                              entirely distinguishable character. Moreover, that law operates in the                              CR  legal  order  on  the  basis  of  Art.  10a  of  the  Constitution  (see                              Judgment  No.  Pl.  ÚS  50/04),  and  not  Art.  10,  as  do  human  rights                              conventions,  to  which  the  above-cited  judgment  relates.  Thus,  one                              cannot  state  that  according  applicational  primacy  to  European                              Community law, on the basis of the Court of Justice’s jurisprudence,                              would  create  a  procedural  disparity  that  is  in  no  way  justified  and                              which  would  thereby  impinge  upon  the  substantive  core  of  the                              Constitution.                               7. „Lisbon I“, Pl. ÚS 19/08                               A group of senators claimed to review the conformity of the Lisbon                              Treaty  with  the  Constitution,  both  as  a  whole  and  individual                              provisions thereof. Here, the CC of the CR has dealt for the first time                              by  preventive  review  of  international  treaty.  First,  the  CC  has  to                              address  procedural  questions  related  to  this  type  of  review.  Then,                              judgment Pl. ÚS 19/08 summarized previous case law related to the                              EU law and dealt with issues raised by complainants. Above all, it is                              appropriate  to  stress  that  the  CC  interpreted  in  this  judgment                              assessment  related  both  to  the  interpretation  of  transfer  of  powers                              including its limits and substantial core of Constitution, as it is cited                              below.  Only  marginally  it  is  also  possible  to  remark  that  even  the                              German  Federal  Constitutional  Court  which  adjudicated  the  Lisbon                              Treaty later on, referred in its decision to that part of the Czech CC                              decision related to the control of transfer of powers.                                Delegation of certain powers of CR bodies and concept of sovereignty                               The  CC  explained that  a  simple  linguistic  interpretation  of  Art.  10a                              par. 1 of the Constitution permits delegating only “certain powers of                              bodies of the CR.” That indicates that Art. 10a clearly can not be used                              for  an  unlimited  transfer  of  sovereignty;  in  other  words,  based  on                              Article 10a one can not transfer powers, the transfer of which would                              affect Art. 1 par. 1 of the Constitution to the effect that it would no                              longer be possible to speak of the CR as a sovereign state. Thus, the                              concept of sovereignty, interpreted in the context of Art. 1 par. 1 of                              the Constitution and Art. 10a of the Constitution, clearly shows that                              there  are  certain  limits  to the  transfer  of  sovereignty,  and  failure  to                              observe  them  would  affect  both  Art.  1  par.  1  and  Art.  10a  of  the                              Constitution.                               Substantive core of the Constitution                                                                     109","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 The point of reference for permissibility of a transfer of powers from                              the CR to an international organization is, especially, respecting the                              material  core  of  the  Constitution  under  Art.  9  par.  2  (see  Pl.  ÚS                              19/93).  This  means,  in  particular,  protection  of  fundamental  human                              rights  and  freedoms,  as  they  are  enshrined  in  the  Charter  of                              Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, in the (European) Convention for                              the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in other                              international treaties in this field, and in the settled case law of the CC                              of the CR and the European Court of Human Rights.                               Conditional conferral of powers                               By the accession of the CR to the EU, on the basis of Art. 10a of the                              Constitution  of  the  CR,  there  was  a  transfer  of  powers  of  national                              bodies  to  supra-national  bodies.  At  the  moment  when  the  Treaty                              establishing the EC, as amended by revisions and the accession treaty,                              became  binding  on  the  CR,  the  transfer  of  the  powers  of  national                              bodies  that,  under  primary  EU  law  are  exercised  by  EU  bodies,  to                              those bodies. The CR lent these powers to EC bodies. This conferral                              of  partial  powers  is  a  conditional  conferral.  (further  on  see  Pl.  ÚS                              50/04).                                8. „Lisbon II“, Pl. ÚS 29/09                               Judgment  Lisbon  II,  dealing  again  with  objections  to  Lisbon Treaty                              filed  by  a  group  of  senators,  answered  some  other  procedural                              questions  in  the  proceedings  on  preventive  review  of  international                              treaties with constitutional order (e.g. interpretation of rei iudicatae,                              time  limit  for  submitting  a  petition  to  open  proceedings  on  the                              conformity of an international treaty with the constitutional order). As                              far as review of merits, the CC mainly reiterated its previous case law,                              especially  judgments  Pl.  ÚS  19/08,  Pl.  ÚS  50/04  and  Pl.  ÚS  66/04                              (sovereignty  of  the  state,  transfer  of  certain  competences  of  state,                              functionality of EU institutional framework). The judgment has also                              clarified  some  notions in  the  Lisbon Treaty  when  adjudicating  their                              conformity with the constutional order.                               Sovereignty of the modern state                               The CC pointed out that, in a modern democratic state governed by                              the rule of law, the sovereignty of the state is not an aim in and of                              itself, that is, in isolation, but is a means for fulfilling the fundamental                              values on which the construction of a democratic state governed by                              the  rule  of  law  stands.  The  CC  also  concluded  that  the  transfer  of                              certain  state  competences,  that  arises  from  the  free  will  of  the                              sovereign,  and  will  continue  to  be  exercised  with  the  sovereign’s                              participation in a manner that is agreed upon in advance and is subject                              to review, is not a conceptual weakening of sovereignty, but, on the                              contrary,  can  lead  to  strengthening  it  within  the  joint  actions  of  an                              integrated whole.                                                                      110","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                     Table  2:  Overview  of  principles  related  to  the  EU  law  in  the                              Constitutional Court of the CR case law                                Applicational  precedence  of  the  EU  law  norms  over  Pl.   ÚS                              the legal order of member states                   50/04,                                                                                  Pl.      ÚS                                                                                 56/05,                                                                                  Pl. ÚS 12/08                               Not doctrine of the absolute precedence of Community  Pl. ÚS 50/04                              law over the entirety of constitutional law;  keeping a                              certain  reserve  to  interpret  principles  such  as  the                              democratic  law-based  state  and  the  protection  of                              fundamental rights.                                Conditional conferral of powers to the EU organs, not  Pl.   ÚS                              the  doctrine  of  absolute  primacy;  the  delegation  of  a  50/04,                              part of the powers of national organs may persist only                              so long as these powers are exercised in a manner that  Pl.   ÚS                              is compatible with the preservation of the foundations  66/04,                              of state sovereignty of the CR, and in a manner which                              does  not  threaten the  very  essence  of  the substantive  Pl.   ÚS                              law-based state.                                   19/08,                                                                                   Pl. ÚS 29/09                               Constitutional  order  as  a  referential  criteria  for  the  Pl.   ÚS                              adjudication of constitutionality for the CC of the CR   50/04,                                                                                  Pl.ÚS 66/04,                                                                                  Pl.ÚS 36/05,                                                                                   Pl.ÚS 37/04,                                                                                 II.ÚS                                                                                 1009/08                               The current standard for the protection of fundamental  Pl.   ÚS                              rights  within  the  EU    cannot  give  rise  to  the  50/04,                              assumption that this standard is of a lower quality than                              the protection accorded in the CR,                 Pl.      ÚS                                                                                 29/09,                                                                                  Pl. ÚS 19/08                                                                     111","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Interpretation  in  conformity  with  the  principles  of  Pl.ÚS 66/04,                              European  integration  and  the  cooperation  between                              Community  and  Member  State  organs,  that  Pl.ÚS 56/05,                              interpretation  must  be  selected  which  supports  the                              fulfillment  of  EU  obligations,  not  one  which  would  Pl.ÚS 19/08                              hinder their fulfillment.                               Interpretation of  general  legal  principles  contained  in  Pl.   ÚS                              ECJ  jurisprudence  corresponds  to  fundamental  rights  50/04,                              contained in constitutional catalogues                                                                                 Pl. ÚS 36/05                                CR’s allegiance to the European legal culture and to its                              constitutional traditions                               Right  and  obligation  of  ordinary  court  to  refer  a  II.ÚS                              preliminary question                               1009/08                               Right  to  lawful  judge,  possible  violation  of  the  II.ÚS                              constitutionally-guaranteed right to one’s lawful judge  1009/08                              under  specific  circumstances  and  the  concept  of                              arbitrariness leading to a violation of the right to one’s                              lawful judge                               Ordinary  court´s  obligation  to  justify  its  conclusions  Pl. ÚS 12/08                              related to the EU law                                 Conclusion                               In  conclusion,  it  is  possible  to  summarize  briefly  several  findings                              following from the above decision making activity of the CC of the                              CR towards the EU law. Firstly, it is possible to state that the CC of                              the  CR  can  be  ranged  among  European  courts  that  approach  the                              European  law  in  active  manner.  Till  now,  several  important                              conclusions,  assessments  and  principles  related  to  the  EU  law  were                              formulated, some of them repeatedly. In principle, with regard both to                              number  of  decisions  and  the  extent  of  adjudicated  questions  it  is                              possible to speak about development towards settled CC case law in                              relation to the EU issues, this also with reference to the CC doctrine of                              binding force of its own decisions (Pl. ÚS 11/02). At the same time,                              another development, specification, clarification and deepening of CC                              case law in relation to the EU law can be expecting, also in connection                              with the interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty. Athough the concept of                              national constitutional identity was not clearly established by the CC,                              there is clear tendency towards it. Besides others, it is very important                              that  the  CC  paid  its  atention  to  the  questions  of  interconnection                              between its EU related case law and constitutional concepts already                              expressed  previously  in  the  CC  settled  case  law  (democratic-law                              based  state,  protection  of  fundamental  rights,  material  core  of  the                              Constitution, prohibition to restrict already achieved procedural rights,                              sovereignty of the state).                                                                 112","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Contact – email                              sona.matochova@usoud.cz                                                                                                                                                113","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                   APPLICATION OF EU LAW IN THE FIELD OF                                   CONSUMER PROTECTION BY SLOVAK                                                        COURTS                                                   KATARÍNA MIKULOVÁ                                UniversityDepartment of International and European Law, Faculty of                                            Law, Paneuropean University, Slovakia                                 Abstract in original language                              V rámci príspevku budem prezentovať výsledky výskumu, ktorý som                              realizovala na rozsudkoch všeobecných súdov v Slovenskej republike,                              ktoré  sú  uverejňované  na  internetových  stránkach  Ministerstva                              spravodlivosti SR, s cieľom reálne popísať základné trendy aplikácie                              práva  EÚ  v  oblasti  ochrany  spotrebiteľa.  V  rámci  výskumu  som                              skúmala rozsudky týkajúce sa sporov zo zmlúv, na základe ktorých sú                              poskytované  peňažné  prostriedky  za  úplatu,  ako  aj  právne  spory                              týkajúce sa vymáhania plnení priznaných rozhodcovským rozsudkom                              od spotrebiteľov.                               Key words in original language                              spotrebiteľská   zmluva,   aplikácia   práva   EÚ,   rozhodcovské                              rozhodnutie,                               Abstract                              In  my  paper  I  will  present  the  results  from  the  research,  which  I                              carried out among judgements of Slovak courts which are published                              on  the  Ministry  of  Justice  of  Slovak  republic  website,  with  an  aim                              describe  the  basic  trends  of  application  of  the  EU  law  in  field  of                              consumer  protection.  I  will  focus  on  judgements  concerning  the                              disputes raised form contracts on providing loans and the execution of                              arbitration decision against consumers.                               Key words                              Consumer contract, application of EU law, arbtitration decision,                               1. INTRODUCTION                               The application of European Union law (here and after as “EU law”)                              by ordinary courts is the most important part of realisation of rights of                              private  individuals,  which  are  conferred  upon  them.  This  was  my                              primary  motivation  to  examine  the  practical  application  of  EU  law,                              which  I  had  done  among  the  judgments  of  Slovak  courts.  I  had                              focused  on  a  field  of  the  consumer  protection,  because  there  are                              several  problems  with  the  application  of  the  EU  regulation  in  this                              field,  which  I’m  going  to  present  in  this  article.  But  firstly  I  will                                                            1                              present the results of the research  I had done, in which I had examine                                1  The judiciary decisions included into the research were selecting from the                              decisions  published  on  the  official  website  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice  of                              Slovak republic by the method of searching for some specific terms in the                                                                 114","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 how the courts decide the cases between a supplier and a consumer                              concerning financial claims from contracts on providing loans of any                              kind.  I  will  focus  on  how  the  courts  interpret  directives  in                              argumentation and how they use and understand the key decisions of                              the  Court  of  Justice  of  European  Union  (here  and  after  as  \"ECJ\").                              Secondly  I  will  provide  some  facts  about  the  executions  of  the                              arbitrational decisions in the cases of contracts between the supplier                              and consumer on providing loans. Thirdly I will analyze the impact of                              the judicial decisions on the situation of consumer protection in the                              field  of  providing  loans  by  suppliers  other  than  banks  and  offer                              possible solutions on the questions which arise.                                2. LEGAL REGULATION OF THE CONSUMER                              PROTECTION IN SLOVAK REPUBLIC                               To assess the decision-making of general courts in Slovak republic is                              necessary to look closer on the legislation on consumer contracts in                                             2                              the  Civil  Code   as  a  cross-sectional  legislation  adopted  as  an                                                                          3  4                              implementation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC .  That is why I will                              compare  the  legislation  in  Civil  Code  and  other  legislative  acts                              governing  consumer  contracts  to  the  regulation  in  the  Council                              Directive  93/13/ECC.  The  main  implementation  was  introduced  by                                                   5                              the  Act  No.  150/2004 .  Regarding  the  definition  of  consumer  and                              supplier in Civil Code, these are essentially identical to the definitions                              contained  in  the  Directive  93/13/EEC.  Directive  93/13/EEC  covers                              also definitions of unfair terms in consumer contracts, and indirectly                              defines  a  consumer  contract  as  a  contract  concluded  between                              consumer and supplier without any further conditions. The Civil Code                              defines  the  consumer  contract  and  unfair  terms  (or  “inacceptable                                        6                                                                                       7                              conditions”  - the term used by the Slovak legislator) differently.                                 decisions. In total the amount of decisions was 700 and approximately 1/3 of                              these  decisions  concerned  cases  from  contracts  on  providing  loans  and                              executions of arbitral awards. The complete list of the decision is included in                              my dissertation. Some of the included decisions are not published  which I                              mention when citing them.                               2                                Act No. 40/1964 Coll. Civil Code as amended                              3   Council  Directive  No.  93/13/EEC  of  5  April  1993  on  unfair  terms  in                              consumer contracts, Official Journal L 095, 21/04/1993, P. 0029 - 0034                               4   See  also  Cirák,  J:  Vymožiteľnosť  spotrebiteľských  práv  v kontexte  úpravy                              nekalých  klauzúl  v spotrebiteľských  zmluvách,  In:  Vymožiteľnosť  práva                              v Slovenskej  republike,  Pulished  by:  Justičná  akadémia  Slovenskej                              republiky(Judicial Academy of the Slovak republic), Pezinok, 2009                               5   Amendment  act  no.  150/2004,  which  changes  and  amend  Civil  Code                              effective from 1 April 2004                               6  In Slovak language it is “neprijateľné podmienky”                                                                  115","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Based  on  the  Act  No.  150/2004  consumer  contract  was  defined  as                              pecuniary  contract  concluded  in  accordance  with  the  Civil  Code                              provided that the consumer cannot individually affect the proposal to                              the conclusion of the contract. This legislation didn’t take into account                                                                                     8                              a  possibility  to  choose  an  application  of  Commercial  Code   on  the                              relation by the parties, because a loan can be granted in accordance to                              the  type  of  contract  under  Civil  Code  and  also  under  Commercial                              Code even when one party is a consumer. In accordance with the act                              no. 150/2004 and Directive 93/13/EEC an unfair term can be defined                              as a contractual term that causes a significant imbalance in rights and                              obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. According                              to the Directive 93/13/EEC there is a second part of the definition, that                              the contractual term is not individually negotiated, but this part of the                              definition was not initially transposed into the Civil Code definition.                               Despite the fact that this definition was not ideal, the problem with                              application  begins  when  there  was  another  definition  introduced  by                                                       9                              the Act No. 634/1992 Coll.  on the consumer protection, as amended                              (a lex specialis to the Civil Code) effective from 25. 11. 2004. This act                              defined  the  consumer  contract  as  contract  concluded  under  Civil                              Code,  Commercial  Code  or  any  other  contract  characterised  by  the                              fact that is concluded in many cases and the consumer don’t affect the                              content  of  the  contract  markedly.  As  there  can  be  seen,  these                              definition  are  different  and  were  unified  by  the  change  of  the  Civil                                                           10                              Code effective from 1. 1. 2008.  Interesting on this situation is that                              the definition in the consumer protection act was more appropriate to                                                                              11                              the definition  contained  in  the  Directive 93/13/EEC .  This  problem                              also  emerged  in  the  practical  application  of  legal  rules  by  courts in                                                                   12                              Slovak republic according to the research.                              By  the  later  amendment  of  Civil  Code  there  were  several  changes                              introduced. Firstly the whole list of the unfair terms contained in the                              annex  of  the  Directive  93/13/EEC  was  copied  into  the  Civil  Code.                                 7  Further in the text I will use unfair terms, because this term is used by the                              directive.                               8  Act No. 513/1992 Coll. Commercial Code as amended                               9                                 This  Act  was  replaced  by  the  Act  No.  250/2007  Coll.  on  the  consumer                              protection effective from 1.7.2007                              10                                 Act No. 568/2007 Coll. which change and amend the Act No. 527/2002                              Coll. on voluntary auctions and on amendment of the Act No. 323/1992 Coll.                              on notaries and notary work as amended                              11   But  on  the  other  hand  the  Directive  93/13/EEC  is  not  mentioned  in  the                              annex of the consumer protection act.                               12   There  was  a  great  discrepancy  between  the  courts  when  they  apply  the                              definition  in  order  to  determine  if  the  particular  contract  is  a  consumer                              contract.                                                                  116","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Secondly  this  amendment  implemented  also  the  second  part  of  the                              definition  of  the  unfair  term  and  defined  which  term  should  be                              considered  as  individually  negotiated  with  burden  of  proof  on  the                              supplier.  Another  great  change  was  made  by  the  amendment  to  the                                                              13                              Civil Code effective from 1. 6. 2010 , which stated that in a consumer                              contract  on  proving  money  for  reward  the  sanction  for  delay  of                              payment  of  the  consumer  cannot  exceed  the  amount  set  by  the                                       14                              regulation .                              Generally  the  first  problem  concerning  the  contract  for  providing                              loans  is  that  it  was  not  clear,  if  these  contracts  were  consumer                              contracts or contracts concluded under the Commercial Code.  If the                              contract is concluded under Commercial Code, the parties to the treaty                              can  decide  freely  on the  amount  of interests for  providing  loan,  the                              penalty  payment  or  penalty  interest,  but  this  is  limited  by  the                              provisions  of  Civil  Code  for  the  consumer  contracts.  Also  the                              limitation  period  according  Commercial  Code  is  four  years  in                              comparison  to  the  three  years  limitation  period  in  the  Civil  Code.                              Thirdly if these contracts were consumer contracts, other terms could                              be  assessed  whether  they  are  unfair  in  the  sense  of  the  Directive                              93/13/EEC or Civil Code regulation, not only if they conflict with the                              principles of fair trade as a rather different category of rules.                               As can be seen from the about explanation, the regulation in Slovak                              legal order has changed from the year 2004 until now rapidly and all                              this  changes  also  with  the  decisions  of  the  ECJ  had  influenced  the                              decision practise of the courts in Slovak republic. And vice versa the                              case  law  of  the  courts  and  its  development  influenced  the  legal                              regulation in the consumer protection. I will try to explain this during                              summarising the research results.                                3. APPLICATION OF EU LAW IN THE CASES OF                              CONTRACTS ON PROVIDING LOANS                               3.1 GENERAL  FRAMEWORK  OF  THE  CONTRACTS  ON                              PROVIDING LOANS                               The cases and legal relations based on the contracts on proving loan or                              credit  are  very  diverse,  which  is  caused  by  rather  diverse  subjects                              which are providing loans. Each of these entities uses its own type of                              contract,  although  the  conditions  are  in  some  way  similar.  These                              similar conditions are for instance a choice of Commercial Code as                              the legal framework for these relationships with those consequences                              that I mentioned above. Mostly the entities, other than banks, usually                              contract higher interest rates when providing a loan in comparison to                                 13                                 Act No. 129/2010 Coll. on consumer loans and other loans for consumers                              and on change and amendment of other laws                              14                                 Government Regulation No. 87/1995 Coll. by which are specified several                              provisions of the Civil Code as amended                                                                  117","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 the interests generally required by banks, higher interests as sanction                              for  delay  of  payment  (for example  0,1 %  per  day,  0,05  %  per  day,                              0,08 % per day or 20 % per annum, etc.) as set by the legislation in                              Civil Code and the penalty payment is contracted in addition to the                              penalty  interest  either  in  form  of  percentage  from  the  loan  or  like                              interest  of  0,1%  per  day  for  a  certain  period.  But  in  addition  these                              contracts can contain also different types of arrangements for secure                              that the debtor will return the loan, such as agreement on transfer of                              the  ownership  of  some  property  rights,  lien  agreement,  letter  for                              attorney incorporated in contract for lawyer to acknowledge the debt                              on behalf of the debtor or an arbitration clause.                                Generally  in  2/3  of  the  contracts  for  providing  loans  the  courts                              decided that these contracts are of consumer character and apply the                              consumer  protection  regulation.  The  courts  adjudicate  the  penalty                              interests only in the amount set by the legislation in Civil Code and                              sometimes they lowered the penalty payment or in several cases they                              lowered also the interests agreed by the parties for providing the loan.                              In these cases decided in favour for the consumer the courts relatively                              often cited the provisions of the Directive 93/13/EEC, mentioned the                              transposition  of  this  directive  or  used  the  directive  to  interpret  the                              provisions  of  Slovak  legislation.  In  the  other  1/3  of  the  cases  the                              courts  considered  the  relations  based  on  the  same  contracts  as                              commercial relations and adjudicate to the creditor the interests and                              penalty payments as concluded in the contracts.                                3.2 APPROACH        OF     THE     SLOVAK       COURT       TO                              APPLICATION  OF  THE  EU  LAW  IN  CONTRACT  FOR                              PROVIDING LOANS                               3.2.1 LEASE CONTRACTS                               From the judicial decisions included into the research it is clear that                              from 2006 the courts realize that there is some EU law, especially the                              Directive 93/13/EEC which they should apply. In several decisions the                              court simply stated that this directive was implemented into the legal                              order of Slovak republic, while there is nothing in the decision, what                              would  indicate  how  precisely  the  court  apply  the  Directive  or  what                                                                          15                              provision  of  the  Directive  did  the  court  use.   For  example  in  the                                                            16                              decision of District court Brezno  concerning a dispute about delay                              with  payment  from  some  kind  of  lease  contract,  in  which  the                              consumer withdraw from the contract, because the product should be                              according the contract delivered only after the payment of whole price                              and because the price was too high for the consumer. The consumer                                15                                 For example see the judgment of the District Court Žilina from 27. 9. 2007                              issued  in  the  proceeding  under  no.  14C/40/2007  or  the  judgment  of  the                              District Court Čadca from 18. 9. 2007 issued in the proceedings under no.                              4C/185/2005                               16                                 The judgmment of the District Court Brezno from 4. 7. 2007 issued in the                              proceeding under no. 3C/69/2006                                                                  118","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 also pays 25% of the price as penalty payment for withdrawal. But the                              supplier nevertheless sues the consumer alleging that she is obliged to                              pay the whole price, because the withdrawal from the contract was not                              valid.  In  this  case  the  court  suggests  that  it  was  proven  that  this                              contract is not only in a breach of Slovak legal regulation, but also in                              contrary  to  the  Directive  93/13/EEC.  The  court  points  out  the                              objectives  of  the  Directive,  particularly  that  the  contracts  should  be                              clear, if there is a doubt about the meaning of the provisions of the                              contract,  the  court  should  prioritize  the  interpretation  which  is                              favourable for the consumer and the case was decided in favour for                              the consumer.                                In the years 2008 and 2011 the courts in all cases involving claims                              arising  from  lease  contracts  or  contracts  about  buying  goods  in                              instalments applied the consumer contract provisions in Civil Code. In                              approximately in 2/3 of these decisions the courts show a link between                              the  Slovak  regulation  and  EU  law  mostly  by  citation  of  Directive                              93/13/EEC or by pointing out that it was implemented into the Slovak                              legal order. The interesting part of the decisions is that from some of                              these  decisions  is  very  clear  that  the  court  uses  the  Directive                              93/13/EEC to extend the list of unfair terms contained in Civil Code,                              because the list of unfair terms in Civil Code was not identical with                              the list contained in the annex to the Directive 93/13/EEC.                               Very  clear (in the  way  of  application of  EU  law) is  the reasoning of                                                    17                              the District court Žilina , which considered a contract for lease of a                              good  with  possibility  to  buy  the  product  at  the  termination  of  the                              lease, as a consumer contract on which there is a need to apply the                              provisions  on  consumer  contracts  in  Civil  Code  and  Directive                              93/13/EEC. The court further notes that in the time of delivering this                              decision  Civil  Code  comprise  an  exemplary  list  of  unfair  terms  in                              consumer  contracts,  whose  inclusion  into  the  consumer  contracts  is                              sanctioned  by  their  nullity.  According  to  the  court  Directive                              93/13/EEC covers a wider list of examples of unfair terms including a                              requirement that a consumer who has not fulfilled its commitment to                              pay a debt has an obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum for                              compensation. The court points at the importance of interpretational                              importance  of  the  Directive  when  applying  a  domestic  regulation,                              which  had  implemented  the  directive.  According  to  the  court  the                              Directive 93/13/EEC should be applied when the contract was drawn                              up in advance and the consumer could have no influence or control                              over the content of the provisions of the contract. After that the court                              declared the arrangement of the contractual penalty 30% of the price                              of the product for any breach of contract void, because there was no                              distinguishing  between  seriousness  of  the  breach  and  because  this                              penalty  was  contracted  only  when  the  breach  was  caused  by  the                              consumer. The court decided that the consumer has to pay the unpaid                                  17                                 The judgment of the Distric Court Žilina from 25. 4. 2008 issued in the                              proceedings under no. 4C/450/2007                                                                  119","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 rent  and  interest  for  late  payment  in  the  amount  prescribed  by  the                              Civil Code.                               An  example  of  application  of  the  ECJ  decisions  by  the  courts  in                                                                                 18                              Slovak republic is a decision of District court Rožňava , where the                              court quoted an article 3(1) of the Directive 93/13/EEC and noted that                              the directive is necessary to be used as an interpretative rule for the                              provisions  of  Slovak  legal  order  about  consumer  contracts.                              Subsequently the court stated that in accordance with the ruling of the                                                               19                              ECJ in joined cases Océano Gruppo , effective consumer protection                              can  be  achieved  only  of  the  national  court  declares  that  it  has                              jurisdiction  to  assess  the  unfair  conditions  on  its  own  motion.                              Jurisdiction  of  the  court  to  determine  on  its  own  motion  that  the                              condition in contract is unfair means to create appropriate means to                              protect consumers against unfair contract terms. The court closed the                              analyses by stating that the directive should be applied also when the                              contract  was  drawn  up  in  advance  and  the  consumer  couldn'n  have                              influence  or  control  over  the  content  of the  provisions,  which  is  de                              facto widening of the definition which was in the Directive 93/13/EEC                              but  was  not  transposed  into  the  definition  in  Civil  Code  after  the                                                         20                              amendment Act no. 150/2004.                              3.2.2 CREDIT OR LOAN CONTRACTS                               From the judgments involved in research published in the years 2006                              to 2008 it can be concluded that the courts not always considered a                              credit agreement  as consumer contracts and on the conditions about                              the  amount  of  interest  and  sanctions  quite  often  applied  provisions                              contained in the Commercial Code. They treat such agreements rather                              strictly  in  relation  to  contractual  arrangements,  because  a  loan                              agreement  is  considered  under  the  provision  261  (3d)  of  the                              Commercial Code as so-called absolute commercial legal relationship                              regardless of the nation of the parties. On the other hand, under the                              provision 23a of the Consumer Protection Act no. 634/1992 contracts                              should be treated as consumer contracts  also when concluded under                              Commercial Code if the contract is repeatedly using by the supplier                              and  the  consumer  usually  do  not  substantially  affect  the  content  of                              such contract. This provision of the Consumer Protection Act was in                              general not used by the courts, but there are some exemptions such as                                 18                                 The judgment of the Distric Court Rožňava from 11. 3. 2010 issued in the                              proceedings under no. 4C/31/2010                              19                                 Joined Cases Oceáno Grupo Editorial SA v. Roció Murciano Quintero (C-                              240/98) and Salvat Editores SA v. José M. Sánchez Alcón Prades (C-241/98),                              José  Luis  Copano  Badillo  (C-242/98),  Mohammed  Berroane  (C243/98)  a                              Emilio Viñas Feliú (C-244/98), ECR 2000 I-04941                               20                                 See also for example the judgment of the District Court Piešťany from 26.                              10. 2010 issued in the proceeding under no. 4c/145/2009 or the judgment of                              the District Court Galanta from 10. 2. 2010 issued in the proceeding under                              no. 17C/131/2009                                                                  120","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                                    21                              the decisions of District Court in Žilina . In these decisions the court                              finds,  that  although  the  loan  agreement  is  signed  according  to                              provision  497  of  the  Commercial  Code  but  with  regard  to  the                              provision  23a  of  the  Consumer  Protection  Act  and  Civil  Code  this                              agreement is a consumer contract. Interesting on this decision is that                              the court expressly provides that provisions of Civil Code in force at                              the  time  of  concluding  the  contract  did  not  correspond  with  the                              provisions  of  the  Directive  93/13/EEC  and  that  the  term  to  pay                              disproportionately high sum in compensation for any breach of treaty                              provisions  was  not  listen  in  the  unfair  terms  in  Civil  Code.                              Subsequently, it states that the directives, unlike regulations, are not                              directly  applicable.  But  on  the  other  hand  if  the  national  regulation                              didn't  comprise  such  unfair  term  it  is  appropriate  to  apply  the                              Directive  93/13/EEC,  because  according  the  case  law  of  the  ECJ  a                                                            22                              directive may have direct effect.  With a reference to this Directive                              then  the  court  decided  that  the  claim  of  the  supplier  for  a  penalty                              interest of 0,03% daily has a nature of unfair term in the consumer                              contract and decided that this term is void.                               In this decision is certainly also interesting that the court had decided                              to apply the provisions of the Directive 93/13/EEC directly although                              previously it declare that a directive does not have such characteristic                              according the EU law. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that the court                              more likely applied the Directive indirectly, because the Civil Code                              did not provide an exhaustive list of unfair terms. Therefore, if court                              had inspired in its deliberations on the Annex to Directive 93/13/EEC                              with regard to the determination that the contractual arrangement on                              the  amount  of  penalty  interest  is  an  unfair  term,  it  was  just  an                              interpretation of national law in accordance with the Directive rather                              than its direct application. But at least it shows that some judges are                              not sure about the difference between direct and indirect application of                              EU  law,  especially  directives,  because  this  is  something  completely                              different in comparison to the national legal system.                               On the other hand there are also judgments concerning the agreements                              on  providing  loans  in  which  the  court  did  not  apply  any  of  the                              consumer  protection  provisions.  Good  example  are  the  decisions  of                                                      23                              Regional  Court in Trnava   in  which  the court  reviews  decisions  of                                21  The judgment of the District Court Žilina from 12. 9. 2008 issued in the                              proceeding  under  no.  11Cb/281/2007,  from  18.  2.  2008  issued  in  the                              proceeding under no. 8C/54/2007, from 6. 8. 2008 issued in the proceeding                              under no. 11Cb/318/2007                               22  The court does not provide any further analyses whether the subject against                              who will be the directive applied, is State according to the CJ EU case law or                              even whether there are any other conditions which should be fulfilled and are                              fulfilled  in  order  to  conclude  the  direct  effect  of  directive  between  two                              individuals.                              23                                 See the judgments of the Regional Court in Trnava from 4. 11. 2008 issued                              in the proceedings under no. 21Cob/280/2008 and from 18. 11. 2008 issued                              in the proceedings under no. 21Cob/323/2008                                                                  121","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 district courts where the courts did not adjudicate to the supplier the                              penalty  payment  along  with  penalty  interest,  because  the  parallel                              adjudication of those sanctions will breach the protection of consumer                              and such arrangement is an unfair term. These contracts were by the                              district courts regarded as typical agreement in which the consumer                              has  no  real  affect  on  the  content  of  the  contract  according  to  the                              provision 23a of the Consumer Protection Act. In the decision of the                              Regional Court the issue of whether it is a consumer contract was not                              addressed,  instead  the  court  applied  only  the  provisions  of                              Commercial  Code  and  held  that  the  supplier  has  right  both  on  the                              penalty payment and the penalty interest, despite the reasoning of the                              district courts in the contested decisions.                               The  similar  approach  can  be  seen  in  decisions  in  which  the  court                              ingnores  the  consumer  character  of  the  particular  contract  on                              providing loan, despite the fact that the consumer could not imfluance                              the content of the contract and is obliged to pay 0,01% penalty interest                              along  with  penalty  payment  in  case  of  failure  to  return  borowed                              money.  This  hapened  inspite  the  fact  that  the  court  in  this  decision                              applied  provision  369(1)  of  the  Commercial  Code,  which  expressly                              state that if the obligation arise under a consumer contract, the penalty                              interest  must  not  exceed  the  amount  provided  by  the  rules  of  civil                                  24                              law.                              Special category of the agreements on providing loans concluded with                              the agreements on transfer of ownership of real estate. These contracts                              grossly disturb the balance between the parties by hypertrophy of the                              security  arrangements  desinged  exclusively  to  protect  the  creditor                              according  to  the  courts.  These  contracts  include  for  example  a                              requirement that the debtor must redemonstrate the capability to repay                              the loan every year or on the demand of creditor while the creditor can                              at any time decide that the capablility of the debtor is not suficient and                              can demand from the debtor to pay the debt imediately. Courts in their                              judgments, in principle, note that the contract is in breach of good fait,                              creates a significant imbalance between the contracting parties to the                              detriment of the debtor and they believe it can be assumed that the aim                              was to acquire a property of the real estate by the creditor, which was                              temporarily  transferred  on  the  creditor  by  the  contract,  because  the                              contract also contained an arrangement that the creditor is not obliged                              to pay the debtor the difference between the price of the real estate                              and  the  non-returned  part  of  the  loan  of  the  debtor.  During  the                              research I did not find a judgmnet, which was decided in favour for                                      24  See of instance the judgment of the District Court Kežmarok from 3. 6.                              2009 issued in the proceedings under no. 8Cb/22/2009, the judgment of the                              District Court Ružomberok from 23. 4. 2009 issued in the proceedings under                              no. 6Cb/25/2009, the judgment of the District Court Zvolen from 19. 8. 2009                              issued in the proceedings under no. 8Cb/14/2008                                                                  122","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 the creditor. Mostly these judgments refer to the Directive 93/13/EEC                                                                                   25                              and sometimes the court cite the provisions of the Directive.                              3.2.3 CONTRACT ON CONSUMER LOANS                               Rigidly courts treated also loans, which should be provided under a                                                          26                              special  Consumer  Loans  Act .  This  can  be  demonstrated  on  the                                                              27                              judgment of District Court Brezno  concerning a dispute over non-                              payment of debt based on a loan contract in which it was established                              that the legal relationship is governed by the Commercial Code. The                              court applied on this relationship provisions of the Commercial Code,                              despite the fact that at that time there were special rules for consumer                              loans in the Consumer Loans Act. On the other hand, it may be argued                              that at the time of conclusion of the contract and the time when the                              decision was delivered there was a doubt about the interpretation of                                                     28                              the Consumer Loans Act.  The court ultimately award the creditor the                              amount of the debt together with the agreed penalty interest of 0,08%                              daily from the amount owed.                               Similarly, however, decide other courts, for example a Distric court                                       29                              Komárno  in the same type of case as above mentioned. In this case                              the  court  also  cites  the  provisions  of  Civil  Code  containing  the                              consumer protection, but subsequently states that the claiment proved                              failure  of  the  defendant to  fulfill  its obligation  and decided that the                              supplier  is  entitled for  payment  of  the  debt  together with  an  agreed                              amount of penalty interest 0,08% per day. This judgment is interesting                              also because the debtor's delay occurred before the amedment Act No.                              150/2004  become  effective  and  by  fact  that  the  supplier  submit  an                              action  about  month  and  a  half  before  the  expiry  of  four  years                              limitation period according to the Commercial Code, so if the court                              would apply Civil Code, the claim would be barred by limitation.                               In some of the judgments concerning those claims appears an attempt                              to point at the Directive 93/13/EEC, but it is not easy to find out how                                 25  See the judgment of the  Regional  Court in Banská Bystrica from 28. 8.                              2008 issued in the proceedings under no. 16Co/152/2008, the judgment of the                              District  Court  Zvolen  from  6.  6.  2008  issued  in  the  proceedings  under                              no.11C/42/2007, the judgment of the High Court of the Slovak republic from                              31. 7. 2009 issued in the proceedings under no. 1 M Cdo 1/2009                               26                                 Act No. 258/2001 Coll. on the consumer loans as amended                              27  The judgment of the Ditrict Court Brezno from 10. 7. 2008 issued in the                              proceedings under no. 7Cb/144/2007                              28  In the provision 2(1a) of the Act No. 285/2001 Coll. on the consumer loans                              was not expressly stated that this act should apply also on the credit contracts                              only on the loans.                               29                                 The judgment of the Ditrict Court Komárno from 25. 9. 2008 issued in the                              proceedings under no. 5Cb/150/2008                                                                  123","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 the  court  exactly  apply  the  cited  provisions  of  the  Directive                              93/13/EEC. Completly incomprehensible in this respect is a decision                                                     30                              of District court Lučenec  in which the court finds that supplier and                              consumer  agreed  on  application  of  Commercial  Code  on  their                              relationship.  In  the  next  sentence  the  court  conclude  that  the                              legislature of the EU on protection of consumers was transposed into                              the  Slovak  legal  order  and  that  there  is  a  category  of  unfair  terms,                              which are prohibit in the consumer contracts. However from further                              analyses  of  the  court  it  is  realy  not  clear  how  the  court  take  into                              account the directives or the protection of consumers in Slovak legal                              order,  because  he  decides that  the creditor  is  entitled  the  contracted                              interest of 14% per year and the penalty interest of 15% per year. He                              did  not  evaluate  whether  the  contract  is  in  compliance  with  the                              Consumer Loans Act and the consumer protection in general. Such a                              decision is not unique, for comparison see also decisions of District                                                                            32                                         31                              court Prešov  or Regional Court in Banská Bystrica .                              4. ARBITRAL  DECISIONS  IN  CONSUMER  PROTECTION                              CASES AND ITS ENFORCEMENT                               Without metioning the cases concerning arbitral awards will be this                              research  incomplete.  In  the  consequence  of  deciding  cases  by  the                              courts in favour for consumers, the duration of judicial proceedings in                              Slovak  republic  and  the  effort  of  suppliers  to  gain  an  enforceable                              decision for execution as soon as possible, the companies providing                              loans  included  into  the  contracts  with  a  consumer  an  arbitration                              clause.  This  arrangements  caused  two  main  types  of  cases  before                              courts.  The  first  type  are  cases  for  annulment  of  the  arbitration                              awards, which on the other hand are very rare because of the passivity                              of the consumers. The second type of proceedings are related to the                              enforcement of the arbitration decision awarded in the cases of claims                              from consumer contracts. Becasue of limited scope of this article and                              very  small  amount  of  the  judgments  about  the  annulment  of  the                              arbotration awards, I will now focus on the enforcement of the arbitral                              awards  in  consumer  protection  cases  and  the  problems,  which  arise                              among these cases. The enforcement procedure emerges as the only                              option for the court to intervene in favour of the consumer when there                              is an arbitration clause in the contract. Firstly this situation resulted to                              address  a  preliminary  question  to  the  CJ  EU  whether  there  is  a                              possibility for the court in enforcement proceedings to assess unfair                              terms  in  consumer  contracts,  or  to  decide  on  the  invalidity  of  the                                  30                                 The judgment of the Ditrict Court Lučenec from 9. 1. 2008 issued in the                              proceedings under no. 9C/82/2007                               31                                 The judgment of the District Court Prešov from 16. 1. 2008 issued in the                              proceeding under no.  14C/10/2006                              32                                 The judgment of the Regional Court in Banská Bystrica from 28. 8. 2008                              issued in the proceeding under no. 16Co/152/2008                                                                  124","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 arbitration clause and draw the consequences, which would mean the                              impossibility of execution such a decision.                               4.1 SOME REMARKS ON THE CASES OF THE CJ EU                               The  CJ  EU  has addressed such  issues in  several cases,  while  Slovak                                                                    33                                                                                     34                              courts cite mostly two of them, Asturcom  and Pohotovosť , which                              are very similar issues and the judgment in the case Pohotovosť was                              issued  on  the  basis  of  questions  raised  by  the  Regional  Court  in                              Prešov.  The  case  Asturcom  concerned  a  contract  on  providing                              telecommunication  services,  which  included  the  arbitration  clause.                              The consumer did not pay several invoices and terminated the contract                              before the end of the agreed minimum duration of the contract. The                              arbitrational award ordered the consumer to pay the sum of 669,60 €.                              The consumer did not appeal against the arbitration award to reach its                              cancellation,  therefore  the  decision  become  final  and  the  supplier                              submit a proposal for execution of the award. Spanish national court                              thought  that  the  arbitration  clause  is  an  unfair  term  in  consumer                              contract for several reasons, but the national law contains no provision                              for  the  assessment  of  the  unfair  nature  of  such  clause  during  the                              enforcement proceedings. Thefore the court address a question to the                              ECJ whether the consumer protection under the Directive 93/13/EEC                              includes the possibility that the court deciding on the enforcement of                              the arbotration award, which was issued without the participation of                              consumer, can assess on its own motion the validity of the arbitration                              clause  and  subsequently  annul  the  award  on  the  ground  that  the                              arbitrational clause is an unfair term and harm the consumer.                               The CJ EU in the above mention decision firstly finds that because of                              the  unequal  position  of  the  supplier  and  consumer  the  Directive                              93/13/EEC  provides  that  unfair  terms  should  not  be  binding  on  the                              consumer.  This  is  mandatory  provision  directed  towards  the                              establishment  of  genuine  balance  between  rights  and  obligations  of                              the  parties,  while  this  aim  should  be  achieved  only  by  positive                                                                                  35                              intervention for other party then the party of the contract.  From this                              it  follows that the courts must  be  able to  examine  the unfair  term  ex                              officio.  Consequently  the court examines the  question  whether  the                              obligation  to  ensure  real  balance  means  that  there  is  an  absolute                              consumer protection even in the case where the consumer is passive                              and didn't do anything to protect his or her rights and notwithstanding                              the  fact  that  the  national  law  in  these  cases  respect  the  rule  of  res                              iudicata.  After  that  the  ECJ  notes  the  importance  of  respecting  the                              principle  of  res  iudicata. There  is  no  regulation  of  remedies  in  this                                 33  Case C-40/08 Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL p. Cristine Rodríguezovej                              Nogueirovej from 8 October 2009, ECR 2009 I-09579                               34   Case  C-76/10  Pohotovost’  s.r.o.  v  Iveta  Korčkovská  from  16  November                              2010, Official Journal C 030, 29/01/2011 P. 0012 - 0012                               35  Decision C-40/08 in case Asturcom, points 29 and 30                                                                  125","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 area  at  EU  level  it  is  necessary  to  apply  national  legislation  which                              meet the requirements of equivalence and effectivness.                               Subsequently, the ECJ analyzis whether the legislation in Spain meets                              these requrements. It notes that the 2month period for submitting an                              application for annulment of the arbitration award, which begins by                              delivering  of  the  award,  meet  these  requrements.  Consequently  it                              states that that compliance  with the principle of effectiveness in the                              cicumstances, as in the main proceedings, can not require the court to                              replace  the  activity  of  the  defendant  who  didn't  participate  in  the                              arbitration or didn't submitt the action of annulment of an arbitration                                                                 36                              award,  which  therefore  became  final.   As  regard  the  principle  of                              equivalence, it  is  on  the  national  court  to  determine  whether,  under                              similar national legislation, is authorised to review the unfair terms on                              its own motion, as if they were national rules on public policy. The                              scope for such a review depends on the particular national procedural                              rules,  which  can  give  the national  court an  opportunity  to  carry  out                              such  an  assessment  according  to  the  similar  remedies  of  domestic                              nature. If the court concludes that it has such power, and also that the                              arbitration  clause  in  consumer  contract  is  an  unfair  term,  then  the                              national court  must draw all the consequences with a view to ensure                              that consumers are not bound by this clause.                               That decision is in its conclusion actually quite ambiguous as to what                              result  is  to  be  inferred  from  a  practival  standpoint. Simply  the  ECJ                              leaves  at  the  national  court  distretion  under  national  law  within  set                              boundaries  to  decide  in  particular  case.  These  boundaries  are  the                              obligation to examine the unfairness of terms in consumer contracts                              on their own motion, imperativeness of the provision of the Directive                              93/13/EEC  laing  down  that  unfair  terms  are  not  binding  on  the                              consumer,  and  then that  the  effectivness  requirements  regarding  the                              remedy does not automaticly mean that the court must substitute the                              absolute passivity of the consumer.                               The  same  view took  the  ECJ  in  the  decision  Pohotovosť, which                              was similar as  to  the  stage  of  the  proceeding  in  which  there  was  a                              question addressed and in terms of the consumer activity. This case                              concerned  the  contract  for  providing  loan  and  the  court  considered                              several arrangements as unfair terms in the consumer contract. Mostly                              the content of the decision is the same as in the Astrucom case, as well                              as how the ECJ proceeded to resolve this case. The instruction given                              to the national court are a little bit more specific when it states that in                              the  main  proceedings,  it  appears  that  according  to  information                              provided  by  the  national  court  national  legislation  requires  to                              terminate  the  enforcement  of  the  arbitration  award  unless  the                              commintement  awarded  by  the  arbitration  decision  is  contratry  to                              good morals. So the ECJ give the national court an instruction that if                              there is a necessary national legislative instrument and the court has                              information about the legal and factual backround, it can also without                                 36  Decision C-40/08 in the case Asturcom, point 47                                                                  126","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 a  proposal  assess  the  term  in  consumer  contract  even  during  the                              enforcement proceeding. When the answer is afermative that the court                              is obliged to draw all the consequences from the national legislation in                              order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by an unfair term.                               So the main question which I will try to analyze is whether it is thus                              possible  according  to  the  Slovak  legislation  in  enforcement                              proceedings  to  review  the  content  of  the  agreement  for  providing                              loans and the arbitration clause and what are the consequences which                              the enforcement court draw in practice.                               4.2 LEGAL REGULATION OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE                              ARBITRATION  AWARD  IN  SLOVAL  LEGAL  ORDER  AND                              JUDICIAL PRACTICE                               During  my  research  I  find  to  types  of  court  decision  in  execution                              proceeding. First type is decision on termination of the enforcement                              proceeding  and  second  is  decision  by  which  the  court  rejects  the                              application of authorisation for the bailiff to conduct the enforcement                              of the arbitration award which is necessary to conduct the enforcement                              in  the  begging.  According  to Slovak legislation, an  arbitration                              award, which has  become  final, is after  the  limitation  period  for                              voluntary  commitement  enforeceable  under  the  regulation  for                              enforcement  of  the  judgments. According  to  the  Rules  of                                          37                              Enforcement  is the bailiff obliged after receiving the application for                              enforcement  to  apply  for  the  authorisation  for  the  particular                              enforcement of the judgment or arbitration award.  According to the                              provision 44(2) of the Rules of Enforcement the court examines the                              application  for  authorisation  of  the  bailiff,  the  application  of  the                              creditor and the title for execution (judgment, arbitration award, ect.).                               If the  court  finds  no contradiction  between  the  application  for                              authorisation to levy of execution, the proposal for levy of execution                              or the title for execution with the law, he issues the authorisation for                              enforcement within 15 days from recieving a request from the bailiff,                              otherwise the request is refused by an order against which the appeal                              si  possible.  After  the  order  become  final  the  court  terminates  the                              enforcement proceeding also by an order even without an application.                              Under the provision 56(2) of the Rules of Enforcement, the court may                              permit the suspension of the enforcement where it si expected that the                              execution will be stopped. According to the provision 57(2) Rules of                              Enforcement the court may stop the execution when it results from a                              special  legal  act,  in  this  case  the  Arbitrational  act  even  without  an                                                                                   38                              application.  Under the provision 45 of the Arbitration Act  the court                              may  terminate  enforcement  of  the  arbitration  award  either  on  a                              proposal or on its own motion, if, among other things, the judgment                              suffers  by  procedure  error  or  the  arbitrational  award  contains  a                                 37                                 Act No. 233/1995 Coll. on bailiffs and enforcement, as amended                              38  Act No. 224/2002 Coll. Arbitrational Act, as amended                                                                  127","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 commitment which is impossible to fulfil, illegal or contrary to good                              morals.                               On this bases there are several question which arise in the context of                              the decision of ECJ and Slovak legal regulation of the arbitrarion and                              enforcement  of  the  arbotration  awards.  To  resolve  the  questions  let                              firstly analyse the approach of the Slovak court to the enforcement of                              the arbitration awards in the cases based on the consumer contracts.                              As  we  will  see  the  main conflict is  about the  scope  of  examination                              which is given to the execution court to review the arbitration award                              according to the provision 45(1c) of the Arbitration Act. What exactly                              means that the court can terminate the enforcement of the arbitration                              decision  when  the  commitment  set  in  the  decision  is  impossible  in                              practise is contrary to the law or good morals. As we can see above                              there is no clear instruction given by the ECJ to the national courts.                              The ECJ only says that the examination of the consumer contract with                              the arbitration clause is  permitted only if the national law allows it.                              The annulment of the arbitration award or any other decision of the                              enforcement court leading to unenforceability of such decision is only                              possible if the national legal order allows it. On the other hand there is                              no such obligation arising from the requirement of the  effectivity to                              supplement the passivity of the consumer, the ECJ respect the rule of                              res  iudicata,  but  the  court  should  ensure  that  the  unfair  term  in                              consumer  contract  will  not  be  binding  on  the  consumer,  if  it  is                              possible according to the national law. Because the boundaries given                              by the ECJ are so contradictory in the result, that it cannot by stated                              that  the  national  court  should  in  any  case  have  the  competence  to                              refuse  the  enforcement  of  the  arbitration  decision  in  the  case                              concerning  the  consumer.  Subsequently  it  cannot  be  used  by  the                              Slovak  courts  to  decide  on  the  meaning  of  article  45(1c)  of  the                              Arbitration Act.                               Because of the limited space in this article I will not analyse the other                              part of the problem concerning the conflict about when the court has a                              competence to terminate the enforcement of the arbitration decision.                              The  problem  is  whether  there  is  a  possibility  not  to  issue  the                              authorisation or if the court should firstly issue the authorisation and                              then examines the conditions of the enforcement proceedings. When                              there is not a competence to examine the arbitration award in the way                              that  the  courts  do,  than  it  is  not  important  when  the  competence  is                              applied,  it  will  be  illegal  in  both  situations.  I  will  make  just  one                              remark on this issue. In practise there is a difference between these                              situations in the point of view of the consumer, because after the court                              issue the authorisation, the bailiff should begin the enforcement and in                              reality  can  obtain  some  money  from  the  consumer  before  the                              execution will be terminated by the court afterwards. In the situation                              that the court refuse to issue the authorisation for the enforcement, the                              consumer wouldn't even know that there is an enforcement procedure                              against him or her.                                4.2.1 WHEN  THE  COURT  FINDS  UNFAIR  TERMS  OTHER                              THAN  THE  ARBITRATION  CLAUSES  IN  THE  CONSUMER                                                                   128","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 CONTRACT        ARE     VOID    IN    THE    ENFORCEMENT                              PROCEDURE                                                                             39                              This issue is discused broadly from the year 2009 , because around                              this time courts in Slovak republic observe rapid increasment of the                              enforcement  of  the  arbotrational  decisions,  while  the  commitement                              awarded by the decision was based on the contract on providing loan                              for a consumer with more or less the same content. From the contract                              is evident that the interest for providing the loan is really high, mostly                              0,25% daily (what is 91,25% annually). These contracts also contains                              more  unfair  terms,  which  are  absolutly  void,  like  there  is  no                              possibility  for  the  consumer  to  pay  back  borowed  money  without                              payment  all  the  contracted  interests,  there  is  also  an  arrangement                              which means that the Commercial Code applies on the contract and                              the contracts did not contain an information about annual percentage                                                                                    40                              rate of charge, which means according to the applicable law  that the                              loan should be provided without any interests. But these fact are not                              taken  into  account  by  the  arbotrator  and  the  arbitrational  decision                              imposes an obligation on the consumer to pay all the agreed payments                              including  the  interests,  penalty  interest  and  penalty  payments  as                              another sanction for breaking the contract obligaitons. On the bases of                              these allegations the commitement awarded by the arbitration decision                                                                                  41                              is band by the law. Some of the authors in the discussion  claim that                              the  arbitration  clause  itself  is  the  unfair  term  which  is  void.  As  the                              result  of  this  situation  it  is  proposed  to  the  court  to  terminate  the                              enforcement  of  the  arbitration  decision  is  such  cases  on  its  own                              motion, because this is the best way how to protect the consumer.                               Generally it is very difficult to gain some judicial decisions issued in                              the enforcement proceeding, because they are not obligatory published                              even on the website of the Ministry of Justice of Slovak republic. But                              from  those  decisions  I  have  there  can  be  drawn to types  of judicial                              approach as I mention above. They differ on the bases of reasons used                              in the orders by which the court refuse to issue an authorisation for                                                                 42                              enforcement to the bailiff. Some courts  have an effort to examine the                                39  Bajánková, J.: Spotrebiteľ v exekučnom konaní, In: Vymožiteľnosť práva                              v Slovenskej  republike,  Justičná  akadémia  Slovenskej  republiky,  Pezinok,                              2009, str. 14-15                              40                                  Act  No.  129/2010  Coll.  on  the  consumer  loans  and  other  loans  for                              consumers                               41                                  To  the  discussion  of  the  admissibility  of  the  arbitration  clauses  in  the                              consumer contracts see: Drgoncová, J.: Rozhodcovské súdy a ich právomoc                              v ochrane spotrebiteľov, In: Justičná revue, No. 11/2010, p. 1159; Bardač, R:                              Ad: rozhodcovské súdy a ich právomoc v ochrane spotrebiteľov, In: Justičná                              reuve, No. 6-7/2011, p. 930                               42  For instance see the order of the District Court Rožňava from 25. 2. 2010                              issued in the proceeding under no. 10Er/757/2009-12, order of the Regional                              Court  in  Trnava  from  30.  9.  2010  issued  in  the  proceeding  under  no.                              10CoE/160/2010-31, not published                                                                  129","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 commitment awarded by the arbitrator even when they find that there                              are some unfair terms in the consumer contracts and try to separate the                              sum of loan from the sum of interests based on these unfair terms. The                              result  should  be  that  they  will  issue  the  authorisation  for  the                              enforcement  of  the  sum  of  loan  but  deny  the  enforcement  of  the                              interests.  But  they  cannot  separate  it  only  on  the  basis  of  the                              arbitration award and so they invite the claimant/supplier to submit the                              contract to the court on order to determine the exact sum of the loan                              interests. In this type of decisions the court did not allege the nullity of                              the arbitration clause at all.                               The claimants mostly refuse to deliver such documents to the court.                              The argumentation of the claimants/suppliers are that the court is not                              entitled  to  examine  the  contract  in  the  enforcement  procedure  nor                              according to the Arbitrational Act or Rules of Enforcement, the scope                              of the courts competence in the enforcement of the arbitration decision                              is to examine only of the decision hasn't any evident error regarding                              the award itself. Firstly they based the allegations of the fact that there                              exist according to the Arbitration Act a separate action for the review                              of the arbitration decisions and that the consumer has a right to submit                              such  action.  In  such  proceeding  for  annulment  of  the  arbitration                              decision the court has full competence to examine the conditions of                              the  contract  and  the  award,  not  in  the  enforcement  procedure.  It  is                              illogical if the court has greater competence to examine the contract                              with the arbitration clause as legal basis for the certain relationship,                              than it has when it decides on the annulment of such arbitration award.                              That is because the annulment can be sought only for certain reasons                              expressly listed in the provision 40 of the Arbitration Act. Secondly                              the Rules of Enforcement require only three documents to be submited                              to the execution court to issue the authorisation for levy the execution.                              These documents were delivered and the court does not have the right                              to require the contract and should issue the authorisation.                               The  court  did  not  agree  with  the  claimant,  because according  to  its                              view  the  court  has  a  right  to  examine  the  arbitrational  decision  in                              accordance with the above mention provision 45(1) of the Arbitration                              Act, because the court can terminate the execution of the arbitration                              award  which  oblige  to  the  commitment  which  is  impossible  in                              practice, contrary to law or good morals. The court interprets it in a                              way  that  if  certain  provisions  of  the  contract  on  providing  loan  are                              contrary  to  law  and  good  morals  that  the  award  granted  by  the                              arbitration  decision  in  accordance  with  such  contract  is  issued                              contrary to law and that the court must terminate the enforcement of                              such a decision. Because the court has the obligation to examine the                              unfair contract arrangement in consumer contracts on its own motion                              and to declare them void, as long as the court didn't have the contract,                              he cannot assess the arrangement in it to decide on this, therefore the                              court refuse to authorise the bailiff to levy the execution. But on the                              other hand, the execution court isn't an appellate court because it has                              not a competence to annul the arbitration decision, but only to deny                              the enforceability of it. If the applicant will submit all the necessary                              documents to decide which claim is lawful and which isn't, the court                              can issue the authorisation for levy the execution.                                                                 130","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 4.2.2 WHEN  THE  COURT  FINDS  THE  ARBITRATION                              CLAUSES  AS  AN  UNFAIR  TERMS  IN  THE  CONSUMER                              CONTRACT        ARE     VOID    IN    THE    ENFORCEMENT                              PROCEDURE                                             43                              In  other  cases   despite  the  fact  that  the  arbitration  clause  isn't                              exclusive the courts finds that this clause in consumer contract is void                              because it is an unfair term. This clause states that the arbitration court                              is competent to resolve the case if any of the party to the contract will                              submit an application to it, but any of the party can choose between                              the  arbitrator  and  a  court.  The  court  states  that  after  the  supplier                              submits  the  case  to  the  arbitrator  the  consumer  cannot  choose  to                              submit a claim to the court, so the consumer is, by the conduct of the                              supplier, forced to use arbitrator to resolve the dispute. This is in fact                                                                                       44                              contrary to the consumer protection legislation in Civil Code.  The                              courts state that they have the competence to examine the execution                              title because of the provision 57 of the Rules of Enforcement which                              set several not only procedural but also material reasons to terminate                              the enforcement procedure and in connection with this provision the                              courts  stated  that  the  conditions  set  in  the  provision  45(1)  of  the                              Arbitrational Act are material conditions. Failure to comply with the                              material  conditions  results  in  inadmissibility  of  execution.  The                              provision 44(2) of the Rules of Enforcement set down an obligation                              for the enforcement court to examine the compliance of the execution                              title  with  the  law,  which  is  not  only  formal  process  but  rather  an                              examination of whether there are any provisions of the law which can                              preclude the enforcement of such title. That is what the court should                              do  when  inquire  the  compliance  of  the  arbitration  award  with  the                              provision 45(1) of the Arbitration Act.                               The material force of the decision also in arbitration means that there                              accrue a qualitatively new relationship between the parties in the form                              of  claim  adjudicated  by  the  court/arbitrator,  which  means  that  the                              dispute cannot be decided again and the decision is binding between                              the parties and to all authorities. But in the legal system there are some                              exemptions from the material force of the decisions. The identification                              of reasons and scope of these exemptions which affects the material                              force of the decision is set by the legislature and the court must apply                              it within its competence. The court that states that it isn't bound by the                              effect of the material force of the arbitration award when it decides on                              the annulment of the arbitration decision according to the provision 40                              of  the  Arbitrational  Act.  Subsequently  the  provision  45  of  the                              Arbitrational Act gives the court special base for examination of the                              arbitration  award  and  for  such  an  examination  the  court  must                                 43  The order of the Regional Court in Prešov from 19. 5. 2011 issued in the                              proceeding  under  no.  6CoE  60/2011  not  published;  The  order  of  the                              Constitutional Court of the Slovak republic from  24.  2. 2011 issued in the                              proceeding under no. IV US 55/2011-19                               44  The provision 54(1r) of the Civil Code                                                                  131","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 necessary  exclude  the  consequences  of  the  material  force  of                              arbitration decision. The execution court is able in the assessment of                              the  arbitration  decision  in  the  light  of  the  reasons  listed  in  the                              provision 45 of the Arbitration Act to look on this decision as it is not                              materially binding for it. The consequence of this approach is rather                              different  from  that  above  mention,  because  when  the  court  denies                              issuing the authorisation of the bailiff then the case can be decided by                              the  court  again  and  this  will  not  be  in  breach  of  the  res  iudicata                              principle.                               5. CONCLUSION                                The  suppliers  from  these  cases  also  submitted  a  complaint  to  the                              Constitution court of Slovak republic, alleging that their constitutional                              rights  for  fair  trial,  for  property  and  legitimate  expectations  were                              breached  by  these  kinds  of  decisions.  I  will  not  go  through  the                              argumentation of the Constitutional court, because of limited scope of                              this  article.  Very  briefly  the  Constitutional  court  decides  that  the                              decisions of the courts weren't arbitral, the argumentation of the courts                              were  very  good  explained,  the  court  decides  within  its  competence                              when  interpreting  and  applying  the  relevant  provisions  of  law,  its                              considerations  are  clear,  based  on  facts,  logic  and  in  constitutional                                                                      45                              point of view are legitimate and acceptable.                              But  on  the  other  side  is  this  kind  of  approach  of  the  courts  really                              necessary in the protection of the consumers? Despite the fact that the                              scope of examination of the arbitration awards can be interpreted very                              logically and persuasively also rather different and more constraining                              as I indicate before in the objections of the suppliers, I will now focus                              on the analyses of the problem from the bigger perspective. From the                              above mentioned decisions is clear that in the second type the courts                              deny  to  issue  the  authorisation  for  enforcement  of  the  arbitration                              decisions even in the part of the claim. This has broad consequences.                              Even  if  we  admit  that  the  decision  of  the  enforcement  court,  not                              appellate  court,  breaks  the  material  force  of  the  arbitration  decision                              and  there  is  a  possibility  to  enforce  at  least  those  claims  which  are                              lawful,  there  are  further  problems.  Firstly  there  is  a  doubt  how  the                              courts  will  react  on  the  submissions  in  the  same  cases  which  were                              decided  in  arbitration,  because  as  I  mentioned  before  courts  don't                              think  in  general  that  the  arbitration  clause  is  a  void  unfair  term  in                              consumer contract itself. There is a posibility that the court will reject                              the claim because of the res iudicata principle. Maybe the suppliers                                45   Compare  Slašťan,  M.:  Acceptance  of  Human  Rights  and  Constitutional                              Values in Reviews of Arbitral Awards by the Courts of the Slovak republic,                              In:  Czech  (\&  Central  European)  Yearbook  of  Arbitration,  here:  http://                              ssrn.com/abstract=1796004;  The  order  of  the  Constitutional  Court  of  the                              Slovak republic from 27. 5. 2010 issued in the proceedings under no. I. ÚS                              202/2010-17,  The  order  of  the  Constitutional  Court  of  the  Slovak  republic                              from 24.11.2010 issued in the proceedings under no. I. ÚS 442/2010-16, The                              order of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak republic from 3.3.2011 issued                              in the proceedings under no. IV ÚS 60/2011-13                                                                  132","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 shouldn't base their claim on the contract but rather on the different                              basis,  like  unjust  enrichment.  But  there  is  a  problem  with  the                              limitation  period  because  the  arbitration  and  the  enforcement                              proceeding also last some time, so the limitation period can lapse in                              the meantime, while the supplier realise that the arbitration decision is                              unenforceable.                                From the first part of this article there can be seen that the courts do                              not  proceed  uniformly  when  deciding  the  disputes  based  on  the                              consumer contracts. So there are also decisions of the courts where the                              consumer  protection  is  not  ensured  similar  as  in  the  arbitration                              decisions. But on the other hand the execution court doesn't deny the                              enforceability of the judicial decisions which aren't in accordance with                              the  consumer  protection  legal  regulation.  The  question  is  why  the                              consumer  protection  shouldn't  by  granted  to  these  consumers  too.                              Another problem arises when the lawful claim is already paid to the                              supplier and the supplier sues only the unlawful interests, should the                              court treat these executions differently or not.                              As  we  can  see  this  practise  of  the  Slovak  courts  bring  on  the  light                              more and more problems. According to my opinion this approach can                              be justifiable only in the case when it is proportionate to the legitimate                              aim. The legitimate aim in these cases is not the punishment for the                              nasty supplier but the protection of the consumer only in extent that he                              or  she  won't  have  to  pay  the  supplier  great  interest  for  a  loan  as                              prescribed  by  law.  If  the  practice  of  the  court  will  cause  that  the                              consumer  won't  be  obliged  to  pay  back  even  borrowed  money,  that                              will cause the imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to                              the  consumer  contract  in  a  particular  case  that  is  according  to  my                              opinion unacceptable because is disproportionate to the aim.                               Is it really necessary to protect the consumer in that way that the court                              will deny the enforceability to the arbitration award? On the one hand                              the  legitimate  objection  is  that  in  the  arbitration  the  consumer                              protection isn't ensured even when the consumer is active and defends                              himself.  The  arbitration  shouldn't  serve  as  easy  way  to  gain  the                              decision  for  execution  in  cases  which  wouldn't  be  successful  in  the                              proceeding  before  the  court.  On  the  other  hand  the  consumer  must                              firstly  have  a  chance  to  defend  his  rights and should  have  effective                              remedies  available  for  him.  Most  of  the  consumers  understand  the                              principle  that  if  they  borrow  money,  they  have  to  pay  them  back.                              There are several institutions which can grand the consumer free legal                              aid. More and more amendments are made to the legislation to create                              the  effective  remedies  and  to  ensure  that  the  cost  won't  hinder  the                              consumer  from  defending  in  the  case  that their  rights  are infringed.                              That  is  why  a  judicial  activity  shouldn't  replace  the  activity  of  the                              consumers in the judicial proceeding, but rather should the legal order                              be changed to avoid the situations where the arbitration award doesn't                              respect the consumer protection legislation.                               According to my opinion it isn't right to exclude the arbitration clause                              from  the  consumer  contract  at  all,  because  the  arbitration  has  its                              eligible place in the modern judicial system. There are several reasons                                                                  133","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 why is the arbitration good choice for such claims. It is important to                              realize  that  the  consumers  make  use  of  the  small  loans  from  the                              companies which aren't banks, are mostly not able to get the loan from                              the bank. These consumers have lower income than the banks require                              and mostly the loans are of small amount because they aren't able at                              all to pay back big amounts of money from their income. On the other                              hand  these  kinds  of  loans  are  necessary  for  these  consumers  and  if                              there wouldn't be possibility to borrow the money legally, there will                              be  a  risk  of  black  market.  But  when  providing  the  loan  for  such                              consumers  there  is  greater  risk  that  in  the  case  of  sudden                              unemployment or disease they won't be able to pay the money back.                              The suppliers aren't patient and immediately begin to recover the debt.                              The  higher  risk  connected  with  these  loans  is  the  reason  to  bigger                              interests and other sanctions claimed by the suppliers. I won't try to do                              some  quantification of the  risk  and  try  to account  the  right interest.                              When the courts started to refuse to adjudicate the contracted interest,                              the suppliers started to include an arbitration clause into the consumer                              contracts on providing small loans.                               According  to  my  opinion is  very  important  to  find  the  way  how  to                              preserve the possibility to have the dispute decided by the arbitrator                              and  in  the  same  time  ensure the respect  of  the  consumer  protection                              legislation,  which  I  find  very  important.  The  consumer  must  be                              protected  from  disproportionately  high  sanctions  for  delay  with  the                              payment of his debt.  In general how to protect the consumer which                              hasn't  legal  education  in  the  arbitration.  The  arbitration  should  be                              divided into commercial arbitration and consumer arbitration. Because                              the relationship between the consumer and the supplier is typical for                              the economical disparity of the parties, which has a consequence also                              on the legal representation, the ability to pay costs of the proceeding                              and  also  the  information  that  the  parties have  at the  begging  of  the                              proceeding  to  defend  their  rights.  Separate  legislation  should  be                              adopted  to  govern  the  arbitration  in  disputes  between  the  consumer                              and the supplier. The arbitration court should be permanent body and                              the  proceedings  before  them  should  have  strict  rules  as  to  a                              composition, costs of the proceeding, the legal representation of the                              consumer before the arbitrator by the nongovernmental organisations                              for their protection or even there should be the accountability of the                              arbitrator.                               Literature:                                -  Cirák,  J:  Vymožiteľnosť  spotrebiteľských  práv  v kontexte  úpravy                                 nekalých klauzúl v spotrebiteľských zmluvách, In: Vymožiteľnosť                                 práva  v Slovenskej  republike,  Pulished  by:  Justičná  akadémia                                 Slovenskej republiky, Pezinok, 2009, ISBN: 978-80-970207-0-5                              -  Bajánková, J.: Spotrebiteľ v exekučnom konaní, In: Vymožiteľnosť                                 práva  v Slovenskej  republike,  Justičná  akadémia  Slovenskej                                 republiky, Pezinok, 2009, p. 14-15, ISBN: 978-80-970207-0-5                                                                     134","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 -  Drgoncová,  J.:  Rozhodcovské  súdy  a ich  právomoc  v ochrane                                 spotrebiteľov,  In:  Justičná  revue,  No.  11/2010,  p.  1159,  from                                 www.epi.sk                              -  Bardač,  R:  Ad:  rozhodcovské  súdy  a ich  právomoc  v ochrane                                 spotrebiteľov,  In:  Justičná  reuve,  No.  6-7/2011,  p.  930,  from                                 www.epi.sk                              -  Slašťan,  M.:  Acceptance  of  Human  Rights  and  Constitutional                                 Values in Reviews of Arbitral Awards by the Courts of the Slovak                                 republic, In: Czech (\& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration,                                 here: http:// ssrn.com/abstract=1796004                              -  Joined  Cases  Oceáno  Grupo  Editorial  SA  v.  Roció  Murciano                                 Quintero  (C-240/98)  and  Salvat  Editores  SA  v.  José  M.  Sánchez                                 Alcón  Prades  (C-241/98),  José  Luis  Copano  Badillo  (C-242/98),                                 Mohammed Berroane (C243/98) a Emilio Viñas Feliú (C-244/98),                                 ECR 2000 I-04941                              -  Case  C-40/08  Asturcom  Telecomunicaciones  SL  p.  Cristine                                 Rodríguezovej  Nogueirovej  from  8  October  2009,  ECR  2009  I-                                 09579                              -  Case  C-76/10  Pohotovost’  s.r.o.  v  Iveta  Korčkovská  from  16                                 November 2010, Official Journal C 030, 29/01/2011 P. 0012 - 0012                              -  Council Directive No. 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms                                 in consumer contracts, Official Journal L 095, 21/04/1993, P. 0029                                 - 0034                              -  Act No. 40/1964 Coll. Civil Code, as amended                              -  Amendment  act  no.  150/2004,  which  changes  and  amend  Civil                                 Code                              -  Act No. 513/1992 Coll. Commercial Code, as amended                              -  Act No. 250/2007 Coll. on the consumer protection, as amended                              -  Act  No.  568/2007  Coll.  which  change  and  amend  the  Act  No.                                 527/2002 Coll. on voluntary auctions and on amendment of the Act                                 No. 323/1992 Coll. on notaries and notary work as amended                              -  Act  No.  129/2010  Coll.  on  consumer  loans  and  other  loans  for                                 consumers and on change and amendment of other laws                              -  Government Regulation No. 87/1995 Coll. by which are specified                                 several provisions of the Civil Code as amended                              -  Act No. 258/2001 Coll. on the consumer loans as amended                              -  Act No. 233/1995 Coll. on bailiffs and enforcement, as amended                              -  Act No. 224/2002 Coll. Arbitrational Act, as amended                              -  The judgment of the District Court Žilina from 27. 9. 2007 issued in                                 the proceeding under no. 14C/40/2007                              -  The judgment of the District Court Čadca from 18. 9. 2007 issued                                 in the proceedings under no. 4C/185/2005                              -  The judgmment of the District Court Brezno from 4. 7. 2007 issued                                 in the proceeding under no. 3C/69/2006                              -  The judgment of the Distric Court Žilina from 25. 4. 2008 issued in                                 the proceedings under no. 4C/450/2007                                                                  135","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 -  The judgment of the Distric Court Rožňava from 11. 3. 2010 issued                                 in the proceedings under no. 4C/31/2010                              -  The  judgment  of  the  District  Court  Piešťany  from  26.  10.  2010                                 issued in the proceeding under no. 4c/145/2009                              -  The judgment of the District Court Galanta from 10. 2. 2010 issued                                 in the proceeding under no. 17C/131/2009                              -  The judgment of the District Court Žilina from 12. 9. 2008 issued in                                 the proceeding under no. 11Cb/281/2007, from 18. 2. 2008 issued                                 in the proceeding under no. 8C/54/2007, from 6. 8. 2008 issued in                                 the proceeding under no. 11Cb/318/2007                              -  The judgments of the Regional Court in Trnava from 4. 11. 2008                                 issued in the proceedings under no. 21Cob/280/2008 and from 18.                                 11. 2008 issued in the proceedings under no. 21Cob/323/2008                              -  The  judgment  of  the  District  Court  Kežmarok  from  3.  6.  2009                                 issued in the proceedings under no. 8Cb/22/2009,                              -  The judgment of the District Court Ružomberok from 23. 4. 2009                                 issued in the proceedings under no. 6Cb/25/2009,                              -  The judgment of the District Court Zvolen from 19. 8. 2009 issued                                 in the proceedings under no. 8Cb/14/2008                              -  The judgment of the Regional Court in Banská Bystrica from 28. 8.                                 2008 issued in the proceedings under no. 16Co/152/2008,                              -  The judgment of the District Court Zvolen from 6. 6. 2008 issued in                                 the proceedings under no.11C/42/2007,                              -  The judgment of the High Court of the Slovak republic from 31. 7.                                 2009 issued in the proceedings under no. 1 M Cdo 1/2009                              -  The judgment of the Ditrict Court Brezno from 10. 7. 2008 issued                                 in the proceedings under no. 7Cb/144/2007                              -  The judgment of the Ditrict Court Komárno from 25. 9. 2008 issued                                 in the proceedings under no. 5Cb/150/2008                              -  The judgment of the Ditrict Court Lučenec from 9. 1. 2008 issued                                 in the proceedings under no. 9C/82/2007                              -  The judgment of the District Court Prešov from 16. 1. 2008 issued                                 in the proceeding under no.  14C/10/2006                              -  The judgment of the Regional Court in Banská Bystrica from 28. 8.                                 2008 issued in the proceeding under no. 16Co/152/2008                              -  The order of the District Court Rožňava from 25. 2. 2010 issued in                                 the proceeding under no. 10Er/757/2009-12,                              -  The order of the Regional Court in Trnava from 30. 9. 2010 issued                                 in the proceeding under no. 10CoE/160/2010-31, not published                              -  The order of the Regional Court in Prešov from 19. 5. 2011 issued                                 in the proceeding under no. 6CoE 60/2011 not published;                              -  The order of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak republic from                                 24. 2. 2011 issued in the proceeding under no. IV US 55/2011-19                              -  The order of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak republic from                                 27. 5. 2010 issued in the proceedings under no. I. ÚS 202/2010-17,                                                                    136","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 -  The order of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak republic from                                 24.11.2010 issued in the proceedings under no. I. ÚS 442/2010-16,                              -  The order of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak republic from                                 3.3.2011 issued in the proceedings under no. IV ÚS 60/2011-13                               Contact – email                              katkamikuli@gmail.com                                                                                                                                        137","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                    SOME CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE                              SALE OF ANOTHER PERSON’S  THING IN THE                               CONCEPTION OF THE CURRENT ROMANIAN                                                      CIVIL CODE                                             PROFESSOR MOISE BOJINCĂ, PHD                                  Faculty of Public Administration and Compared Political Studies                                          “Constantin Brâncuşi” University of Tg-Jiu                               Abstract in original language                              In the old Romanian civil regulation (the Civil Code of 1864) the sale                              of another person’s  thing was a non-regulated institution. This is why                              its  existence  or  validity  made  the  object  of  certain  strong                              controversies.                               The new Romanian Civil Code regulates the sale of another person’s                              thing,  both  generally  in  art.  1230  called  “The  goods  belonging  to                                                                                            rd                                                      th                              another  person”  of  the  5   book  “About  the  Obligations”,  the  3                              section  “Concluding  the  Contract”  paragraph  4  “The  Object  of  the                              Contract”, and particularly in art. 1683 called “The Sale of Another                              Person’s Goods” of the matter of the selling contract.                               Thus, art. 1230 of the Civil Code generally states that, unless the law                              stipulates  otherwise,  the  goods  of  a third  may  make  the  object of a                              performance, as the debtor is forced to procure and transmit them to                              the creditor or, according to the case, to obtain the agreement of the                              third.                              If  the  obligation  is  not  executed,  the  debtor  is  responsible  for  the                              caused damage.                               At  its  turn,  art.  1683  paragraph  1  of  the  Civil  Code  stipulates                              regarding the selling contract that, when concluding it on a determined                              individual good, the good belongs to a third, the contract is valid and                              the seller is forced to provide the transmission of the property right                              from its holder to the buyer.                               As  such,  the  quality  of  holder  of  the  seller’s  property  right  on  the                              respective thing is not a validity requirement of the contract and the                              seller is only forced to provide the transmission of the property right                              from the holder to the buyer. This also results from the definition of                              the  selling  contract  accomplished  by  art.  1650  paragraph  (1)  of  the                              Civil Code, according to which “the sale is the contract by means of                              which  the  seller  transmits  or,  depending  on  the  case,  is  forced  to                              transmit the buyer the property of a good in exchange for a price the                              buyer is forced to pay”.                                                                           138","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 1. PRELIMINARIES                               The Romanian Civil Code of 1864 did not regulate the sale of another                              person’s thing1 as a consequence of the fact that it did not take over                              the  stipulations  contained  in  art.  1599  of  the  French  Civil  Code,                              according to which: “the sale of another person’s thing is null, it may                              give place to damage-interests, when the buyer did not know that the                              thing belonged to another”.                               2. OPINIONS  EXPRESSED  IN  THE  ROMANIAN  DOCTRINE                              AND JURISPRUDENCE                               In  the  absence  of  a  legal  regulation  regarding  this  situation,  the                              Romanian  doctrine  and  jurisprudence  mainly  spotlighted  three                              opinions.                                In a first opinion, the sale of another person’s  thing was considered as                              null, for the lack of cause “as a determinant psychological reason of                              the  parties’  consent,  showing  that  there  is  no  main  and  immediate                              purpose  of  the  contract,  namely  the  carrying  of  the  property”2,  a                              correlative obligation of the payment of the price.                               It was considered still an absolutely null operation the sale-purchase                              when the parties knew that the thing belonged to another person, as                                                                     3                              this is speculative and it has an illegal cause .                               In another opinion, the sale of another person’s  thing was considered                              as annullable, so relatively null, when the parties or at least the buyer                              was  wrong,  considering  that the sold  thing  belongs  to  the  buyer.  In                              this case, the annullable feature was based on the error-vice of consent                                                              4                              on the essential quality of the buyer .                                 1                                The sale of another’s thing refers to the situation of alienating a determined                              individual thing. In case of the things of gender or future things, there is not                              this problem as another person’s thing may not be sold and the property is not                              transmitted when concluding the contract, but when individualizing the work.                               See, Francisc Deak, Civil Law Treaty. Special Contracts, Juridical Universe                              Press, Bucharest, 2001, p. 55;                               2 D. Alexandrescu, Theoretical and Practical Explanation of the Romanian                              Civil Law, volume VIII, Bucharest, 1925, p. 93. Even the judicial practice                              has sometimes decided in this sense. See, for example, the Supreme Court,                              civil decision no. 1120/1966 in Decision Collection, 1966, p. 93.                              3 Matei B., Cantacuzino, Elements of Civil Law, All Press, Bucharest, 1998,                              p. 620.                               4   In  this  case,  the  seller  is  wrongly  considered  by  the  buyer  as  being  the                              owner of the respective good. See, Deak Francisc, Civil Law, The Theory of                              the Special Contracts, Didactic and Pedagogic Press, Bucharest, 1963, p. 14;                                                                  139","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 In a third opinion, they considered that the sale of  another person’s                              thing  is  valid  when  the  parts  know  that the thing  is not  the  seller’s                              property and when he forced himself to procure it subsequently to the                                   5                              buyer .  In  this  case,  there  was  the  problem  of  the  resolution  of  the                              sales  contract  based  on  the  seller’s  responsibility  for  guarantee  for                              eviction to the buyer. At the same time, the buyer may demand the                              resolution  of  the  contract  for  the  non-execution  of  the  seller’s                                                                           6                              obligation to transfer the property on the sold thing .                               3. REGULATING  THE  SALE  OF  ANOTHER  PERSON’S                              THING IN THE NEW ROMANIAN CIVIL CODE                               The  new  Civil  Code  accomplishes  a  both  general  and  particular                              express regulation.                               The  general  regulation  is  stipulated  by  art.  1230  of  the  Civil  Code                              whose marginal title is: “The Goods Belonging to Another” and that                              states  that,  unless  the  law  stipulates  otherwise,  the  goods  of  a  third                              may  make  the  object  of  a  performance  and  the  debtor  is  forced  to                              procure and transmit them to the creditor or, depending on the case, to                              obtain  the  agreement  of  the  third.  If  there  is  no  execution  of  the                              obligation, the debtor answers for the cause prejudices.                                The particular regulation is registered in art. 1683 of the Civil Code                              called “The Sale of Another Person’s Thing”.                               Thus, according to paragraph 1, of this article, if, when concluding the                              contract on a determined individual good, this belongs to a third, the                              contract is valid, and the seller is forced to provide the transmission of                              the property right from the holder or by the buyer.                               As such, in the current regulation, the quality of holder of the property                              right on the thing that is to be sold is not considered as an essential                              demand for the contract validity and the seller only has the obligation                              to provide the transmission of the property right from the titular to the                              buyer.                                The  possibility  to  transmit  in  future  the  property  right  is  also                              considered by the definition of the sales contract.                               Thus, art. 1650 paragraph (1) of the Civil Code stipulates that the sale                              is the contract by means of which the seller transmits or, depending on                              the case, is forced to transmit to the buyer the property of a good in                              exchange for a price the buyer is forced to pay.                                5  R. Codrea, Consequences of selling another’s thing when at least the buyer                              ignores that the seller is not the owner of the sold good, I. Lulă, Discussions                              Referring to the Controversial Problem of the Juridical Consequences of the                              Sale of Another’s Goods, in Law no. 3/1999, p. 65-68;                               6  C. Toader, Eviction in Civil Contracts, All Press, Bucharest, 1997, p. 55-58;                                                                  140","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 We  consider  that  this  obligation  instituted  by  the  above  mentioned                              article is a result. The way we may accomplish it is stated in art. 1683,                              paragraph  2  of  the  Civil  Code  that  stipulates  that:  “The  seller’s                              obligation is considered as being executed, either by gaining the good                              by it, or by ratifying the sale by the owner, or by any other direct or                              indirect means that procure to the buyer the property on the good.”                                According to paragraph (3) of the above-mentioned article, even if it                              does  not  result  the  contrary  from  the  law  or  from  the  will  of  the                              parties, then the property is carried from the buyer since gaining the                              good by the seller, or since the ratification of the sales contract by the                              owner.                               If the seller does not provide the transmission of the property right to                              the buyer, this last one could ask for the resolution of the contract, the                              return of the price and also, if it is the case, damages-interests.                               The new Civil Code also regulates the situation when a co-owner sells                              the  good  of  the  common  property,  even  if,  when  concluding  the                              contract, he only had a share of the property right on it.                                In this case, when a co-owner sells the good, the common property                              and subsequently, it does not provide the transmission of the property                              during the entire good by the buyer, and this last one could require –                              beside damages-interests, at his choice, to be the reduction of the price                              proportionally with the share – a part it had not gained, or a resolution                              of the contract if they had not buy if they would have known that the                              property of the entire good would not be gained.                               The way of establishing the damages-interests the seller dues to the                              buyer, if there is not settled the transmission of the property right on                              the sold good, is established according to the stipulations of art. 1702                              and 1703 of the Civil Code where we refer in art. 1683  paragraph (6)                              of the Civil Code.                                Thus, art. 1702 of the Civil Code, called “Extension of the Damages                              Interests” show that they contain:                               The value of the fruit the buyer was forced to return to the one who                              defeated him;                               The judgement expenditures accomplished by the buyer in the process                              with the one who defeated him, and also in the process of calling the                              seller in the guarantee;                               The  expenditures  and  concluding  and  executing  the  contract  by  a                              buyer  –  the  suffered  losses  and  the  non-accomplished  gains  by  the                              buyer because of the eviction.                               Also, the seller is kept to return to the buyer, or to make it return by                              the one who manages all the expenditures for the works accomplished                                                                     141","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                                                      7                              related with the sold good, either the works are autonomous , or they                              are added, but in this last case, only if they are necessary or useful.                               If  the  seller  has  known  the  eviction  cause  when  concluding  the                              contract, his is debt to return to the buyer the expenditures made for its                              accomplishment  and,  depending  on  the  case,  the  raise  of  the                              voluptuous works.                                If the buyer knew when contracting the contract that the good did not                              entirely  belong  to  the  seller,  he  may  not  ask  the  return  of  the                              expenditures regarding the autonomous or voluptuous works, whereas                              it  is  considered  that  he  has  made  these  expenditures  in  order  to                              increase his comfort on its personal risk.                               Finally, when the partial eviction does not attract the resolution of the                              contract,  the  seller  should  return  to  the  buyers  a  part  of  the  price,                              proportional to the value of the part it was evicted by and, if it is the                                                            8                              case, to pay only Debts – interests .                              4. CONCLUSIONS                               The New Civil Code, by regulating the sale of another person’s work,                              are allowed to cut certain controversies expressed across the time in                              the special literature and practice. At the same time, it consecrates the                              possibility to dispose more largely of another person’s goods.                               The new regulation refers to the determined individual good and not                              the goods of gender.                               We consider that the regulation is too succinct and incomplete. Thus,                              it  does  not  specify  the  term  where  the  seller  should  provide  the                              transmission of the property to the buyer, it contains no stipulations                              validating  the  fraud  sale  of  another  person’s  goods,  and  neither  the                              way they register the respective goods in the territorial book.                                         7                                 According  to  art.  578  paragraph  (1)  of  the  Civil  Code,  the                              autonomous works are the buildings, the plantations and other                              independent works accomplished on an immobile.                               8   For  establishing  the  extension  of  the  damages-interests,  we                              correspondingly  apply  the  stipulations  art.  1702  of  the  Civil                              Code.                                                                   142","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                    INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF                                        EUROPEAN SOCIAL SECURITY                                             COORDINATION RULES                                                   KRISTÝNA ONDROVÁ                                       Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Czech Republic                                 Abstract in original language                              Although the form and content of the social security provisions belong                              to the competences of an individual Member State, the coordination of                              the  national  systems  is  one  of  the  crucial  fields  of  European                              cooperation,  as  it  is  closely  associated  to  the  free  movement                              principles.  The  most  important  act  in  this  respect  is  Regulation                              1408/71 (now repealed by Regulation 883/2004) and the subsequent                              modifications and related acts, which are basically aimed to guarantee                              equal treatment and non discrimination.                               Key words in original language                              European  social  security,  national  social  security  systems,                              coordination, interpretation, preliminary questions                               1. INDIRECT INTRODUCTION                                Each member state has developed a separate social security system                              based  on  historical  differences,  needs  and  options  of  each  country.                              Despite a certain similarity and interaction these systems distinct quite                              a  lot.  Later  the  individual  states  begun  to  recognize  problems,                              especially  with  cross-border  workers,  and  tried  to  solved  them                              somehow. The tried to unify their systems or more precisely establish                              some common standards and interconnect the existing systems.                               The initial coordination was based on bilateral agreements which were                              soon  added  or  promoted  by  multilateral  ones.  The  highest  level  of                              coordination  has  reached  the  European  Union.  However,  full                              harmonization process will (if ever) take many years more.                               The  aim  of  this  contribution  is  to  discuss  current  European  social                              security  rules  and  find  out  some  interpretative  and  application                              difficulties  which  occurs  in  connection  with  them.  Firstly  the                              European  point  of  view  is  mentioned.  Second  part  of  the  text  is                              focused on national (Czech) level.                               2.  LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND                               Where should be found the legal basis for making coordination rules                              in the area of social security? As well as for all other regulated areas it                              is necessary to have a brief look in the Treaties. First of all, Preamble                              and the  Part  I  of  the TFEU[1] establish the  basic  objectives,  values                              and principles of the EU. Hereinafter, Part II TFEU which prohibits                              any  discrimination  on  grounds  of  nationality  and  establishes  the                              Citizenship of the Union should be regard as essential source as well                                                                 143","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                as the provision connected with European social policy. But primarily,                              Part  IV  TFEU  –  provisions  establishing  free  movement  of  persons,                              services and capital – should be considered as the key one, especially                              Chapter I - workers, Article 48, which constitutes the legal basis for                              the Regulations.                               Also the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union should                              be  mentioned  as  a  primary  source,  above  all  Article  34  -  Social                              security and social assistance.                               Secondary  law  acts  has  also  been  adopted.  The  most  important  are                              Regulation 883/2004[2] and Regulation 987/2009.[3] Some Directives                              are relevant in this area too, e.g. Directive 86/378.[4]                               2.1 THE REGULATIONS                               Regulation  883/2004  and  Regulation  987/2009  has  been  the  current                              coordination  regulation  in  force  since  May  2010,  which  is  not  long                              time ago. Thus, which regulation should be relevant for the most of                              cases? First regulation in this area - Regulation 3[5] - was set up in                              1957 as one of the first regulation at all. Then in 1971 the Regulation                              3 was replaced by two other regulations – the Regulation 1408/71[6]                              and  the  Regulation  574/72.[7]  But  in  few  decades  also  these                              Regulations demanded for a change.                               The  purpose  of   the  regulations  is  to  prevent  migrants  who  are                              employed in more than one country from loosing their social benefits                              due  to  another  citizenship,  residence  or  failing  to  reach  required                              period of insurance specified in national law. But, the regulations are                              limited to the coordination of existing national social systems without                              further interfere with their substance.                                3. APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE SOCIAL                              SECURITY RULES                               European  social  security  rules  have  been  given  lot  of  time  to  be                              developed quite well. The crucial acts of coordination in this field are                              regulations, which are as acts of general legal force directly applicable                              in all Member States. In other words, these provisions are binding to                              all and must be respected by national authorities and administrations.                              Even in cases where a national law is in conflict with the regulation,                              the regulation has priority.                               In  general,  in  most  cases  the  European  social  security  rules  are                              respected and applied correctly. However, as we should suppose, there                              are  some  problematic  situation  arising  as  will  be  mention  later.                              Sometimes  national  institutions  have  either  intentionally  or  not                              incorrectly interpreted and applied European provisions.                               Because of the fact that the current Regulations has not been in force                              for long period yet, most of cases are ruled under the previous ones.                              Beside  that,  it  is  also  possible  to  pass  over  so-called  Implementing                              Regulation 987/2009 for its complementary character. Therefore, for                                                                 144","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                the  purpose  of  this  contribution  the  crucial  one  is  the  Regulation                              1408/71.                               As was already written above, the Regulation 1408/71 was repealed                              by  Regulation  883/2004.  What  were  the  main  problematic  features,                              which leaded to the change of the act?                               “This Regulation has been frequently amended and many judgement                              of  the  Court  of  Justice  concerned  this  Regulation.  As  a  result,  the                              Regulation  has  became  very  complicated  and  this  was  considered                              problematic for migrant workers and also for legal aid advisers and                              judges the Regulation was difficult to apply. This complexity is the                              more  problematic  as  it  may  impede  the  main  objective  of  the                              Regulation,  that  is,  the  promotion  of  free   movement  of  workers.                              Some of the main causes of the complexity are:                               -  the  text  of  the  Regulation  can  not  and  must  not  be  interpreted                              without taking the judgements - of the Court of Justice into account                               - the case law has grown considerably in length and complexity in the                              course of time                               - the Regulation provides many exemptions to its main rules                               -  the  lack  of  an  explanatory  memorandum  to  the  Regulation.  This                              means that all provisions had to be interpreted as they stand, unless                              the Court has interpreted... Also, the material scope of the Regulation                              was limited...”[8]                               3.1 THE COURT OF JUSTICE                               The role of the Court of Justice in social security question has been                              fundamental.  Since  the  beginning  few  hundreds  cases  on  the                              interpretation  of  the  Regulation  has  been  already  decided.  The                              majority of them was in favour of foreign workers and their families,                              which clearly demonstrates its importance in protection of European                              citizens. The role of the Court is essential when any doubts arise about                              the  scope  and  extent  of the  Regulation,  its application  to  individual                              cases  and  its  interpretation  with  regard  to  national  laws.  The  Court                              decides mostly in preliminary ruling.                               The  Court  of  Justice  contributed  and  still  contributes  to  the  free                              movement of persons, apparently in the same extend as the Regulation                              itself. The Court strongly helped with the drawing up the concept of                              the new regulations.                               In current case law the Court tends to very extensive interpretation,                              emphasising  on  the  wide  use  of  the  Regulation  with  putting  the                              freedom  of  movement  in  the  first  place.  Trying  to  avoid  excessive                              bureaucracy is also desired.                               To mention very briefly some particular cases from recent times it is                              necessary  to  divide  whole  area  into  smaller  parts.  To  simplify,  the                                                                 145","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                logical structure of the Regulation is used. Many cases on personal or                              matter  extent  has  been  already  decided  (Borger,[9]  Stewart[10]).                              Several aspects of pension insurance are also brought at the Court, e.g.                              aggregation  of  periods  and  their  identification  (Barreira  Pérez),[11]                              definition  of  pension  benefits  (Noteboom)[12]  or  different  rules  for                              calculation and entitlement in different countries (Tomaszewska).[13]                              Probably  the  best  known  judgements  came  from  the  field  of  health                              insurance  (Kohll[14]  as  one  of  the  oldest,  or  Ivanov  Elchinov[15]).                              Another  field  are  family  benefits  (Schwemmer),[16]  unemployment                              benefits (De Cuyper)[17] and many others.                               With no exaggeration it is possible to say that without the Court of                              Justice, the protection offered by the European provisions would be                              less  efficient,  less  complete  and  less  satisfactory.  The  Court  is  the                              legal guardian of European citizens who are exercising their right to                              free movement and residence within Europe.                               4. CZECH COURTS                               „The  pension  system  in  the  Czech  republic  is  to  a  large  extent  a                              continuation of the solution applied before the economic changes of                              1989. The basic element of the continuation consists in maintenance                              the  pay-as-you-go  solution  without  the  intention  of  introducing  any                              changes.  This  remains  in  contrast  with  the  basic  changes  in  the                              functioning  of  the  systems  in  the  neighbouring  countries,  such  as                              Poland or Hungary.“[18] Nonetheless shortly after the revolution and                              before the accession to the European Union, the most of the legal acts                              were replaced with respect to the European law.                               All national authorities are bound to apply the European law, which                              also  applies  to  the  Czech  social  security  ones.  A  special  role  play                              administrative courts as a higher form of dispute resolution. Among                              them  The  Supreme  Administrative  Court  „…  is  the  supreme                              jurisdiction dealing with matters in the jurisdiction of administrative                              courts. Administrative courts in general provide protection of public                              subjective rights of natural and legal persons (in procedures dealing                              with  actions  against  the  decisions  of  administrative  authorities),                              which is supplemented by protection against failure of administrative                              authorities  to  act  and  protection  from  unlawful  interference,                              instruction and coercion from administrative authorities…“[19]                               With  regard  to  huge  jurisdiction  of  the  Supreme  Administrative                              Court,[20]  it  can  be  assumed  that  this  institution,  as  the  supreme                              administrative  authority,  properly  applies  the  European  law.  The                              Supreme Administrative Court is considered as dynamic and creative                              institution with afford of full and quality reflection of the European                              law.                               „In the first four years of membership of the Czech Republic in the                              European Union the Supreme Administrative Court did not have any                              occasion to request for a preliminary ruling. Although there was an                              important aspect of the EU law in several cases, its interpretation was                                                                  146","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                so apparent that it was not necessary to ask the Court.“[21] But since                              then, nine[22] requests for preliminary ruling has been raised by this                              Court.                                4.1 CASE C-399/09: LANDTOVÁ                               The  most  relevant  for  the  purpose  of  this  contribution  -  Case  C-                              399/09, Landtová[23] - asked for the interpretation of the Regulation                              1408/71. The case can be seen as a culmination of long-time disputes                              taken by Czech and Slovak pensioners, who worked both in the Czech                              and the Slovak republic, about their social security benefits after the                              dissolution of the Federal Czech and Slovak Republic. This case was                              firstly a dispute between Mr. Landtová and the Czech Social Security                              Association, then it occurs before the Prague City Court, finally before                              the Supreme Administrative Court and also the Constitutional Court is                              engaged. The body of the case consists of the entitlement, insurance                              period and the amount of the partial retirement pension.                                4.1.1 THE PRELIMINARY RULING                               In those circumstances, the Supreme Administrative Court decided to                              request for a preliminary ruling and set two questions. The first one                              was  about  the  interpretation  of  the  Regulation  in  the  sense  that  it                              precludes the application of a national rule, which provides the Czech                              institution   to  determine  the  entitlement,  period  and  amount  of  the                              supplement,  even  though,  according  to  the  European  law,  it  is  the                              social security institution of the Slovak Republic which is competent.                              The  second  question,  in  essence,  concerned  with  possible                              discrimination[24] in the judgements of the Constitutional law, which                              allows payment of a supplement to old age benefit solely to the Czech                              citizens residing in the territory of the Czech Republic.                                The Court of Justice responded that the provisions of the Regulation                              do  not  preclude  a  national  rule,  which  provides  for  payment  of  a                              supplement  to  old  age  benefit  where  the  amount  of  that  benefit,                              granted  pursuant  to  the  bilateral  agreement  between  the  Czech                              Republic and the Slovak Republic,[25] is lower than that which would                              have been received if the retirement pension had been calculated in                              accordance with the legal rules of the Czech Republic. Accordingly,                              no infringement of the European law was founded.                               That  is  not  true  for  the  second  question.  The  Court  ruled  that  the                              provisions of the Regulation preclude the national rule, which allows                              the  mentioned  supplementary  payment,  but  it  does  not  necessarily                              follow, under the European law, that an individual who satisfies those                              two requirements should be deprived of such a payment.                               Consequently, it is not against the European law if the Czech Republic                              grants  supplementary  payments  for  pensioners,  but  it  should  not  be                              distinguished  between  pensioners  with  Czech  citizenship  (direct                              discrimination)  and  Czech  residence  (indirect  discrimination)  and                              others, as requires the Czech Constitutional Court. Until the eventual                              abolition  of  the  possibility  to  be  awarded  these  benefits,  the  Czech                                                                 147","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                Republic should grant them regardless of the citizenship and residence                              of applicants.                               4.1.2 THE CONFLICT OF THE COURTS                               The  case  seems  to  be  the  same  as  many  others  if  it  were  not  for a                              conflict of the Czech highest courts. This is, from my point of view,                              the most interesting aspect of the case.                               Firstly, a court of the first instance (Prague City Court) annulled the                              administrative  decision  and  bound  the  Czech  Social  Security                              Association to award Mr. Landtová a supplement to old age benefit,                              all in accordance with the Constitutional Court judgements. It has to                              mentioned that the most of these judgements are of the time before                              accession to the European Union, but the Court adhered to its position                              also later.[26]                               The Czech Social Security Association brought an appeal before the                              Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court set                              aside the judgement and referred it back for further consideration. The                              City Court adhered to its position, referring again to the judgements of                              the  Constitutional  Court, and  the  Czech  Social  Security  Association                              brought a further appeal.                               The Supreme Administrative Court considered the judgement of the                              Court  of  Justice  and  the  fact  that  the  rule  was  determined  by  the                              Constitutional  Court  for  claims  arose  before  the  accession  to  the                              European Union. For claims arose after the date there is no binding                              precedent because of their conflict with European law.[27]                               Moreover the Court took into account the fact that no such a claim has                              arose  after  the  accession,  more  precisely  the  Czech  Social  Security                              Administration  has  not  used  the  preferential rule,  so  far  no  one  has                              been  discriminated.  In  accordance,  the  applicant  in  this  case,  Mr.                              Landtová,  was  entitled  to  a  pension  after  the  accession  to  the                              European  Union,  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  ruled  that  the                              applicant is not entitled.                               Nevertheless, the conflict between the Supreme Administrative Court,                              as a great supporter of the European law, and the Constitutional Court,                              which  is  more  abstemious,  still  persists.  It  seems  that  the  Court  of                              Justice tried to find a solution that is satisfactory for all. On one side                              gives  agree  with  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court.  On  the  other                              hand,  leaves  the  possibility  of  supplementary  payments  required  by                              the Constitutional Court, however the Constitutional Court has never                              wanted  to  grant  them  so  widely  (surely  not  with  regard  to  the                              possibilities of the Czech state budget).                               Certainly,  this  is  not  the  end  of  the  story.  There  should  be  another                              chance  given  to  the  Constitutional  Court  to  consider  its  judgements                              again. And what is perhaps the most important, a substantive political                              debate should be conducted, followed by new and much more precise                              legislation.                                                                 148","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                5. CONCLUSION                               For people working in two or more Member States a transparent and                              coherent  interpretation  and  application  of  the  social  security                              coordination rules is of great interest.                               The  European  social  security  rules  have  been  developed  quite  well.                              The  essential  acts  for  the  coordination  in  this  field  are  regulations,                              which  are  directly  applicable  and  must  be  respected  by  all  national                              authorities.  Also  the  Court  of  Justice  tends  to  very  extensive                              interpretation, emphasising the free movement of persons.                               In general, European social security rules are usually interpreted and                              applied  correctly.  However,  some  unclear  situation  occurs,  e.g.  the                              Czech  provisions  governing  the  partial  retirement  pension  and  the                              mentioned  conflict  between  the  Czech  Constitutional  and  the                              European  law.  The  conflict  still  remains  unsolved  and  we  should                              impatiently expect the outcome.                               [1]  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union                               [2] Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of                              the  Council  of  29  April  2004  on the  coordination  of  social security                              systems                               [3] Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of                              the  Council  of  16  September  2009  laying  down  the  procedure  for                              implementing  Regulation  (EC)  No  883/2004  on  the  coordination  of                              social                     security                     systems                               [4]  Council  Directive  86/378/EEC  of  24  July  1986  on  the                              implementation  of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  for  men  and                              women      in     occupational    social    security   schemes                               [5] Regulation n° 3 concerning the social security for migrant workers                              (1957)                               [6] Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on                              the  application  of  social  security  schemes  to  employed  persons  and                              their     families    moving      within    the     Community                               [7]  Regulation  (EEC)  No  574/72  of  the  Council  of  21  March  1972                              fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71                              on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and                              their     families    moving      within    the     Community                               [8]  EBSCO,  European  Union,  Social  Security  (supl.  78),                              web.ebscohost.com,                   page                    25                               [9] Case C-516/09: Judgment of the Court of 10 March 2011, Tanja                              Borger          v           Tiroler         Gebietskrankenkasse.                                                                     149","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                [10]  Case  C-503/09:  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  21  July  2011,  Lucy                              Stewart  v  Secretary  of  State  for  Work  and  Pensions.                               [11] Case C-347/00 : Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2002, Ángel                              Barreira Pérez v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and                              Tesorería   General    de   la    Seguridad   Social   (TGSS).                               [12]  Case  C-101/04  :  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  20  January  2005,                              Roger     Noteboom      v    Rijksdienst    voor    Pensioenen.                               [13] Case C-440/09: Judgment of the Court of 3 March 2011, Zakład                              Ubezpieczeń  Społecznych  Oddział  w  Nowym  Sączu  v  Stanisława                              Tomaszewska.                               [14]  Case  C-158/96  :  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  28  April  1998,                              Raymond Kohll v Union des caisses de maladie.                                 [15] Case C-173/09: Judgment of the Court of 5 October 2010, Georgi                              Ivanov   Elchinov   v   Natsionalna   zdravnoosiguritelna   kasa.                                [16]  Case  C-16/09:  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  14  October  2010,                              Gudrun  Schwemmer  v  Agentur  für  Arbeit  Villingen-Schwenningen.                               [17] Case C-406/04. : Judgment of the Courtof 18 July 2006, Gérald                              De      Cuyper     v     Office     national    de     l'emploi.                               [18] Poteraj, J: Pension Systems in 27 EU Countries, 2008, page 130                               [19]       The        Supreme        Administrative      Court:                              http://www.nssoud.cz/Obecne-informace/art/557?menu=173                               [20]  Two  hundreds  judgemnets  connected  with  the  Regulation                              1408/71  has  been  published  in  the  Supreme  Court’s  database  since                              2005                               [21]       The        Supreme        Administrative      Court:                              http://www.nssoud.cz/Proceedings-before-the-Court-of-Justice-of-the-                              European-Union/art/570?menu=271                               [22]  Out  of  fourteen  originated  in  the  Czech  republic                               [23] Case C-399/09: Judgment of the Court of 22 June 2011, Marie                              Landtová     v     Česká    správa     socialního   zabezpečení                               [24]  Which  is  prohibited  under  the  Treaties  and  the  combined                              provisions   of   Articles   3(1)   and   10    of   Regulation                                [25] Agreement between the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic                              signed on 29 October 1992 as a measure to regulate matters after the                              dissolution  of  the  Czech  and  Slovak  Federal  Republic                                                                   150","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                [26]  For  example  Judgements  of  the  Conctitutional  Court:  II.  ÚS                              405/02,     III.    ÚS      252/04,     IV.     ÚS       301/05                               [27] Case 3 Ads 130/2008 : Judgment of the Supreme Administrative                              Court           of          25           August           2011                                 Literature:                              -  Poteraj,  J.:  Pension  Systems  in  27  EU  Countries,  Vilnius:  The                                 Assosiation of Polish Scientists of Lithuania, 2008, 560 pages                              -  EBSCO,  European  Union,  Social  Security  (supl.  78),  [quoted  10                                 November 2011] <web.ebscohost.com>                              -  The Supreme Administrative Court: General Information,  [quoted                                 21       November         2011]<http://www.nssoud.cz/Obecne-                                 informace/art/557?menu=173>                              -   The Supreme Administrative Court: Proceeding before the Court of                                 Justice  of  the  European  Union,   [quoted  21  November  2011]                                 <http://www.nssoud.cz/Proceedings-before-the-Court-of-Justice-of-                                 the-European-Union/art/570?menu=271>                              -  Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union                              -  Agreement between the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic                                 signed on 29 October 1992 as a measure to regulate matters after                                 the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic                              -  Regulation n° 3 concerning the social security for migrant workers                                 (1957)                              -  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on                                 the application of social security schemes to employed persons and                                 their families moving within the Community                              -  Regulation  (EEC)  No  574/72  of  the  Council  of  21  March  1972                                 fixing  the  procedure  for  implementing  Regulation  (EEC)  No                                 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed                                 persons and their families moving within the Community                              -  Council  Directive  86/378/EEC  of  24  July  1986  on  the                                 implementation  of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  for  men  and                                 women in occupational social security schemes                              -  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of                                 the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security                                 systems                              -  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of                                 the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for                                 implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of                                 social security systems                              -  Case C-158/96 : Judgment of the Court of 28 April 1998, Raymond                                 Kohll v Union des caisses de maladie.                              -  Case C-347/00 : Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2002, Ángel                                 Barreira Pérez v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)                                 and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS).                                                                  151","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 -  Case C-101/04 : Judgment of the Court of 20 January 2005, Roger                                 Noteboom v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen.                              -  Case C-406/04. : Judgment of the Courtof 18 July 2006, Gérald De                                 Cuyper v Office national de l'emploi.                              -  Case C-173/09: Judgment of the Court of 5 October 2010, Georgi                                 Ivanov Elchinov v Natsionalna zdravnoosiguritelna kasa.                              -  Case C-16/09: Judgment of the Court of 14 October 2010, Gudrun                                 Schwemmer v Agentur für Arbeit Villingen-Schwenningen.                              -  Case  C-440/09:  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  3  March  2011,  Zakład                                 Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Nowym Sączu v Stanisława                                 Tomaszewska.                              -  Case  C-516/09:  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  10  March  2011,  Tanja                                 Borger v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse.                              -  Case  C-503/09:  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  21  July  2011,  Lucy                                 Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.                              -  Case  C-399/09:  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  22  June  2011,  Marie                                 Landtová v Česká správa socialního zabezpečení.                              -  Case  3  Ads  130/2008:  Judgment  of  the  Supreme  Administrative                                 Court of 25 August 2011                                    Contact – email                                  170084@mai.muni.cz                                                                                                           152","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                   INDIRECT EFFECT OF DIRECTIVES IN CASE-                                         LAW OF THE CZECH COURTS                                                      ROMAN ŘÍČKA                                       Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Czech Republic                                Abstract in original language                              K zajištění  dodržování  Unijního  práva,  vyvinul  ESD  za  dobu  svého                              působení  několik  významných  institutů.  Jedním  z nich  je  i  nepřímý                              účinek  (směrnic)  vyžadující,  aby  národní  orgány  vykládaly  národní                              právo  v souladu  s Unijním  právem  (směrnicemi).  Takováto  situace                              představovala  mj.  pro  národní  soudy  přirozeně  novou  výzvu  a  bylo                              otázkou,  jak  si  s ní  poradí.  Tento  článek  se  snaží,  po  stručném                              představení  samotného  institutu,  zodpovědět  otázku,  jak  si  s tímto                              principem  poradily  konkrétně  soudy  České  republiky.  Uvědomují  si                              tyto  vůbec  svou  povinnost  konformní  interpretace?  A  jestliže  ano                              aplikují  tento  princip  také  v  praxi  nebo  ho  spíše  nechávají  stranou?                              Analýza  tří  rozhodnutí  Českých  soudů  nám  jasně  ukazuje,  že  v této                              oblasti nejsou české soudy rozhodně pozadu.                              Key words in original language                              Nepřímý účinek; směrnice; Von Colson; národní soudy; interpretace;                              judikatura; Evropský soudní dvůr; Nejvyšší správní soud.                               Abstract                              Within  the  period  of  its  existence,  the  ECJ  has  developed  several                              significant  institutes,  the  purpose  of  which  is  to  ensure  keeping  the                              Community/Union  law.  The  indirect  effect  (of  the  Directives)                              represents  one  of  such  means.  It  requires  that  national  authorities                              interpret national law in accordance with EC/EU law (its directives).                              Such situation naturally embodied completely a new challenge to (i.a.)                              the national courts, in the context of which there arose a question of                              how  they  would  succeed.  The  aim  of  this  article,  after  a  brief                              introduction describing the institute itself, is to answer the question of                              how  the  Czech  courts in particular  have  dealt  up  with the  principle                              mentioned above. Do they realize at all their duty of the Euro-conform                              interpretation? If so, do they follow this duty in their decision-making,                              or do they rather tend to put it aside? Analyzing three judgments of                              the Czech courts shows clearly that the courts of the Czech Republic                              are far from falling behind in this sphere.                               Key words                              Indirect  effect;  the  directive;  Von  Colson;  national  courts;                              interpretation;  case-law;  European  Court  of  Justice;  The  Supreme                              Administrative Court.                                                                          153","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 1. INDIRECT EFFECT (OF DIRECTIVES)?                               Interpretation  of  EU  law  is  used  to  be  primarily  associated  with                                                        1                              European  Court  of  Justice .  The  reason  is  that  this  subject  is                              empowered to determine its “correct/right” interpreting. However the                              truth is that it is necessary for each institution, which wants to apply                              Union law, to interpret this law, of course including national courts.                              This  challenge  must  be  faced  by  national  courts  in  the  first  place                              because  of  principle  of  direct  effect,  which  was  stipulated  firstly  in                                                   2                              case Van Gend en Loos , or rather, talking about EC directives, in Van                                        3                              Duyn  case .  However  development  of  EC  law  has  shown  that  ECJ                              would “force” national judges to deal with even bigger challenge than                                                                                         4                              represents direct effect of Union law, since in case Von Colson  the                              Court for first time stated existence of principle of indirect effect – in                                                                          5                              this case concretely in connection with directives . As well as with the                                                                        6                              direct  effect  there  is  a  couple  of  conditions   connected  with  this                              principle,  under  the  which  it  could  be  applied,  nevertheless  for  the                              purpose  of  this  article  it’s  not  necessary  to  analyzed  them.  In  the                              context  of  our  theme  it  is  sufficient  to  explain  what  this  principle                              means for the national institutions (courts). When looking for simple                              explanation of the principle, it is enough to say that it represents duty                              of  national  authorities  to  interpret  “…national  law  rules  in                              accordance  with  the  spirit  of  non-implemented  or  inappropriate                                                   7 8                              implemented  directive” , .  In  light  of  the  quotation  is  purpose  of                                1                                Court, ECJ.                              2  Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 5. 2. 1963, c.n. 26/62. Van                              Gend en Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration.                               3  Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 4. 12. 1974, c.n. 41/74. van                              Duyn v Home Office.                               4  Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 10. 4. 1984, c.n. 14/83. Von                              Colson and Kamann v Land Nordhein-Westfalen.                              5  it is necessary to say that this principle is connected also with other sources                              of Community/Union law, however it is directive which represents point of                              interest of this article.                              6                                 they  were  stipulated  by  the  ECJ  in  his  decisions  e.g.  judgment  of  the                              European Court of Justice of 8. 10. 1987, c.n. 80/86. Kolpinghuis Nijmegen                              BV.;  13.  11.  1990,  c.n.  C-106/89.  Marleasing  SA  v  La  Comercial                              Internacional  de  Alimentacion  SA.;  16.  12.  1993,  c.n.  C-334/92.  Wagner                              Miret  v  Fondo  de  Garantía  Salarial.;  26.  9.  1996,  c.n.  C-168/95.  Luciano                              Arcaro.;  5.  10.  2004,  c.n.  C-397/01.  Pfeiffer  v  Deutsches  Rotes  Kreuz,                              Kreisverband Waldshut Ev.                               7   Šišková,  N.  in  ŠIŠKOVÁ,  N.,  STEHLÍK,  V.  Evropské  právo. 1, Ústavní                              základy Evropské unie. Praha : Linde, 2007. p. 132.                               8  original definition from Von Colson case, which has been re-phrased by the                              following  case-law  of  the  Court,  sounds:  “…obligation  arising  from  a                              directive to achieve the result envisaged by the directive and their duty under                                                                 154","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 analyzed principle obvious, it is de facto again about l’effet utile of                              EC law, because in words of Paul Craig and Gráinne de Búrca “The                              Court thereby sought to ensure that directives would be given some                                                                              9                              effect despite the absence of proper implementation.” . In other words                              the indirect effect could be described as “supplement” of direct effect,                              because it could be apply even in situations, where DE can’t be (e.g.                              because provision of the directive is not concrete enough). Therefore                              it is no doubt that IE represents step forward in evolution of (l’effet                              utile of) Union law, however in connection with its birth and its future                              there has been an important question – how the national courts will                              deal with this principle? For its importance this question was chosen                              as main topic of this article, or more precisely as Czech citizen let me                              re-phrase it to such question – \"Do the Czech courts as well apply the                              principle of indirect effect of directives?\". Whether the courts of the                              small central Europe country have this principle on their mind or not I                              will try  to find out through  the  analysis  of several judgments  of its                              courts. As a result of such analysis reader should be able to answer                              question  whether  the  doctrine  of  indirect  effect  has  remained  on                              theoretical  level  or  has  become  practical  matter.  Let’s  see  the  first                              judgment.                               2. JUDGMENT  OF  THE  SUPREME  ADMINISTRATIVE                              COURT OF 26. 10. 2006, C.N. 1 AS 28/2006.                               At the beginning of the following analysis it is necessary to state one                              note. It is aim of this article to find out whether Czech courts keep on                              mind their duty of harmonious interpretation, not to describe in detail                              following  cases.  Therefore  we  will  focus  right  on  the  question  of                                                               10                              application of Von Colson principle , not to description of merits of                              the case neither to analysis of applied national law. Nevertheless we                              can’t  of  course  disregard  completely  the  background  of  the  case,                                 article  5  of  the  Treaty  (nowadays  art.  4,  par.  3  TEU*1)  to  take  all                              appropriate  measures  ,  whether  general  or  particular  ,  to  ensure  the                              fulfilment  of  that  obligation  ,  is  binding  on  all  the  authorities  of  member                              states including , for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts . it follows                              that  ,  in  applying  the  national  law  and  in  particular  the  provisions  of  a                              national  law  specifically  introduced  in  order  to  implement  directive  no                              76/207 , national courts are required to interpret their national law in the                              light of the wording and the purpose of the directive in order to achieve the                              result referred to in the third paragraph of article 189 (nowadays art. 288,                              par. 3 TFEU*2)” – judgment of the European Court of Justice of 10. 4. 1984,                              c.n. 14/83. Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordhein-Westfalen. (par. 26).;                               1                              *   Treaty  on  European  Union,  12010E/TBL,  Official  Journal  C  83  of  30                                                                2                              March  2010,  in  consolidated  version.;  *   Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the                              European Union, 12010E/TBL, Official Journal C 83 of 30 March 2010, in                              consolidated version.                              9  CRAIG, P., DE BÚRCA, G.  EU Law. Text, Cases, and Materials. 4. ed.                              Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2008. p. 287.                               10  synonym for indirect effect of directives.                                                                  155","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 however  we  will  described  it just  as  much  as  it  is necessary  to  our                              purpose.                               Finally let’s start with the case mentioned above – 1 As 28/2006. The                                                                                           12                                                          11                              Supreme  Administrative  Court   was  deciding  about legal  remedy ,                                                                                           13                              which  was  submitted  by  Industrial  Property  Office  (defendant)                                                                   14                              against  judgment  of  City  Court  Praha ,  which  decided  previous                              dispute  in  private  person  “I.C.”  (suitor)’s  favour  by  overruling                              previous decision of IPO (of 3. 12. 2004). What was point of declared                              dispute? Problem lied in the registration of certain mark (of the third                              subject) into registry of trademarks. Suitor disagreed with mentioned                              registration  and  having  used  all  possible  legal  remedies  situation                              resulted into point, where IPO submitted the legal remedy mentioned                              above  called  „kasační  stížnost“.  Heart  of  the  matter,  the  reason  for                              primary suit of I.C. was acting of IPO when it was evaluating mark,                              which was under the registration process, and deciding pleaded marks.                              Concretely, from the point of view of suitor and consequently also in                              the  opinion  of  City  Court  Praha,  IPO  made  a  mistake  when  it                              performed  its  evaluation  in  limited  range  ignoring  several  relevant                              criterions,  by  witch  IPO  disrespected  settled  case-law  of  ECJ                                                        15                                                                    16                              regarding this area (SABEL  and Canon ). Opinion of IPO was of                              course opposite declaring that its decision went fully along with case-                              law of the Court. On the other hand the suitor, in reaction to “kasační                                                                     17                              stížnost”, pointed out the Directive 89/104  which approximates the                              laws of the Member States relating to trademarks, and reminded that                              “relevant regulations of national law implementing the Directive must                                                                                           18                              be interpreted in the light of the wording and aim of the Directive” .                              Consequently he added that if ECJ in mentioned judgments SABEL                              and Canon mandatory expressed its opinion how to interpret text of                              the  Directive  89/104,  then  the  Court  de  facto  also  mandatory                              expressed  how  the  relevant  national  regulations  implementing  the                                 11  the SAC.                               12                                 concretely we are talking about legal remedy called “kasační stížnost”.                              13  IPO.                               14                                 falls into Regional courts.                              15  Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 11. 11. 1997, c.n. C-251/95.                              SABEL BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport.                               16  Judgment of the European Court of Justice of  29. 9. 1998, c.n. C-39/97.                              Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.                              17  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate                              the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, 31989L0104, Official                              Journal L 40 of 11 February 1989.                               18                                 Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 26. 10. 2006, c.n. 1 As                              28/2006.                                                                  156","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Directive  should  be  interpreted.  In  such  situation  the  SAC  had  to                              decide  about  legal  remedy  submitted  by  IPO.  Talking  about  legal                              argumentation  of  the  SAC,  let’s  pointed  out  just  that  passages                              regarding indirect effect, ignoring the rest of its considerations.                               “Turning point” of the SAC argumentation was statement that for this                                                                      19                              case had been relevant act n. 441/2003 Coll.  in consolidated version                              not the previous one (n. 137/1995 Coll.). Why is this so important? It                              is  because  mentioned  act  had  been  drafted  for  the  period  following                              admission of the Czech Republic to the EU, which means that main                              inspiration for this act had been the Directive 89/104. Talking about                              national provision (of 441/2003 Coll.) which was applied in the case it                              is essential to say that explanatory report (to 441/2003 Coll.) directly                              stated that it has base in transposition of the Directive 89/104. In the                              light of these facts the SAC observed that “When applying national                              law, no matter if prior or following the Directive, the national court,                              which  interprets  such  law,  must  do  it  as  much  according  with  the                              meaning and purpose of the Directive as possible, so result prescribed                              by the Directive would have been achieved, and consequently art. 249                              paragraph  three  of  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European                                                               21                              Community20  would  be  fulfilled.” .  In  connection  with  applied                              national provision (§7 of 441/2003 Coll.) then the SAC added that “It                              is therefore obvious that when interpreting §7 of the act of trademarks                              it  is  on  principle  necessary  to  do  it  in  a  such  way  so  that  the                              interpretation  would  be  conform  with  relevant  provisions  of  the                              Directive  n.  89,  particularly  with  its  art.  4,  and  thus  also  with  the                                                                                        22                              case-law of ECJ, which relate to interpretation of this article.” . In                              context of these statements it is evident that the SAC had been fully                              aware of principle of indirect effect of directives. Consequently it is                              not  surprise  that  the  SAC  approved  procedure  of  City  Court  Praha,                              which interpreted relevant national provisions in conformity with art.                              4 of the Directive 89/104, by which this court clearly proofed that it is                                                                                           23                              not just highest Czech courts that are aware of Von Colson principle .                              To conclude our analysis remain to say that the SAC’s argumentation                              result  of  course  into  rejection  of  “IPO’s  legal  remedy”  (“kasační                              stížnosti”).                                       19                                 it is a Czech Trademark Act.                              20  nowadays art. 288, par. 3 TFEU.                               21                                 Op. cit. 18.                              22  Op. cit. 18.                               23                                 of course even more important than the fact that the court was aware of the                              principle is the fact that the court fulfilled all its duties resulting from it.                                                                  157","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 3. JUDGMENT  OF  THE  SUPREME  ADMINISTRATIVE                              COURT OF 29. 8. 2007, C.N. 1 AS 3/2007                               As  a  confirmation  that  previously  analyzed  decision  was  not                              coincidence, but clear proof that Czech courts follow the principle of                              indirect effect, as well as introduction to the second part of this article                              I decide to analyze another judgment of the SAC – 1 As 3/2007. Once                              again  we  will not solve the  background  of  the  case, just  follow  the                              SAC’s argumentation as regards principle of indirect effect.                               In present case the SAC had to solve problem whether certain service                              provided by company called T.O.C.R. fall under the term “převzaté                                                           24                              vysílání”  (kind  of  transmission )  or  not.  Answer  to  this  question                              should  decide  which  national  act  regulates  such  service.  The  SAC                              dealt with the problem firstly from the point of view of the national                              law and stated that for service of T.O.C.R. is decisive whether it is                              fulfilling characteristic features or not, and at the same time that way                              of  spreading  of  such  service  does  not  matter.  To  support  its                              argumentation  The  Supreme  Administrative  Court  decided  to  visit                              area of EU law, which represents interesting part of the judgment.                                At first the SAC pointed out that Czech law, which regulates pursuing                              of  radio  and  television  broadcasting  (act  n.  231/2001  Coll.)  i.a.                                                             25                              implements  the  Directive  89/552   on  the  coordination  of  certain                              provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in                              Member  States  concerning  the  pursuit  of  television  broadcasting                                                                     26                              activities (in version of the Directive 97/36 ). In connection with this                              Directive  it  is  important  to  us  that  ECJ  dealt  with  interpretation  of                              contained  term  “television  broadcasting”  in  its  judgment  M.  B.  v                                                          27                              Commissariaat  voor  de Media .  In  mentioned  case  ECJ  had  solved                              similar  problem  as  the  SAC  –  whether  service  provided  by  M.B.                              company fall under the term “television broadcasting”. Also answer of                              the  Court  was  similar  to  the  SAC  opinion.  The  ECJ  stated  that  the                              manner  of  transmission  is  not  determining  element.  Important  is                              whether service correspond with features of “television broadcasting”                              as stated by the Directive 89/552.                                 24  content of the term is not important for our purposes.                               25                                 Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of                              certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in                              Member  States  concerning  the  pursuit  of  television  broadcasting  activities,                              31989L0552, Official Journal L 298 of 17 October 1989.                               26                                 Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30                              June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of                              certain  provisions  laid  down  by  law,  regulation  or  administrative  action  in                              Member  States  concerning  the  pursuit  of  television  broadcasting  activities,                              31997L0036, Official Journal L 202 of 30 July 1997.                               27   Judgment  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice  of  2.  6.  2005,  c.n.  C-89/04.                              Mediakabel BV v Commissariaat voor de Media.                                                                  158","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 In  the  light  of  relationship  between  the  Directive  and  the  act  n.                              231/2001, the SAC consequently stated that it is necessary to use Von                              Colson interpretation. Interesting is the way in which the SAC did it.                              We could say that the SAC declared the need in two steps. At first the                              Supreme  Administrative  Court  pointed  out  that  it  had  repeatedly                              stated that law acts of Community (EU) and case-law of ECJ serve as                              appropriate  interpretative  clue  when  interpreting  Czech  law                              regulations.  The  SAC  added  that  it  stands  even  in  cases  which  had                              arise  from  facts,  which  prior  the  entry  of  Czech  republic  into  EU.                              Condition, under the which Community law and ECJ’s case-law serve                              as inspiration to (national) interpretation, which need to be fulfilled is                              that interpreted provision of Czech regulation was adopted in order to                              harmonize Czech law with Community law and at the same time the                              Czech  lawmaker  had  not  expressed  intention  to  differ  from  act  of                                                         28                              Community law (Union law) . As we can see, in this first step the                              SAC already talks about conform interpretation, however because it                              adds that such interpretation is suitable also for cases which have base                              in period which prior entry of Czech into EU, therefore the SAC does                              not state that there is a duty to perform Von Colson interpretation, but                              only  express  that  Union  law  and  case-law  of  ECJ  represent  just                              interpretative clue for interpreter and nothing more. However because                              the case solved by the SAC was connected with period following the                              entry  of  the  Czech  into  Union,  there  was  need  for  the  SAC  to  add                              second step.                               The  SAC  therefore  admitted  that  situation  is  noticeable  different,                              when we talk about cases which fall under the period when state is                              already member of Union. In such moment the Community (Union)                              law  do  not  serve  just  as  appropriate  interpretative  clue,  but  as                              obligatory  interpretative  clue,  and this  stands  not just  for  situations,                              where  the  Directives  were  not  implemented  correctly  into  national                              law. The SAC subsequently pointed out to well know cases of ECJ as                                                                                29                              Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Roció Murciano Quintero , Sabine Von                                                                                   30 31                              Colson and Elisabeth Kamann v Land Nordhein Westfalen , . As we                              can  see,  in  the  second  step  the  SAC  does  not  talk  any  more  about                              interpretative  clue,  but  clearly  about  duty  to  perform  Von  Colson                              interpretation.  In  the  light  of  mentioned  conclusion  it  was                              consequently possible for the SAC to state that verdicts of ECJ from                              case M.B. v Commissariaat voor de Media are fully applicable in case                              n.  1  As  3/2007  and  support  the  conclusion  of  the  SAC  mentioned                                28  Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 29. 8. 2007, c.n. 1 As                              3/2007.                               29  Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 27. 6. 2000, c.n. C-240/98.                              Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Roció Murciano Quintero.                               30  Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 10. 4. 1984, c.n. 14/83. Von                              Colson and Kamann v Land Nordhein-Westfalen.                              31  Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 29. 8. 2007, c.n. 1 As                              3/2007.                                                                  159","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 above.  In  other  words  for  final  decision  of  the  SAC  it’s  therefore                              fundamental  only  the  fact,  whether  service  of  T.O.C.R.  company                              fulfills the features of the term “převzaté vysílání”, which need to be                              interpreted  accordingly  with  the  Directive  89/552  and  case-law  of                              ECJ.                               The rest of the judgment is therefore logically dedicated to question,                              whether  the  service  does  or  doesn’t  fulfill  mentioned  features.                              Because this is not anymore relevant to our theme it’s enough to say                              that the SAC decided in the end that service really does fall under the                              term.  For  us  is  nevertheless  much  more  important  that  once  again                              Czech  court  proofed  that  respects  his  duty  to  perform  Von  Colson                              interpretation. Furthermore, in my point of view, also passage where                              the SAC talks about cases connected with period which prior the entry                              of  the  Czech  into  EU  should  be  stressed,  no  matter  that  in  such                              situation  the  Union  law  and  ECJ’s  case-law  represent  only                              interpretative clue so we can’t talk about duty to perform “conform                              interpretation”. Just the fact that Czech courts also in such cases has                              taken  EC  (EU)  law and  ECJ’s  case-law into  consideration is  in  my                              opinion  at  least  notable.  Finally  there  is  one  more  case,  one  more                              analyze, in front of us which is as well connected with The Supreme                              Administration Court – 2 Afs 178/2005.                               4. JUDGMENT  OF  THE  SUPREME  ADMINISTRATIVE                              COURT OF 15. 8. 2008, C.N. 5 AZS 24/2008                                Heart  of  the  problem  in  this  case  was  represented  by  problematic                              relationship between §16(2) of the act n. 325/1999 in version effect to                              31. 8. 2007 (Czech Act on Asylum - CAoA) and §12 of the same act.                              §16(2) CAoA expressed – “An application for international protection                              shall also be rejected as manifestly unfounded if it is apparent from                              the applicant’s procedure that he/she has filed it with the aim to avoid                              a  threatening  expulsion,  extradition  or  transfer  for  criminal                              prosecution to a foreign country although he/she might have applied                              for granting of international protection earlier, unless the applicant                              proves  the  contrary”.  Second  mentioned  provision  -  §12  of  CAoA                              includes reasons for granting of asylum. Reason why the SAC needed                              to solve relationship between §16(2) and §12 CAoA wasn’t the fact                              that he would have never dealt with it before, but the fact that it yet                              had  not  had  opportunity  to  solve  this  relationship  after  the                                                                       32                              transposition  of  the  Directive  n.  2004/83   in  connection  with                              expiration of the period for its transposition – these facts create, in the                              words  of  the  SAC,  “qualitatively  new  situation  in  Czech  asylum                                    32                                 Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for                              the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as                              refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the                              content of the protection granted, 32004L0083, Official Journal L 304 of 30                              September 2004.                                                                  160","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                    33                              law” .  In  other  words,  the  SAC  had  solved  mentioned  relationship                              just in context of “old situation”.                               At the beginning of its argumentation the SAC pointed out its relevant                              case-law, which prior transposition of the Directive n. 2004/83. It is                              not necessary to describe individual cases, all we need to say is that in                              connection  with  relationship  of  §16(2)  and  §12  CAoA  the  SAC                              expressed that if conditions stated in §16(2) CAoA are fulfilled then                              granting  of  asylum  under  the  §12  CAoA  is  without  any  other                              conditions  and  in  all  situations  excluded,  and  that  stands  even  in                              situations,  when  applicant  for  asylum  would  be  threatened  by                                                                           34                              persecution  related  to  asylum  relevant  reasons .  After  the  SAC                              repeated this “previous” rule it was necessary to find out whether the                              fact that the Directive had been implemented and at the same time its                              implementation period had expired – in light of which Czech courts                              must  interpret  Act  on  Asylum  and  other  relevant  national  acts                              accordingly to the text and purpose of the Directive – has any impact                              to the rule mentioned above, or whether there is no any shift regarding                              its previous case-law.                               Starting its consideration the SAC remembered origin of the duty (i.a.                              of the Czech courts) to perform Von Colson interpretation – it comes                              from art. 10a and art. 1(2) of the Czech constitution and through these                              provisions  from  the  fundamental  principles  of  Community  (Union)                                  35                              law . Consequently the SAC added references to important (relevant)                              judgments of ECJ – Von Colson and Marleasing. It referred as well to                                                                           36                              its previous case-law i.a. to judgment 1 As 3/2007 . Apart of basis of                              the  indirect  effect  of  directives  the  SAC  remembered  also  some  of                              important restrictions of this principle like e.g. time point since when                              national authorities have duty to perform Von Colson interpretation.                              The SAC as well expressed agreement with the ECJ conclusion (see                                                            37                              e.g.  case  Innovative  Technology )  about  order  in  which  direct  and                              indirect effect should be used by courts. Despite that conditions under                              the which indirect effect of the directives could be used is not theme                              of  this  article,  let’s  remembered that  by  the  opinion of  the  ECJ  the                              national authorities should at first try to interpret national provisions                              accordingly to EC (EU) law and only if that is not possible than such                              institution  should  use  (of  course  also  just  if  required  conditions  are                              fulfilled) principle of direct effect. When looking for reason of said                              rule  we  can  remember  words  of  Sacha  Prechal  (nowadays  judge  of                                33  Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 15. 8. 2008, c.n. 5 Azs                              24/2008.                               34  Op. cit. 33.                               35                                 Op. cit. 33.                              36  see chapter 3.                               37                                 Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 11. 1. 2007, c.n. C-208/05.                              Innovative Technology Center GmbH v Bundesagentur für Arbeit.                                                                  161","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 ECJ),  who  expressed  that  “Consistent  interpretation  constitutes,  in                              general, a less  drastic  incursion into  the national legal system then                              direct effect. […] However, where consistent interpretation will come                              close  to  distorting  the  meaning  of  national  provisions,  direct  effect                              may  be  preferred  and  will  perhaps  even  be  dictated  by  legal                                        38                              certainty.” .  So  as  I  have  stressed,  the  SAC  agreed  with  this  rule,                              which  was  important  considering  that  facts,  on  which  its  case  was                              built, were dated to 23. 8. 2007, which means after the expiration of                              transposition period of the Directive 2004/83. Knowing that duty to                              Von Colson interpretation is “in play” and being aware of mentioned                              rule the SAC started to analyze provisions of the Directive to find out                              what  is  their  meaning  for  the  case.  Having  finished  it,  the  SAC                              realized that it follows from the relevant provisions of the Directive                                                                                 39                              2004/83  in  connection  with  related  Directive  2005/85   that  “…an                              application  for  international  protection  shall  also  be  rejected  as                              manifestly unfounded, if the applicant submit an application “only”                              with the aim to delay or frustrate execution of previous or potential                              decision, which would lead to his/her expulsion, however submission                              of  application  after  the  delivery  of  decision  on  administrative                              expulsion, does not a priori exclude granting of asylum or subsidiary                              protection, if he/she is threatened by persecution for asylum relevant                                        40                              reasons…” .    The  word  which  need  to  be  stressed  in  quotation  is                              “only”  because  in  wording  of  §16(2)  CAoA  it  could  not  be  found.                              Consequently  comparing  mentioned  conclusion  with  the  rule                              expressed in the SAC’s previous case-law this court realized that his                              previous  interpretation  of  §16(2)  is  not  in  conformity  with  Czech’s                              obligation towards the EU.                               Before we will continue towards the end of this part of the article I                              feel need to clarify one thing. Analyses of the Directives performed by                              the  SAC  could  give  incorrect  impression  that  Czech  court  had                              interpreted  relevant  provisions  of  the  Directives  by  itself  instead  of                              asking the ECJ what is correct interpretation of them. Of course that’s                              not  true.  Reason  why  it  didn’t  ask  ECJ  was  simple.  The  SAC  had                              considered mentioned provisions as so called “acte clair” – situation                              when is no need to ask ECJ for interpretation because answer to such                                                        41                              question is generally known .  In other words it represents situation                                38   PRECHAL,  S.  Directives  in  EC  law.  2.  ed.  Oxford  :  Oxford  University                              Press, 2006. p. 314.                               39  Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards                              on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status,                              32005L0085, Official Journal L 326 of 13 December 2005.                               40                                 Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 15. 8. 2008, c.n. 5 Azs                              24/2008.                              41                                 ŠLOSARČÍK, Ivo. Evropský soudní dvůr a předběžná otázka podle čl. 234                              SES.  Europeum  [online].  Praha:  Institut  pro  evropskou  politiku                              EUROPEUM,  published  6th  December  2004  [cit.  2011-10-30].  Accessible                              at: <http://www.europeum.org/doc/arch_eur/ISlosarcik_team_europe.pdf>.                                                                  162","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 when the way of interpretation of some provision(s) is so clear and                              obvious that there is no reason to ask ECJ. Having finished this little                              note we can finish our analysis of the case 5 Azs 24/2008.                               When the SAC realized that it must change its interpretation of §16(2)                              CAoA to be in conformity with requirements of EC (EU) law, then                              this court had to find out whether it is actually possible to interpret                              mentioned  provision  in  Von  Colson  way.  The  SAC  in  its  judgment                              stated that it is possible and consequently it also analyzed under what                              conditions the provision of §16(2) CAoA, interpreted in the light of                              Von  Colson  principle,  may  be  applied.  Finally  the  SAC  of  course                              dealt  up  with  question  whether  such  conditions  are  in  solved  case                              fulfilled.  However  that  is  not  anymore  part  of  the  judgment  which                              interested us and therefore there is no reason to describe the SAC’s                              consideration in this area.                               What  should  be  said  in  the  end  of  our  analysis?  What  results  from                              description of the case n. 5 Azs 24/2008? At first it is once again the                              fact that as well as first two cases also this one proofs that Von Colson                              principle is respected and followed by the Czech courts. However as                              we can see, the SAC dealt up with indirect effect in this last case in                              much more detail. It not just pointed out the foundations of duty of                              national authorities/courts to perform Von Colson interpretation, not                              only referred to some of (the most) relevant cases of ECJ, but the SAC                              as  well  considered  time  restrictions  of  indirect  effect  as  well  as  its                              relation  to  the  principle  of  direct  effect.  To  sum  up  in  my  point  of                              view this last case proofs not just that the Czech courts do the  Von                              Colson interpretation, but something much more important, that they                              understand how the indirect effect works and what is its position in                              Community/Union law.                                5. CZECH  COURTS  AND  VON  COLSON  PRINCIPLE?  FEW                              LAST WORDS.                               At  the  beginning  of this  article  I  declared  main  question  –  “Do the                              Czech  courts  as  well  apply  the  principle  of  indirect  effect  of                              directives?” – with intention to find the answer to it in following text.                              Whether I was really successful is in the end on consideration of each                              reader, but in my point of view I have proofed that Czech courts really                              do apply the Von Colson principle. All three analysis showed to us                              that the Supreme Administration Court (and not just it – see e.g. City                              Court Praha in first analyzed case, or Decision of the Constitutional                              Court of 17. 3. 2009, c.n. IV. ÚS 2239/07. (par. 18)) the principle of                              indirect  effect  really  applies  when  deciding  its  cases.  Each  of                              introduced judgments was furthermore dealing up with different issue                              – intellectual property, media, asylum law – the reason for that was to                              show that application of indirect effect of directives is not common                              just  in  connection  with  one  specific  area.  Another  criterion,  when  I                              was choosing cases for my analysis, was the date when the judgments                              were pronounced – 26. 10. 2006, 29. 8. 2007, 15. 8. 2008. As we can                              see the SAC has been consistent in using indirect effect. To support                              this fact we can refer also to quite new judgment from 1. 2. 2010 (c.n.                              5 Afs 68/2009), where was the Von Colson principle applied as well.                                                                  163","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Different  issues,  different  (Czech)  courts,  different  years  –  yes  we                              could  probably  find  more  judgments  to  support  even  more  the                              conclusion  that  the  Czech  courts  respect  and  apply  the  Von  Colson                              principle,  however  in  my  point  of  view,  if  we  summarize  all                              mentioned facts, then the foundations of said conclusion look enough                              solid  to  me.  Finally  we  shouldn’t  forget  the  fact,  that  the  Czech                              Republic  is  member  of  the  European  Union  for  just  about  7  years,                              which is quite short time comparing to the membership of some other                              countries. Therefore it is logical that the case-law of the Czech courts                              does  not  contain  as  much  judgments  concerning  application  of  the                              Von Colson principle as we could found e.g. in Germany, Italy etc..                              Nevertheless this article proofs, at least I hope, that it is reasonable for                              the future to expect that the number of such judgments, pronounced by                              the Czech courts, will definitely rise.                               Literature:                                                         42                                1. Monographs, articles etc.                                      a. CRAIG,  P.,  DE  BÚRCA,  G.  EU  Law.  Text,  Cases,  and                                        Materials. 4. ed. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2008.                                       b. PRECHAL,  S.  Directives  in  EC  law.  2.  ed.  Oxford  :                                        Oxford University Press, 2006.                                       c. ŠIŠKOVÁ,  N.,  STEHLÍK,  V.  Evropské  právo. 1, Ústavní                                        základy Evropské unie. Praha : Linde, 2007.                                       d. ŠLOSARČÍK,  Ivo.  Evropský  soudní  dvůr  a  předběžná                                        otázka  podle  čl.  234  SES.  Europeum  [online].  Praha:                                        Institut pro evropskou politiku EUROPEUM, published 6th                                        December  2004  [cit.  2011-10-30].  Accessible  at:                                        <http://www.europeum.org/doc/arch_eur/ISlosarcik_team_                                        europe.pdf>.                                           43                                2. Case-law                                      a. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 5. 2. 1963,                                        c.n.  26/62.  Van  Gend  en  Loos  v  Netherlands  Inland                                        Revenue Administration.                                       b. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 4. 12. 1974,                                        c.n. 41/74. van Duyn v Home Office.                                       c. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 10. 4. 1984,                                        c.n.  14/83.  Von  Colson  and  Kamann  v  Land  Nordhein-                                        Westfalen.                                   42                                 sorted alphabetically by the (first) author.                              43  sorted by judgment date.                                                                  164","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                         d. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 8. 10. 1987,                                        c.n. 80/86. Kolpinghuis Nijmegen BV.                                       e. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 13. 11. 1990,                                        c.n.  C-106/89.  Marleasing  SA  v  La  Comercial                                        Internacional de Alimentacion SA.                                        f. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 16. 12. 1993,                                        c.n.  C-334/92.  Wagner  Miret  v  Fondo  de  Garantía                                        Salarial.                                       g. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 26. 9. 1996,                                        c.n. C-168/95. Luciano Arcaro.                                       h. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 11. 11. 1997,                                        c.n.  C-251/95.  SABEL  BV  v  Puma  AG,  Rudolf  Dassler                                        Sport.                                       i. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 29. 9. 1998,                                        c.n. C-39/97. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-                                        Mayer Inc.                                       j. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 27. 6. 2000,                                        c.n.  C-240/98.  Océano  Grupo  Editorial  SA  v  Roció                                        Murciano Quintero.                                       k. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 5. 10. 2004,                                        c.n.  C-397/01.  Pfeiffer  v  Deutsches  Rotes  Kreuz,                                        Kreisverband Waldshut Ev.                                        l. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 2. 6. 2005,                                        c.n.  C-89/04.  Mediakabel  BV  v  Commissariaat  voor  de                                        Media.                                      m. Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 26. 10.                                        2006, c.n. 1 As 28/2006.                                       n. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 11. 1. 2007,                                        c.n.  C-208/05.  Innovative  Technology  Center  GmbH  v                                        Bundesagentur für Arbeit.                                       o. Judgment  of  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  of  29.  8.                                        2007, c.n. 1 As 3/2007.                                       p. Judgment  of  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  of  15.  8.                                        2008, c.n. 5 Azs 24/2008.                                             44                                3. Acts of law                                  44  sorted by publication date.                                                                  165","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                         a. First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988                                        to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to                                        trade  marks,  31989L0104,  Official  Journal  L  40  of  11                                        February 1989.                                       b. Council  Directive  89/552/EEC  of  3  October  1989  on  the                                        coordination  of  certain  provisions  laid  down  by  Law,                                        Regulation  or  Administrative  Action  in  Member  States                                        concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities,                                        31989L0552, Official Journal L 298 of 17 October 1989.                                       c. Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the                                        Council  of  30  June  1997  amending  Council  Directive                                        89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid                                        down  by  law,  regulation  or  administrative  action  in                                        Member  States  concerning  the  pursuit  of  television                                        broadcasting  activities,  31997L0036,  Official  Journal  L                                        202 of 30 July 1997.                                       d. Council  Directive  2004/83/EC  of  29  April  2004  on                                        minimum standards for the qualification and status of third                                        country  nationals  or  stateless  persons  as  refugees  or  as                                        persons  who  otherwise  need  international  protection  and                                        the content of the protection granted, 32004L0083, Official                                        Journal L 304 of 30 September 2004.                                        e. Council  Directive  2005/85/EC  of  1  December  2005  on                                        minimum  standards  on  procedures  in  Member  States  for                                        granting  and  withdrawing  refugee  status,  32005L0085,                                        Official Journal L 326 of 13 December 2005.                                       f. Treaty on European Union, 12010E/TBL, Official Journal                                        C 83 of 30 March 2010, in consolidated version.                                       g. Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,                                        12010E/TBL, Official Journal C 83 of 30 March 2010, in                                        consolidated version.                               Contact – email                              182667@mail.muni.cz                                                                                    166","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                   APPLICATION OF THE EU CONSUMER LAW                                            IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC                                                     ELIŠKA ŠROTOVÁ                                                        AK Bělohlávek                                Abstract in original language                              Příspěvek nejprve krátce shrne dosavadní judikaturu SD EU ohledně                              ochrany  spotřebitele,  zejména  rozhodnutí  týkající  se  rozhodčích  a                              prorogačních doložek. Poté bude rozebrána judikatura českých soudů,                              která se týká těchto otázek. Následně bude zhodnocen postup českých                              soudů při aplikaci evropského práva. Následovat bude analýza změn,                              které  přinese  novela  zákona  o  rozhodčím  řízení  a  nový  občanský                              zákoník.                              Key words in original language                              rozhodčí  doložka,  prorogační  doložka,  spotřebitelské  právo,  ochrana                              spotřebitele, rozhodčí řízení                               Abstract                              At  the  beginning,  this  contribution  will  shortly  summarize  current                              decisions of the ECJ on consumer protection, in particular decisions                              dealing  with  arbitration  and  prorogation  clauses.  Next, judicature  of                              the  Czech  courts  connected  to  the  abovementioned  issues  will  be                              analyzed.  This  part  will  be  followed  by  evaluation  of  the  Czech                              courts´  approach  when  applying  European  consumer  law.  This  part                              will  be  followed  by  analysis  of  changes,  which  will  bring  the                              amendment to the Arbitration Act together with the New Civil Code.                               Key words                              arbitration  clause;  prorogation  clause;  consumer  law;  protection  of                              consumer; arbitration proceedings                               In  the  Czech  Republic,  the  issue  of  protection  of  consumers  is                              regulated on national level (by national acts) as well as on European                              level since the Czech Republic is the member of the EU. This article                              aims  to  explore  interaction  between  these  two  levels  of  regulation,                              with its focus on arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. Relevant                              judgment of both European Court of Justice and Czech courts will be                              discussed as well. An amendment to the Arbitration Act is currently                              being processed as well as New Civil Code therefore the article should                              also answer question whether this amendment would improve current                              situation in the area of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts                               1. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVE 93/13/EEC OF 5 APRIL                              1993 ON UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS                               In  This  directive  presented  a  big  step  forward  in  the  consumer                              protection  on  the  EU  level  because  it  was  the  first  document                              summarizing minimal requirements in this area of law for the whole                              EU. It was implemented to the Czech law by Act No. 367/2000 Coll.,                                                                  167","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 on change of the Civil Code, as amended, and some other laws, which                                                                               1                              implemented three directives on consumer protection . However, the                              implementation was not very accurate. - this can be observed on the                              basis of the mere translation of the term \"unfair\" - it was translated as                              \"nepřiměřený\" which means inappropriate instead of \"zneužívající\".                               There are also differences in the definition of the unfair term itself.                              Under the directive, the unfair term was defined as:                               Not being individually negotiated;                               In contradiction to the requirement of good faith;                               Causing a significant imbalance in the parties´ rights and obligations;                               This imbalance is to the detriment of the consumer.                               Under the Civil Code, conditions of unfair term are:                               In contradiction to the principle of good faith;                               Causes a significant imbalance in the parties´ rights and obligations;                               This imbalance is to the detriment of the consumer.                               Based  on  simple  comparison  between  definition  from  the  directive                              and  from  the  Civil  Code,  it  is  obvious  that  condition  of  individual                              negotiation is missing in the Czech law.                                The directive includes in Annex 1 a list of examples of unfair terms,                              which were member states, supposed to transpose to their law as well.                              This list is by no means exhaustive; it serves only as a demonstrative                              enumeration.  When  transposing  this  list  of  unfair  terms,  member                              states were supposed to do so completely without omitting any terms                              but they could add more terms if they deemed it necessary. Therefore,                              this list serves as a basis for determining which term is unfair.                               Nevertheless,  the  Czech  Republic  chose  a  somewhat  creative                              approach  and  transposed  only  12  instead  of  17  examples  of  unfair                              terms.  Most  importantly,  the  Czech  Republic  omitted  to  transpose                              letter  q)  of  the  Annex,  which  states  that  \"[terms]  excluding  or                              hindering  the  consumer's  right  to  take  legal  action  or  exercise  any                              other  legal  remedy,  particularly  by  requiring  the  consumer  to  take                              disputes  exclusively  to  arbitration  not  covered  by  legal  provisions,                              unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a                              burden  of  proof  which,  according  to  the  applicable  law,  should  lie                              with  another  party  to  the  contract\".  As  a  result,  there  is  no  explicit                                1                                Beside directive 93/13/EEC, directive 85/577/EEC of  20 December 1985 to                              protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business                              premises  and  directive  97/7/EC  of  20  May  1997  on  the  protection  of                              consumers in respect of distance contracts was implemented by this Act.                                                                  168","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 provision  in  the  Czech  law,  which  would  deem  terms  requiring                              consumer  to  use  only  arbitration  not  covered  by  legal  provisions                              (mostly ad hoc arbitration) unfair.                               2. THE MOST IMPORTANT ECJ'S JUDGMENTS                              REGARDING DIRECTIVE 93/13/EEC                                The  first  ECJ's  judgment  regarding  above-mentioned  directive  was                              Oceano Grupo Editorial (connected cases C-240/98 to C-244/98). This                              case  concerned  a  group  of  consumers  who  bought  encyclopaedias.                              The sales contract contained prorogation clause in favour of a court in                              the seat of a salesperson where none of the consumer actually lived.                               In this judgment, the ECJ stated that the aim of directive would not be                              achieved  if  the  consumer  were  himself  obliged  to  raise  the  unfair                              nature  of  such  terms.  Effective  protection  of  the  consumer  may  be                              attained only if the national court acknowledges that it has power to                              evaluate terms of this kind of its own motion.                               In  Mostaza  Claro  case  (C-168/05),  arbitration  proceedings  against                              consumer,  Mrs.  Mostaza  Claro  were  conducted.  However,  Mrs.                              Mostaza Claro did not raise objection of invalidity of the arbitration                              clause during the course of arbitration proceedings but it raised such                              objection only during proceedings before court, which was asked to                              set  the  award  aside.  According  to  the  Spanish  court,  there  were  no                              doubts  that  the  arbitration  clause,  which  served  as  a  basis  for  these                              proceedings  constituted  an  unfair  term  in  the  sense  of  directive                              93/13/EEC but the problem was that this objection had to be raised                              during the arbitration proceedings, which Mrs. Mostaza Claro did not                              fulfil.                               In this case, the ECJ de facto approved use of arbitration clauses in                              consumer  contracts  if  the  requirements  in  direction  are  satisfied.  It                              also stated that the aim of the directive could not be achieved if the                              court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award was                              unable to determine whether that award was void solely because the                              consumer did not plead the invalidity of the arbitration agreement in                              the course of the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, the court can set                              the award  aside  even if the  consumer  did  not  raise the  objection  of                              invalidity of arbitration clause in the arbitration proceedings but only                              before court.                               In  Pannon  judgment  (C-243/08),  consumer,  Mrs.  Györfi,  was  sued                              under  the  prorogation  clause,  which  transferred  jurisdiction  to  the                              court of seat of the businessperson. In this case, Mrs. Györfi did not                              even  have  to raise any  objections  because the court itself  asked  the                              ECJ for preliminary ruling, in particular whether the court has a duty                              to examine on its own motion its competence.                               The  ECJ  de  facto  confirmed  its  previous  ruling  that  the  Directive                              cannot be interpreted as meaning that it is only in the event that the                              consumer has brought a specific application in relation to it, that an                              unfair  contract  term  is  not  binding  on  that  consumer.  An  unfair                                                                  169","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 contract term is not binding on the consumer, and it is not necessary,                              in  that  regard,  for  that  consumer  to  have  successfully  contested  the                              validity  of  such  a  term  beforehand.  However,  if  the  consumer  is                              informed about the fact that he did not have to be bound by this term                              and he expressed his wish to be bound by it then the term would be                              binding.                                However, the ECJ limited court's activism in Asturcom judgment (C-                              40/08).  In  this  case,  arbitration  proceedings  against  consumer,  Mrs.                              Rodriguez  Nogueira,  were  conducted.  Mts.  Rodriguez  Nogueira                              neither  did  participate  in  the  arbitration  proceedings  nor  asked  the                              court for annulment of the award therefore the award became final and                              binding.  The ECJ ruled that if consumer is absolutely passive then                              court does not have to set aside award on its own motion. But the ECJ                              added that if a court can assess compatibility of an award with public                              order, it must do so also in case of EU law with similar nature. Since                              Spanish courts have such obligation under the Spanish law, they also                              have to assess compatibility of arbitration clause with the directive.                              To  summarize  ECJ's  judgments,  the  national  courts,  when  dealing                              with arbitration clause (or prorogation clause since its nature is very                              similar  to  arbitration  clause  -  both  shift  jurisdiction  from  a  court,                              which  would  be  under  standard  circumstances  competent,  to  other                              body), has an obligation to examine ex offo whether arbitration clause                              does not present an unfair term. Fact that the consumer did not raise                              an  objection  of  invalidity  of  arbitration  clause  in  arbitration                              proceedings does not prevent him from raising this objection during                              proceedings before court.                               Should  the  court  come  to  conclusion  that  indeed  this  particular                              arbitration clause is an unfair term then the consumer cannot be bound                              by  it.  However,  when  the  court  comes  to  conclusion  that  clause                              presented is an unfair term, informs the consumer about this fact and                              consumer expresses his will to be bound by this clause then the court                              cannot decide against consumer's will that such a term is invalid.                                In  case  national  court  is  obliged  to  examine  compatibility  of                              arbitration  clause  with  public  order  court  must  also  examine  its                              compatibility  with  directive  93/13/EEC  because  this  directive  has                              similar  nature  to  public  order.  However,  this  last  possibility  is  not                              applicable to the Czech Republic because the Arbitration Act does not                              give such possibility to courts.                               3. CZECH  JUDGMENTS  REGARDING  EXISTENCE  OF                              ARBITRATION CLAUSES IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS                               Recently,  the  Czech  Republic  has  been  experiencing  problems  with                              arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. Most commonly, consumers                              were not aware that the contract they signed included an arbitration                              clause.  Another  problem  is  connected  with  quasi-permanent  arbitral                              bodies – in the Czech Republic, the Arbitration Act recognizes only ad                              hoc  arbitration  or  arbitration  before  permanent  arbitral  institutions.                              However,  recently  many  quasi-permanent  arbitral  institutions                                                                  170","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 occurred  which  are  often  connected  with  one  or  several  business                              entities.  This  connection  might  raise  doubts  about  impartiality  and                              independence of the arbitrators who might even be paid according to                              the amount adjudicated. It is also not clear whether these institutions                              can serve as an appointing authority for arbitrators.                               The Regional Court in Ostrava in case 33 Cm 13/2009 was deciding                              about  claim  arising  out  of  loan  contract,  which  contained  an                              arbitration  clause.  On  basis  of  this  arbitration  clause,  an  arbitration                              award  was rendered,  under  which the  consumer  was  obliged  to  pay                              remaining part of the loan together with contractual fine. The Court                              referred  to  directive  93/13EEC  and  when  interpreting  Civil  Code  it                              used  euro-conform  interpretation.  According  to  Court's  opinion,  the                              directive 93/13/EEC, in particular letter q) of the Annex 1, considers                              all arbitration clauses as unfair terms and therefore arbitration clause                              is as unfair term invalid and arbitration award rendered on the basis of                              this clause is null.                               The credit agency appealed and as an appellate court, the High Court                              in Olomouc was deciding. In its judgment 12 Cmo 13/2010, it came to                              conclusion  that  it  is  not  possible  to  automatically  consider  all                              arbitration clauses in consumer contracts as unfair terms. According to                              Court's  opinion,  every  arbitration  clause  contained  in  consumer                              contract  must  undertake  an  individual  test,  which  will  assess  its                              compatibility with directive 93/13/EEC.                                However,  the  High  Court  in  Prague,  when  deciding  about  different                              matter  (case  2  VSPH  14/2011)  agreed  with  the  Regional  Court  in                              Ostrava  that  arbitration  clauses  in  consumer  contracts  are  per  se                              inadmissible, especially when they are concluded in favour of private                              arbitral institution which was not established in accordance with the                              Arbitration Act.                               Nevertheless,  the  approach  presented  by  the  Regional  Court  in                              Ostrava and by the High Court in Prague that all arbitration clauses in                              consumer contracts are automatically invalid is not sustainable. This is                              obvious  especially  in  the  light  of  the  amendment  to  the  Arbitration                              Act, which is in process of adoption - this amendment distinguishes                              between  consumer  disputes  and  \"normal\"  disputes  (disputes  when                              none of the parties is a consumer). Therefore, it could be assumed that                              arbitration clauses in consumer contracts are not automatically invalid                              otherwise  this  amendment  would  be  pointless.  Instead,  approach                              requiring examination of every arbitration clause separately should be                              adopted.                               This approach has indeed already been used by the Municipal Court in                              Brno which in its judgment 33 C 68/2008-60 assessed compatibility of                              an arbitration clause with the directive 93/13/EEC, i.e. whether it was                              individually  negotiated  etc.  The  court  concluded  that  the  arbitration                              clause was not individually negotiated and that it caused detriment to                              the consumer and as such it was invalid. As a result, the arbitral award                              was set aside.                                                                   171","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 4.  CZECH JUDGMENTS REGARDING QUASI-PERMANENT                              INSTITUTIONS                               As  was  already  mentioned  in  previous  section,  there  have  been                              problems recently with quasi-permanent arbitral institutions. By this                              term, an institution which is not a permanent arbitral institution under                              the  Arbitration  Act  and  which  usually  provides  arbitrators  with                              functional  background  is  meant.  However,  these  institutions  often                              appointed  arbitrators  therefore  they  acted  as  permanent  arbitral                              institutions.                               Regarding  this  issue,  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  past  expressed  an                              opinion (case 32 Cdo 2282/2008) that it was in accordance with the                              law if parties agreed that their dispute would be decided by particular                              arbitrator  appointed  by  private  entity  which  was  not  a  permanent                              arbitral  institution  under  the  Arbitration  Act  and  that  the  arbitration                              proceedings  would  be  conducted  under  the  Rulers  issued  by  such                              private entity.                               The High Court in Prague in its decision 12 Cmo 496/2008 embraced                              contradictory  opinion  when  it  concluded  that  reference  to  quasi-                              permanent institution as an appointing authority as well as reference to                              arbitration  rules  issued  by  such  institution  cause  invalidity  of  the                              arbitration  clause  because of  circumvention  of  law.  This  ruling  was                              even concluded in the collection of the most important judgments adns                              as such should be followed by other courts. However, some courts did                              not follow this approach but followed earlier decision of the Supreme                              Court  instead  therefore  the  Supreme  Court  issued  uniting  opinion                              (case  31  Cdo  1945/2010).  In  this  decision,  the  Supreme  Court                              overruled its earlier decision and confirmed ruling of the High Court                              in Prague.                               To conclude, the current position is that quasi-permanent institutions                              cannot  appoint  arbitrators  or  issue  rules  for  conduct  of  arbitration                              proceedings since these activities are reserved only for the permanent                              arbitral institutions established under the Arbitration Act. Arbitration                              clauses  concluded  in  contradiction  with  this  approach  are  invalid                              under Section 39 of the Civil Code for circumvention of law.                               5. AMENDMENT TO THE ARBITRATION ACT                               Amendment  to  the  Arbitration  Act  had  already  passed  through  the                              House  of  Parliament  and  had  been  discussed  in  the  Senate  on  7th                              December 2011. However, the Senate proposed further changes in the                              amendment  therefore  the  amendment  returned  to  the  House  of                              Parliament,  which  will  vote  on  it  again.  This  amendment  focuses                              mostly  on  consumer  disputes  but  it  brings  come  changes  for  all                              arbitration  proceedings.  Regarding  changes  which  will  affect  solely                              consumer disputes, those are:                               Arbitration clause cannot contain name of a particular arbitrator;                                                                     172","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Arbitration  agreement  must  be  contained  in  a  separate  document,                              otherwise is void;                               Trader must provide consumer with explanation about the nature of an                              arbitration before conclusion of arbitration agreement;                               There  are  stipulated  necessary  requirements  about  content  of  the                              arbitration agreement such as identification of arbitrator or permanent                              arbitral institution, manner of commencement and way of conduct of                              arbitration proceedings, remuneration of arbitrator(s) etc.;                               Consumer disputes can be decided only by arbitrator from the list of                              arbitrators  for  consumer  disputes  which  is  kept  by  the  Ministry  of                              Justice;                               Before  commencement  of  arbitration  proceedings,  an  arbitrator  is                              obliged to disclose if in last three years, he rendered or participated in                              rendition of arbitral award in case where one of the parties was or is                              involved. The same applies for arbitration proceedings in progress;                               Objection regarding lack of competence can be raised any time during                              proceedings;                              Award  must  always  contain  reasoning  and  notice of right to file an                              application with the court for setting the award aside;                               Arbitrators must always follow law on protection of consumer;                               Non-compliance  with  abovementioned  requirements  establishes  a                              reason for setting the award aside;                               When a consumer files an application for the annulment of an award                              the  court  must  ex  offo  examine  compliance  with  provisions  for                              consumer disputes;                               When a consumer files an application for the annulment of an award                              the court must ex offo examine existence of reasons for postponement                              of execution of the award;                               Objections  regarding  lack  of  competence  or  competence  of                              arbitrator(s) can be raised during annulment proceedings even if they                              were not raised during arbitration proceedings;                               The  Ministry  of  Justice  keeps  a  list  of  arbitrators  who  can  serve  in                              consumer disputes. Person can be added to the list upon his proposal if                              the person has legal capacity, does not have a criminal record, has a                              university  degree  in  law,  paid  a  fee  of  5 000  CZK  (approximately                              €200) and has not been crossed from this list in last five years. An                              arbitrator can be crossed from the list inter alia in case he severally                              and repeatedly breached his duties arising out of the Arbitration Act.                               The  Senate  proposed  that  arbitrators  for  consumer  disputes  should                              undertake  an  exam,  which  would  ensure  that  they  have  a  thorough                                                                  173","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 knowledge  of  law  on  consumer  protection.  Persons  who  passed  bar                              exam  or  judiciary  exam  would  not  have  to  undertake  this  exam.                              Ministry  of  Justice  as  a  sponsor  of  the  bill  did  not  agree  with  this                              proposal.                               There is a very high probability that the amendment will pass in the                              House of Parliament. However, it is unsure whether Senate’s proposal                              will pass as well.                               6. NEW CIVIL CODE                               The New Civil Code improves transposition of directive 93/13/EEC                              but only partly - letter q) of the Annex will be included but there are                              still  several  problems.  One  of  them  is  systematic  position  of                              provisions transposing  the  directive. These  provisions  in the  current                              version  of  the  New  Civil  Code  will  be  in  a  separate  section                              immediately after the section on accessory contracts. However, there                              is no provision on the connection of these two sections therefore the                              only  possibility  is  the  relation  between  general  and  special                                        2                              provisions .                               Regarding the definition of the unfair term, the New Civil Code brings                              significant  change  when  it  construes  this  definition  as  a  refutable                              presumption. This construction is not in accordance with the directive                              because under the directive these terms are always considered unfair,                              i.e.  under  the  directive  they  are  defined  as  irrefutable  presumption.                              There is also one change in the definition itself - the New Civil Code                              substitutes requirement principle of good faith with the requirement of                              adequacy. Adequacy is not mentioned in the original definition in the                              directive therefore it is not clear why this change happened since it did                              not correct the inaccurate transposition of the directive.                               7. CONCLUSION                               To conclude, the directive 93/13/EEC was not transposed accurately                              to the Czech law and it is unclear whether the New Civil Code will                              improve  the  situation.  However,  the  definition  of  unfair  term  and                              translation of this term instead still remains inaccurate.                               On the other hand, it is very positive that Czech courts are aware of                              this problem with transposition of the directive as well as of relevant                              ECJ´s case law and they try to reflect both when interpreting relevant                              provisions of the Civil Code.                                Regarding  existing  problems  with  arbitration  clauses  in  consumer                              disputes, only a few cases where an arbitration award was rendered go                              before court because consumers are not aware of the consequences of                              arbitration  award  or  do  not  know  about  the  possibility  to  go  to  the                                 2                                Pelikánová, Irena (2011): České právo, Evropa a rozhodčí doložky. Bulletin                              advokacie 10/2011, p. 17 et following.                                                                  174","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 court to ask for annulment. From these reasons, it is unsure whether                              the  approach  of  inadmissibility  of  appointing  arbitrators  by  quasi-                              permanent  institutions  will  help  to  tackle  these  issues  -  if  the                              consumer did not raise the objection of invalidity of arbitration clause                              during  the  arbitration  proceedings  it  cannot  be  raised  during  court                              proceedings.  In  this  matter,  the  Amendment  to  the  Arbitration  Act                              should  improve  the  situation  because  it  states  that  in  consumer                              disputes, objection regarding lack of competence of the arbitrator(s)                              can be raised any time during proceedings as well as only in the court                              proceedings. It is true that this provision diminishes the efficiency of                              arbitration but this restriction follows the aim of consumer protection.                              As  a  result,  arbitration  proceedings  might  be  less  used  in  consumer                              cases.                               Other  changes  under  the  amendment  include  an  obligation  of  a                              businessperson  to  explain  the  nature  of  arbitration.  The  amendment                              also  requires  arbitration  agreement  to  be  contained  in  a  separate                              document.  This  provision  does  not  really  solve  a  problem  when                              consumers are forced to either sign a contract with arbitration clause                              or have no contract at all. Under this provision, arbitration agreement                              will be still signed together with the main contract so the consumers                              will have to face the same dilemma as now. The solution would be if                              the  arbitration  agreement  could  be  concluded  only  after  the  dispute                              occurred - in this case, it would be absolutely independent on the main                              contract and consumer could freely choose whether he wants to sign it                              or not.                               Currently, it is also common that consumers do not read the contract                              before  they  sign  it  so  they  are  often  not  aware  that  there  is  an                              arbitration clause. However, even if the arbitration agreement is on the                              separate sheet of paper it does not ensure that the consumer will read                              it.  It  is  true  that  this  way  he  will  at  least  know  that  there  is  an                              arbitration agreement but he can still be forced to sign it even if he                              does not want to as explained above. The businessperson will have to                              inform  consumer  about  the  nature  of  arbitration  but  the  amendment                              does not specify how it should be done. Probably the written form will                              be used which the consumer will sign so the businessperson can prove                              that  he  fulfilled  his  informational  obligation  towards  consumer.  But                              this does not ensure that the consumer will actually read what he signs                              and that he will understand the presented text.                               One  of  quite  effective  ways  how  to  restrict  arbitration  in  consumer                              disputes  could  be  by  the  list  of  arbitrators  for  consumer  disputes.                              Consumer  disputes  are  generally  not  very  attractive  for  arbitrators                              because they usually concern only relatively small amounts of money.                              Therefore, there might be only a few arbitrators interested in entering                              the list. This would efficiently limit the consumer disputes solved by                              arbitration  because  there  simply  would  not  be  enough  arbitrators.                              Number of interested arbitrators might be even lower if they needed to                              pass an exam as suggested by the Senate.                               To sum up, the inaccurate transposition of the directive does not have                              a strong effect on the court´s decisions because they are aware of this                                                                  175","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 inaccuracy.  Existing  problems  regarding  the  arbitration  clauses  in                              consumer disputes might be at least partly solved by the amendment                              to the Arbitration act even though it is not clear when it will pass and                              in which version                                 Literature:                               -  Pelikánová, Irena (2011): České právo, Evropa a rozhodčí doložky.                                 Bulletin advokacie 10/2011, str. 17 a násl.                              -                              -  ECJ´s judgments:                               -  Judgment of the Court of 27 June 2000. Océano Grupo Editorial SA                                 v Roció Murciano Quintero (C-240/98) and Salvat Editores SA v                                 José  M.  Sánchez  Alcón  Prades  (C-241/98),  José  Luis  Copano                                 Badillo  (C-242/98),  Mohammed  Berroane  (C-243/98)  and  Emilio                                 Viñas  Feliú  (C-244/98).  Reference  for  a  preliminary  ruling:                                 Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 35 de Barcelona - Spain. CELEX                                 61998CJ0240. Original langauge: Spanish.                              -  Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2006. Elisa                                 María Mostaza Claro v Centro Móvil Milenium SL. Reference for a                                 preliminary  ruling:  Audiencia  Provincial  de  Madrid  -  Spain.                                 CELEX 62005CJ0268. Original langauge: Spanish.                              -  Case C-40/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October                                 2009  (Reference  for  a  preliminary  ruling  from  the  Juzgado  de                                 Primera  Instancia  No 4  de  Bilbao  —  Spain)  —  Asturcom                                 Telecomunicaciones  SL  v  Cristina  Rodríguez  Nogueira.  CELEX                                 62008CA0040. Original langauge: Spanish.                              -  Case C-243/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 June                                 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budaörsi Városi                                 Bíróság  (Hungary))  —  Pannon  GSM  Zrt  v  Erzsébet  Sustikné                                 Győrfi. CELEX 62008CA0243. Original language: Hungarian.                              -  Czech judgments:                              -  Case 33 Cm 13/2009: Judgment of the Regional Court in Ostrava of                                 8th March 2010.                               -  Case 12 Cmo 13/2010: Judgment of the High Court in Olomouc of                                 2th March 2011.                              -  Case 2 VSPH: Judgment of the High Court in Prague of 10th March                                 2011.                              -  Case 33 C 68/2008-60: Judgment of the Municipal Court in Brno of                                 14th December 2009.                              -  Case 32 Cdo 2282/2008: Judgment of the Supreme Court of 31st                                 July 2008.                              -  Case 12 Cmo 496/2008: Judgment of the High Court in Prague of                                 28th May 2009.                              -  Case 31 Cdo 1945/2010: Judgment of the Supreme Court of 11th                                 May 2011.                                                                    176","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                Contact – email                              e.srotova@gmail.com                                                                                                                                               177","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                       THE IMPORTANCE OF THE UNITED NATIONS                                  CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA OF 10                                                  DECEMBER 1982                                               TROCAN LAURA MAGDALENA                                   Faculty of Public Administration and Political Comparative Studies                                          University “Constantin Brancusi” of Targu-Jiu, Romania                               Abstract in original langure                              The  Third  United  Nations  Conference  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea  has                              managed,  as  a  result  of  complex,  sustained  and  prolonged                              negotiations, to  develop  a new  Law  of   the  Sea, established  into a                              single convention,  called by Tommy T. B. Koh  - President of the                              Third  United  Nations  Conference  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea  -  ,,A                              Constitution  for  the  Oceans,,.  This  article  aims  are  to  highlight  the                              significance  of  this  convention  which  is  the  most  important                              achievement of the international community after the United Nations                              Charter, being the first comprehensive treaty dealing with every aspect                              of the uses of the world's oceans and seas and their resources.                               Key words in original language                              The Law of the Sea, The third United Nations Conference on the Law                              of the Sea, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of                              1982, the Agreement regarding the application of the 9th Part of the                              United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, sea spaces,                              resources.                               1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.                                The existence of certain unsuspected resources in the world seas and                              oceans and the real possibilities to cover an important part of the food                              and energy requirements of humanity in an exhausting context, in a                                                                              1                              not too long lapse of time, of the terrestrial resources  have made the                                                                              2                              interest for the world ocean to continuously increase . All these have                              justified  the  emphasizing  of  all  the  states’  concerns  for  capitalizing                              these luxuries and in the last decades we have developed not only the                              sea researches, but it also appeared a real industry of extracting and                              processing  the  minerals  of  the  deepness  of  seas  and  oceans,  of  the                              continental platforms of states or of the areas outside the limits of their                              national  jurisdiction.  But  this  new  use  of  the  sea  spaces  has  raised                              numerous  technical,  economical  and  juridical  problems  that  have                              determined  the  necessity  for  an  ensemble  regulation  of  all  the                              activities in the sea space. Thus, under UN’s auspices, starting from                                 1                               Some experts estimate that, for the quantities of fossil fuels exploited every                              year, the nature „had worked” for over a million years. (M. T. Snarr, D. N.                              Snarr, Introducing global issues, Lynne Rienner Publishers, London, 2005,                              p. 293).                               2                               D.  Mazilu,  Sea  Law  –  Concepts  and  Institutions  Consecrated  by  the                              Montego-Bay Convention, Lumina Lex Press, Bucharest, 2002, p. 13.                                                                178","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 1958,  they  have  organized  several  conferences  considering  the  sea                              problems but that represented only the first steps of the long and often                              hard  way  crossed  to  the  reinforcement  of  the  administrating  and                              governing  system  of  the  world  seas  and  oceans.    Even  if  the                              importance of the conventions adopted after these conferences cannot                              be neglected, still the elaboration of several conventions, in different                              fields of the ocean space, a space reclaiming a unique and ensemble                              regulation, has made the adopted regulations not to have the expected                              efficiency. Thus, in 1973, they convoked the third Conference of the                              United Nations Organisation on the Law of the Sea with an extremely                              difficult mission, namely the one to elaborate a convention that should                              regulate and reflect the finding of certain solutions that are mutually                              beneficial for all the problems raised by the sea spaces across time.                               2. THE  THIRD  UNITED  NATIONS  CONFERENCE  ON  THE                              LAW OF THE SEA– MANDATE AND SHORT HISTORY.                               The  third  United  Nations  Conference  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea  has                              started its works in 1973, having the mandate to elaborate a unique,                              complete  convention,  starting  from  the  premise  that  different                              problems  of  the  sea  spaces  are  interdependent  and  they  should  be                                                  3                              regulated in ensemble . This Conference, unique by its importance, by                              complexity,  by  the  involvements  of  the  debated  subjects,  by  the                              number of participants, by time and by the procedural innovations has                              ignored all the normative traditions and has introduced in frame of the                              international  relations  an  original  process  of  elaborating  juridical                              norms  that  had  an  important  political-economical  nature.  Its                              development has illustrated the changes interfered in the international                              life  and  it  has  certainly  influenced  the  future  of  the  international                                     4                              society .  The  conference,  where  more  than  150  states  participated,                              developed its works between 1973-1982, in frame of 11 sessions, by                                                                             5                              means of certain committees and negotiation groups . Considering the                              complexity of the problems that were to be approached, the first two                              sessions  of  the  Conference  were  entirely  consecrated  to  the                                                     6                              organisational  problems .  In  frame  of  the  first  session  of  the                                3                               S. Peterson, The common heritage of mankind? in Environment, vol. 22,                              issue 1, Jan/Feb 1980, p. 7 - www. ebscohost.com.                               4                               J.  P.  Levy,  La  Conference  des  Nations  Unies  sur  le  droit  de  la  mer,                              Editions A. Pedone, Paris, 1983, p. 24 – 25;                              5                               The combined actions, during the development of the Conference, between                              the classic multilateral negotiations and the different formulas of negotiations                              on  groups  in  order  to  prepare  the  official  texts  have  determined  its                              consideration as representing an “experimental international workshop” able                              to  inspire  in  the  future  other  diplomatic  conferences  convoked  in  order  to                              adopt  the  multilateral  treaties.  (J.  P.  Levy,  La  Conference  des  Nations                              Unies…, p. 13).                              6 S.  Peterson,  op.  cit.,  p.  8.  The  negotiations  proved  to  be  difficult,                              complicated, due to a strong competition between the national interests and                              the group ones. (S. Jayakumar, UNCLOS- two decades on, Singapore Year                              Book  of  International  Law,  Singapore,  vol.  9,  2005,  p.  3  -                              www.proquest.com).                                                                  179","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                                                   th                                                                            rd                              Conference developed in New –York (December 3  -15  1973), they                              elected the Conference Office, they constituted a part of the working                              organs and they inaugurated the works regarding the procedure rules.                                                                                            th                                                                                th                              At  the  second  session  developed  in  Caracas  (June  20 –August  29                                                             7                              1974) they launched basic debates . Starting with the third session that                                                                          th                                                              th                              developed  in  Geneva  (March  17   –  May  9   1975),  the  works                                                                                     8                              consisted of debating the texts submitted to the negotiations , so that                              the works of the fourth and fifth sessions (1976) ended with a unique                              text reviewed by the negotiations. They obtained important progresses                              in  certain  fields  and  in  others,  such  as  the  exploration  and  the                              exploitation of the resources of the submarine territories beyond the                                                                                   9                              limits of the national jurisdictions they got into a deadlock . This was                              generated by the dissensions appeared between the groups of interests                              existent in frame of the Conference regarding the constitution, the role                              and the functions of the mechanisms that were to be created for the                              administration and the management of these spaces, and also due to                              the  way  the  exploration  and  the  exploitation  of  this  space  were                                     10                                                            th                                                     th                              thought .  Mainly,  the  7   and  8   sessions  were  based  on  the  new                              aspects regarding the capitalizing manner of the resources of the Area,                              among  which  the  combating  of  the  tendency  of  their  unilateral                              capitalization.  Wanting  to  end  these  tendencies,  they  called  the                              principle  according  to  which  these  spaces  were  not  declared  as  a                              common  patrimony  of  the  humanity  by  the  Resolution  of  the  UNO                              General  Assembly  of  1970.  After  the  debates  in  frame  of  the  ninth                              session (1980), they disposed the review of the negotiated text that, at                              the end of the works, was presented as a project of the Convention on                              the  Sea  Law,  being  given  to  the  advertisement  together  with  an                              explanatory memory of the Conference president.                               But this Convention project was also reviewed in frame of the tenth                              session of the Conference (1981), an occasion when they decided to                              include  in  this  text  the  stipulations  regarding  the  International                              Authority for the Sea and Ocean Bottom and the ones regarding the                              International  Court  for  the  Sea  Law.  Also,  in  frame  of  the  same                              session,  they  also  reanalysed  the  final  clauses  of  the  Convention                              project, but also other problems.                                     7 Since  the  session  in  Caracas,  they  have  seen  the  fact  that  the  negations                              would be very difficult because they could not offer practical solutions to any                              of the litigious problems between the developing states and the industrialized                              ones.  (T.O.  Elias,  New  horizons  in  International  Law,  Martinius  Nijhoff                              Publishers, Dordrecht, 1992, p.66 ).                              8                               J. P. Levy, La Conference des Nations Unies …, p. 62.                              9 Law of the Sea Conference Convenes in May in American Bar Association                              Journal, vol. 63, Issue 5, May 1977, p. 720  - www. ebscohost.com.                               10 S. Peterson, op. cit., p. 11.                                                                  180","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 At  the  same  time,  because  Reagan  administration  took  back  its                                                                           11                              delegation, the Conference works were interrupted . The works of the                                 th                              11   session  of  the  Conference  developed  in  New-York,  between                                      th                                                 th                              March 8  – April 30  1982, and they were based on the problems of                              the  treatment  that  had  to  be  granted  to  the  pioneer  investors  in  the                              international  areas  of  submarine  territories,  in  the  lapse  of  time                              between signing and validating the Convention, as it is declared the                              last session consecrated to formulating and adopting decisions.                               Despite the efforts laid in order to get to an agreement also regarding                              the  juridical  system  of  the  international  area  of  the  submarine                              territories,  an  agreement  that  was  accomplished  in  most  of  the                              situations, the participants to the debates decided that they achieved                              the  conditions  in  order  to  be  submitted  for  approving  both  the                                               12                              Convention project , and the projects of the negotiated resolutions.                              Finally, the Conference adopted the following documents:                               The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,                                     st                              The 1  Resolution of the United Nations regarding the settlement of                              the  Preparing  Commission  of  the  International  Authority  of  the                              Submarine Territories and of the International Court for the  Law of                              the Sea,                                     nd                              The  2   Resolution  of  the  United  Nations  regarding  the  preparing                              investments and the preliminary activities regarding the poly-metallic                              nodules,                                     rd                              The  3   Resolution  regarding  the  territories  whose  peoples  have  not                              passed  yet  to  a  complete  independence  or  to  an  autonomy  system                              acknowledged by United Nations,                                   th                              The 4  Resolution regarding the movements of national release.                               The  negotiations  of  the  1982  Convention  represented  an  attempt  to                              redefine the Law of the Sea, they wanted to adjust the past inequities                                    11 As  it  results  from  the  stipulation  transmitted  by  the  American  state                              secretary, Alexannder M. Haing jr., the step back of the American negotiators                              was made in order to be sure that the negotiations would not end during that                              session, without the occurrence of a political review given by the American                              government that considered the stipulations regarding the juridical system of                              the  international  area  of  the  submarine  territories  in  contraction  with  the                              interests  of  USA.  (V.  Ciuvăţ,  The  Law  of  the  Sea  –  Evolution  and                              Consecration, Universitaria Press, Craiova, 2001, p. 115).                               12 The  United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea:  a  chronology,                              United  Nations  Chronicle,  New-York,  vol.32,  Issue  1,  Mar.  1995,  p.  11  -                              www.proquest.com.                                                                  181","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 and  to  offer  a  future  system  of  the  world  oceans  and  seas  released                                                                                      13                              from the domination of only one state or of a group of interests .                               The  United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea  of  1982  –                              significations. The third United Nations Conference on the Law of the                              Sea managed, after certain complex negotiations, to elaborate a new                                                                          14                              sea  law,  consecrated  in  only  one  convention .  Considering  the                              importance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea                              of 1982, the President of the Conference, Tommy T. B. Koh, named it                              “The  Constitution  of  the  Oceans”  and  the  United  Nations  General                              Secretary of that time, Javier Perez de Quéllar stated that, by adopting                                                                                         15                              this Convention, the international law was irrevocably transformed .                                      The United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea of                              1982  regulates  all  the  sea  spaces,  establishing  the  specific  basic                              juridical frame, starting with the sovereignty areas and going on with                              the jurisdiction, the use of the sovereign rights of the states and also                                             16                              their obligations .                              Among the particularities of this international normative process, we                              mention  the  fact  that,  beside  a  series  of  well-known  and  largely                              accepted  practices  and  habits,  they  instituted  new  sea  spaces:  the                              exclusive economical area and the international area of the submarine                              territories  and  they  formulate  new  principles  and  norms  that  should                              govern the new sea spaces.                               At  the  same  time,  another  distinctive  aspect  of  the  United  Nations                              Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 consists of creating two                              new international institutions, namely: the International Authority of                                                     17                              the Submarine Territories  and the International Court for the Law of                                     18                              the Sea .                                  13                                S. Peterson, op. cit., p. 11.                              14 M. Popescu, The Law of the Sea: Areas of National Jurisdiction, Artprint                              Press, Bucharest, 2000, p. 38;41. D. R. Rothwell, Building on the strengths                              and  addressing  the  challenges:  the  role  of  Law  of  the  Sea  institutions,                              Ocean Development \& International Law, vol. 35, Issue 2, Apr-Iun 2004, p.                              131.                               15                                D. Popescu, M. Popescu,  The Law of the Sea. International Treaties and                              Conventions, Artprint Press, Bucharest, 2000, p. 20.                               16                                B. Boutros Ghali, A dream becomes a reality: Sea Law Convention enters                              into force, United Nations Chronicle, New-York, vol.32, Issue 1, Mar. 1995,                              p. 8.                              17 The  International  Authority  of  the  Submarine  Territories  represents  the                              organisation by means of which the parties organise and control the activities                              developed  in  the  international  area  of  the  submarine  territories  in  order  to                              administrate and manage its resources. Constituted according to the model of                              the  traditional  intergovernmental  organisations,  actually,  the  Authority  has                                                                 182","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Currently, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of                              1982  is  acknowledged  as  a  reference  juridical  frame  for  any                              international  regulations  able  to  define  rights,  obligations  and                                                                          19                              responsibilities regarding the sea and ocean space .                                      The  text  of  the  Convention  containing  320  articles  and  9                                                                                     21                                     20                                                                               th                              annexes  was adopted by the Conference on April 30 , 1982  and it                                  the  vocation  to  behave  as  a  supra-state  because  by  report  with  other                              international organisations it is invested by the constitutive document with an                              authentic  territorial  competence  on  certain  large  spaces,  and  the  Authority                              exerts, in these spaces, prerogatives in the name of the entire humanity. Thus,                              from this viewpoint, it seems incontestably that the new Convention of 1982                              supplies  the  sketch  of  a  new  supra-state  juridical  order.  (D.  Vignes,  La                              participation d’entités non-étatiques a la Convention des Nations Unies sur                              le  droit  de  la  mer  in,  Perspectives  du  droit  de  la  mer  a  l’issue  de  la  3-e                              Conference des Nations Unies, Editions A. Pedone, Paris, 1984, p. 164).                              18                                The International Court for the Sea Law was created in order to constitute,                              for the activities entering under the incidence of the Convention of 1982, a                              permanent  organ  of  specialized  internationalized  jurisdiction  and  it  was                                                      st                              actually  settled  on  August  1 ,  1996.  The  headquarters  of  the  International                              Court  was  settled  in  Hamburg,  Germany.  The  status  of  the  International                                                    th                              Court is contained in the 6  Annexe at the Convention of 1982. In frame of                              the  International  Court,  there  is  also  the  Chamber  for  regulating  the                              controversies  referring  to  the  submarine  territories,  and  also  other  special                              chambers  whose  constitutions  and  competences  are  stipulated  by  the                                                         th                              Convention  of  1982  and  the  6   Annexe  of  its.  The  competence  of  the                              International Court is both contentious and consultative. Its competence lies                              all over the controversies and the requirements submitted to it according to                              the Convention of 1982, and also on all the stipulated problems, especially in                              any  other  agreement  conferring  competence  to  the  International  Court.                              (www.itlos.org).                              19 See,  for  example,  the  Agreement  of  1995  for  the  application  of  the                              stipulations  of  the  United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Law    of  the  Sea  of                                         th                              December 10 , 1982 referring to the conservation and the management of the                              fish stocks whose displacements are accomplished both inside and outside the                              exclusive  economical  areas  (relative  stocks)  and  of  the  stocks  of  big                              migrating fish.                              20 The Convention of 1982 seems incontestably to represent a real monument                              of the contemporary international law not only due to its impressive sizes, but                              also due to the exceptional duration, and also due to the importance with no                              precedent of the Conference that elaborated it. (J. P. Levy, La Conference                              des  Nations Unies …, p. 13).                               21                                The Convention was adopted by 130 votes pro, 4 against (Israel, Turkey,                              USA, Venezuela) and 17 abstentions (among which England, R. F. Germany,                              Belgium,  Holland,  Italy,  Spain,  USSR,  other  states  of  the  Eastern  and                              Western Europe). (M. C. Wood, International Seabed Authority: The first                              four years, p. 179 - www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf). We mention that Romania                                                                     th                              signed  the  text  of  the  Convention  on  April  30 ,  1982.  (P.  Leitner,  A  bad                              treaty returns, World Affairs, vol. 160, issue 3, winter 1998, p. 135).                                                                  183","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                                    th                              was open to be signed on December 10 , 1982, in Montego - Bay, in                                     22                              Jamaica .                                                th                              Before December 9 , 1984, the Convention was signed by 159 states,                              but in order to be validated, it stipulated a number of 60 ratifications                              and considering that – certain developed capitalist countries expressed                              reserves, some of them even very serious (there were states that did                              not sign the final text of the Convention of 1982 or did not ratify it), to                              certain  stipulations  written  in  the  final  text,  especially  to  the                                                th                              stipulations of the 9  Part referring to the sea and ocean bottom and                              their subsoil beyond the limits of the national jurisdiction and to their                                       23                              resources , and also to any suggestion able to improve it, in order to                              create certain larger bases of its acceptance – the accomplishment of                              this essential requirement was accomplished only in 1993, so that, on                                           th                              November 16 , 1994, the United Nations Convention on the Law of                                                 24                              the Sea became valid . The validation of the Convention of 1982 was                                                                   th                              possible  only  after  adopting  on  July  28 ,  1994,  in  New  -York,  the                                                                         th                              Agreement  regarding  the  application  of  the  9   Part  of  the  United                              Nations  Convention  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea  of  1982,  bringing                              substantial changes to the juridical system of the submarine territories                                    22                                                      th                                The Final Document of the Convention was signed on December 10 , 1982,                              by 117 states and entities.                               23                                The  problems  of  the  international  area  of  the  submarine  territories,                              considered  –  the  angular  stone  –  of  the  negotiations  of  the  third  UNO                              Conference on the Sea Law continued also after adopting the Convention, to                              represent  a  real  apple  of  Discordia  and  to  generate  tensions  in  the                              international relations. The adversity of the strongly industrialized states to                              the way they had established the juridical system regarding the exploration                              and the exploitation of this Area (in the interest of the entire humanity) as                              expressed by the refuse of many of them to sign and ratify the Convention, a                              fact  that  could  endanger  the  entire  normative  ensemble  of  a  colossal                              importance  for  the  entire  humanity.  The  transformations  interfered  in  the                              international society at the end of the’80s, that marked the end of the cold                              war and the disappearance of the world bipolarization and they created the                              conditions necessary for aligning all the states to the principles of the market                              economy,  but  also  the  fear  that  the  validation  of  the  Convention,  without                              being ratified by the industrialized states, would have made impossible the                              practical application of both the entire institutional edifice and the system of                              exploration and exploitation established for the Area, were able to determine                                                                  th                              an ample process of renegotiation of the 11  Part referring to the system of                              the submarine territories, beyond the limits of the national jurisdiction, of the                              United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea.(  Şt.  Moţăţăianu,                              International Submarine Territories – an apple of Discordia or a chance of                              peace  and  of  the  sustainable  economical  development,  Scientific                              Communications  Sessions  Volume,  with  international  participation,  ECO-                              TREND,  organized  by  the  Faculty  of  Economical  Sciences,  “Constantin                              Brâncuşi” University of Targu-Jiu, 2004, p. 509-511).                              24 United Nation  Convention on the Law of the Sea: a chronology, p. 10.                                                                  184","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 placed  beyond the limits of  the  national jurisdictions  established  by                                                   25                              the Convention of 1982 .                               The  Agreement  of  1994  marks  the  moment  of  ending  some  long                              efforts in order to universalize the participation to the United Nations                              Convention  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea  of  1982,  having  a  special                              contribution  in  the  sense  of  concretizing  the  legal  and  institutional                              frame of the international sea order, an order that should consider the                              juridical consecration of the fact that the resources of the international                              areas of the submarine territories constitute the common patrimony of                              the  humanity  and  that  it  should  be  useful  for  the  wealth  of  all  the                              peoples.                               The validation of the United Nations Convention on  the Law of the                                                                   th                              Sea  of  Montego  -Bay  on  November  16 ,1994,  as  a  consequence  of                              adopting the Agreement of 1994, determined, beside the institution of                              a  juridical  system  specific  to  the  submarine  territories,  for  the                              International Authority for the Sea and Ocean Bottom – the resistance                              piece of this new system – to be born among the other international                              organisations,  by  having  the  certainty  that  almost  all  the  states  and                              especially the big industrial powers would guarantee its existence.                               The  United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea  of  1992                              marked  a  new  stage  in  the  evolution  of  coding  and  progressive                              development of the international law, and the Convention represents                              the  most  important  accomplishment  of  the  international  community                              after  the  United  Nations  Organization  Charter,  being  the  first                              containing treaty that takes care of every aspect of the uses and of the                                                           26                              resources of the seas and oceans .                                Literature:                              -  E. P. Andreyev, ş.a., The International Law of the Sea, Translated                                 from  the  Russian  by  Dimitry  Belyavsky,  Progress  Publishers,                                 Moscow, 1988                              -  V.  Ciuvăţ,  The  Law  of  the  Sea  –  Evolution  and  Consecration,                                 Universitaria Press, Craiova, 2001                              -  T.O. Elias, New horizons in International Law, Martinius Nijhoff                                 Publishers, Dordrecht, 1992                              -  B. Boutros Ghali, A dream becomes a reality: Sea Law Convention                                 enters  into  force,  United  Nations  Chronicle,  New-York,  vol.32,                                 Issue 1, Mar. 1995                                  25                                D.  Popescu,  A.  Năstase,  International  Public  Law,  “Şansa”  Publishing                              House, Bucharest, 1997, p. 214-215.                              26                                E. P. Andreyev, ş.a., The International Law of the Sea, Translated from                              the Russian by Dimitry Belyavsky, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1988, p. 5.                                                                  185","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 -  J. P. Levy, La Conference des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer,                                 Editions A. Pedone, Paris, 1983                              -  P. Leitner, A bad treaty returns, World Affairs, vol. 160, issue 3,                                 winter 1998                              -  S. Jayakumar, UNCLOS- two decades on, Singapore Year Book of                                 International Law, Singapore, vol. 9, 2005                              -  D. Mazilu, Sea Law – Concepts and Institutions Consecrated by the                                 Montego-Bay Convention, Lumina Lex Press, Bucharest, 2002                              -  Şt. Moţăţăianu, International Submarine Territories – an apple of                                 Discordia or a chance of peace and of the sustainable economical                                 development,  Scientific  Communications  Sessions  Volume,  with                                 international participation, ECO-TREND, organized by the Faculty                                 of  Economical  Sciences,  “Constantin  Brâncuşi”  University  of                                 Targu-Jiu, 2004                              -  S.  Peterson,  The  common  heritage  of  mankind?  in  Environment,                                 vol. 22, issue 1, Jan/Feb 1980 - www. ebscohost.com                              -  D.  Popescu,  A.  Năstase,  International  Public  Law,  “Şansa”                                 Publishing House, Bucharest, 1997                              -  D. Popescu, M. Popescu, The Law of the Sea. International Treaties                                 and Conventions, Artprint Press, Bucharest, 2000                              -  M. Popescu, The Law of the Sea: Areas of National Jurisdiction,                                 Artprint Press, Bucharest, 2000                              -                              -                              -  D.  R.  Rothwell,  Building  on  the  strengths  and  addressing  the                                 challenges:  the  role  of  Law  of  the  Sea  institutions,  Ocean                                 Development \& International Law, vol. 35, Issue 2, Apr-Iun 2004                              -  M. T. Snarr, D. N. Snarr, Introducing global issues, Lynne Rienner                                 Publishers, London, 2005                              -  D. Vignes, La participation d’entités non-étatiques a la Convention                                 des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer in, Perspectives du droit de                                 la mer a l’issue de la 3-e Conference des Nations Unies, Editions A.                                 Pedone, Paris, 1984                              -  M. C. Wood, International Seabed Authority: The first four years, -                                 www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf                              -  Law  of  the  Sea  Conference  Convenes  in  May  in  American  Bar                                 Association  Journal,  vol.  63,  Issue  5,  May  1977    -  www.                                 ebscohost.com                              -  The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: a chronology, United                                 Nations  Chronicle,  New-York,  vol.32,  Issue  1,  Mar.  1995  -                                 www.proquest.com.                                    Contact – email                                  laura.trocan@gmail.com                                                                     186","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                     A EUROPEAN UNION WITH TWO SPEEDS                                     AND NEW TYPE OF EUROPEAN LAW                                                    MARIUS VACARELU                                 Faculty of Public Administration, National School of Political and                                          Administrative Studies Bucharest, Romania                                 Abstract in original language                              Europa unită nu este decât un concept politic, din care populaţia nu a                              reuşit să înţeleagă mare lucru, şi nici nu a reuşit să identifice până la                              capăt toate aspectele care ar da consistenţă acesteia.                               Situaţia  economică  a  ultimilor  ani,  în  care  datoria  publică  a  forţat                              statele  să  îşi  recalibreze  paşii  a  adus  cu  sine  şi  o  posibilă                              redimensionare  a  proiectului  European.  Texul  nostru  încearcă  să                              identifice ceea ce ar putea rămâne în urma acestei operaţiuni: credinţa                              noastră este legată doar de principiile dreptului şi unele valori.                               Key words in original language                              Uniunea Europeană (UE), datorie publică, redimensionarea UE, valori                              şi principii ale dreptului.                               Abstract                              United  Europe  is  only  a  political  concept  and  the  population  didn’t                              understand all the ideas and the dimensions of this important process.                              The economic situation of last years, with an increasing public debt,                              forced European states to find a new logic and a new settlement of EU                              project. In this case, our text tries to identify which are the main things                              able to resist to these new treaties negotiations: in our opinion, it will                              remain only values and law principles.                               Key words                              European Union (EU), public debt, new dimension of EU, values and                              law principles.                               1. People try every day to open a computer and enter on internet, or,                              maybe, to switch on the television or the radio. It is a normal situation                              for  modern  societies,  because,  after  hundreds  of  years  of  hard-                              working,  finally,  the  comfort  is  almost  settled  in  a  good  part  of                              contemporary  world  –  however,  in  Europe,  Northern  America  and                              Australia, and in a good part of Asia – but less in Africa.                               A  perfect  day  must  have  information  –  every  day  we  can  have                              surprises – at 8 A.M. in September 11 it was a famous moment who                              changed our lives; an earthquake in Japan or near Indonesia and whole                              world felt that nature is again stronger than human achievement.                               2. On this big group of populations who need every day some news to                              well-function, there is a group with some specific attitudes – because                              of their studies and their social role: law faculty graduates.                                                                   187","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 They  are,  in  fact,  not  only  persons  involved  in  society’s  march  for                              perfection – in this case we must note politicians and political sciences                              graduates as mainly persons who believe that they have this power to                              change the world – but they are that specialist in real work of things                              and people, able to understand not only the correct way of working,                              but also the possibilities to not well function.                                Thus, a lawyer is able:                                   a)  To see and to create rules for a positive functioning of every                                      social  system.  In  this  case,  his  role  is  basic  to  the  peaceful                                      role, when he will contribute to new possibilities to improve                                      the economic (mainly) settlements;                                  b)  To  see  where  people  don’t  respect  the  rules  and  to  fight  in                                      legal procedure for their rights and obligations. In this case,                                      lawyers  are the first  persons  who  feel  the  human  nature  for                                      every  kind  of  regulation,  and  where  is  the  limit  of  social                                      support to state legislation (mainly, to the public law).                              In  this  equation,  lawyers  must  analyze  every  day  their  role  in  the                              society, because, no doubt, their role is bigger than other professions                              want to recognize, and, in the same time, their power in society is able                              to  produce  frighten:  on  legal  procedures  a  non-specialist  is  “lost  is                              labyrinth, and there is not Thezeus and the Ariadne’s wire” to protect                              them – here, only lawyer are able to walk and to obtain profit.                               3. This power is important in daily work, but, we must note, of course,                              that society don’t have too much trust in legal practitioners, because                              this  feeling  of  frightening  is  something  who  dig  every  day  at  the                              prestige of legal science and lawyers.                               In this case, we can talk about a moral crisis not for human society,                              but also inside legal practitioners, because they watch soon when the                              social trust disappears and sometimes they must find internal powers                              to continue the legal work as its official social purposes: helping the                                                          1                              people and cleaning the society .                                                                                2                              Describing this situation, an American law teacher wrote :                              “The  legal  profession  sometimes  behaves  as  if  it  is  waiting  for  a                              knight  in  shining  armor  to  rescue  it  from  the  evils  of  professional                              advertising, the forces of the marketplace, and the other afflictions we                              identify as the sources of our problems. But the practice of law is not a                              fairytale, and there is no knight in shining armor coming to the rescue.                              There are only we, its members.                                 1  From the famous legal definition: “Honeste vivere, neminem laedere, suum                              cuique tribure”. Mainly the last part of the sentences describes this social role                              of noble profession.                               2                                W. Bennett: The lawyer’s myth: reviving ideals in the legal profession, The                              University of Chicago Press, 2001, ISBN 0-226-04255-3, 254 pages.                                                                  188","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 If the legal profession is going to save itself, we are the people who                              must  do  it.  We  are  the  wounded  king,  and  our  profession  is  the                              wounded kingdom. But we are also Parcival. Parcival c’est moi! It is                              we who must take up the long and difficult quest that will lead us to                              ask the essential question. And a good way to begin our part of that                              quest  is  to  understand  where  we  have  come  so  far  and  where  the                              dragons are. Like the Fisher King, whose fishing is a metaphor for his                              soul-searching in the realm of his own unconscious, we will need to                              do some fishing as well into our professional past and the landscape of                                                 3                              our own unconscious .”                              Hard words about legal practitioners!                               4. Being social people by excellence, lawyers must be careful to every                              political change, because it can bring new  changes for an important                                                                   4                              law and the whole consequences are huge .                              Here,  politics  play  an  important  role.  It  create  new  countries,  new                              public  regulations  and  the  lawyer  is  forced  to  admit  that  he  must                              analyze them, trying to solve and to create new habits for their clients.                                                                                 th                              One of the most important political entities created in 20  century was                              European  Union.  An  artificial  construction  –  is  obvious,  but  with  a                              strong propaganda machine back, able to make it a “strong new state”.                              A lot of people believe in this project, but economy doesn’t like this                              and its voice is stronger.                               However,  EU  create  a  lot  of  regulations,  and  legal practitioners  are                              forced  to  read  them,  learn  them  and  apply  them  –  sometimes,  the                              political pressure for these laws is stronger than to the national law                              appliance.                               But, in the same time, European Union was a concept with a lot of                              opposing  people,  able  to  demonstrate  that  this  political  idea  is  not                              good for national states, and – more than that, for national economies.                              In fact, history proved that in every world region there are sometimes                              few ideas for a deep political integration, with a lot of consequences                              for  small  states  and  with  a  different  allonge  –  more  power,  more                              influence: a hegemonic power or an empire, because imperial dreams                                                                       5                              are  connected  with  the  state  dimension   (we  cannot  imagine                               3                                W. Bennett: The lawyer’s …, pg. 12                              4  Only one small example: the legal status of married person, when his / her                              husband / wife died was influenced in Romania by the love of state ruler (on                              1944) for his wife, because he knew that he will be killed by communists.                              With few weeks before arrested, he changed the heritage law in this area, and                              his regulation survive until 1 October 2011.                               5                                After 1990 the scientific debates about empires disappear, but, after 2003,                              when USA adopt a different behavior in international relations, a lot of books                              start again to describe the imperial paradigm of history – related to the neo-                              liberalism and its purposes.                                                                  189","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Lichtenstein  or  Monaco  trying  to  create  an  empire,  but  we  can                              imagine  –  one  day  or  tomorrow  –  Nigeria  or  other  state  to  be  an                                                st                              empire (with the 21  century characteristics).                              5.  Lawyers  are  in  the  middle  of  social  and  political  game  –  this  is                              obvious. But, in the same time, they are forced to learn every day and                              for this they read books and scientific articles, but, in the same time, to                              have a correct image of the future, they are used and forced to watch                                        6                              daily news .                              In  Europe,  since  1955  (when  Warsaw  pact  was  created)  the                              integrationist  debates  become  stronger,  because  military  problems                              were solved by American presence, but the economy was not on good                              position in global competition.                               After  1990,  military  problems  almost  disappeared  and  economy                              receives the strongest voice. On this case, the speed of transport and                              speed  of  internet  create  a  different  world  –  everyone  has  access  to                              almost any information, and almost everyone can develop his skills.                               But after 1990 European Union integration started to be stronger, and                              the public speech work only in this direction – only to have a larger                                                                           7                              and united Europe, no matter the cost. Wikipedia  – famous internet                              library describe the European project after 2000 in this way:                               “The  euro  is  the  new  currency  for  many  Europeans.  11  September                              2001  becomes  synonymous  with  the  'War  on  Terror'  after  hijacked                              airliners are flown into buildings in New York and Washington. EU                              countries  begin to  work  much  more  closely  together  to  fight crime.                              The  political  divisions  between  east  and  west  Europe  are  finally                              declared healed when no fewer than 10 new countries join the EU in                              2004.  Many  people  think  that  it  is  time  for  Europe  to  have  a                              constitution but what sort of constitution is by no means easy to agree,                              so the debate on the future of Europe rages on.                                6. The 27 EU countries sign the Treaty of Lisbon, which amends the                              previous  Treaties.  It  is  designed  to  make  the  EU  more  democratic,                              efficient and transparent, and thereby able to tackle global challenges                              such as climate change, security and sustainable development.”                               The cost of this famous integration was something very deep: a huge                              public debt for every state from EU, with some particularities.                                                           8                              Looking to the World Factbook , we can see this information:                                6   Emil  Balan,  Institutii  administrative  /  Administrative  institutions,                              Bucharest, C.H. Beck, 2008, p. 41.                              7  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union                               8                                 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html,                              consulted on 1 December 2011.                                                                 190","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 External debt: 16.08 trillion dollars (at 30 June 2011)                               GDP: 16.07 trillion dollars                               Thus, we have European Union with minus ….                               7. Why this phenomenon?                               In  our  opinion,  this  situation  appears  because  politicians  must  be                              voted very often. In fact, every 4 or 5 years they must be winners in                              national elections. For this, they must offer not only promises, but also                              the  rights  –  mainly,  social  rights  –  for  populations.  Without  these                              rights,  their  possibility  to  earn  money,  influence  (and  the  pride  is                              something natural for politicians) and traces for the history.                               Rights are always good to be received – but someone must pay for it –                              for  sure,  in  this  comfort  society  there  is  very  simple  to  imagine                              yourself being a successful politician for 20 years or more – and 20                              years means minimum 5 elections!                               5 elections minimum means also 5 electoral campaigns and  a lot of                              public meetings, where a lot of speech must be considered – thousands                              of  people  will  listen  and  they’ll  vote  only  if  it  will  be  something                              substantial – the social rights are perfect for elections, being able to                              offer a safety position on the party.                               O.K., but who must pay for these 20 years or more? State can offer the                              rights, after a Parliament vote, but the real economy must pay, because                              every social right must be paid by someone – and here, there only one                              solution: to increase the tax average. For sure, for the rich person there                              is  also  a  single  solution:  to  refugee  to  the  fiscal  paradises,  where                              national state control is less, and politicians are not able to rich their                              position.                               Apparently,  everyone  is  satisfied:  state  offers  social  rights  to  the                              citizens, politicians are elected for 20 years or more, rich persons can                              hide their  money  …  only  the  health  of the  economy  become  worse                              and one day the Truth Day appear: public debt is finally recognized as                              over  passing  the  limits  of  strong  economy,  menacing  with  a  great                                                   9                              collapse social services  (first, of course) and of the welfares state. On                              that  moment  is  appear  in  public  speech  only  one  word:  reduction                              (austerity for national budget).                               Of course, politicians are not responsible; their duty was for more than                              50 years only to assure the social progress …                               Inside  EU  the  comfort  society  was  killed  almost  since  2007,  when                              global  financial  crisis  (bank  operation  crisis)  forced  states  to                                 9                                This is the argument for every new left wing attack during the economic                              crisis. Irony of fate or irony of morality?                                                                  191","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 recognize: we spent more than we can afforded, and the public deficit                              must be covered – because, without this operation, it will start a huge                              protest  campaign  against  governments,  in  the  name  of  democracy,                              because population is not used to accept social sacrifices.                               But  on  this  equation  it  was  revealed  something  bad:  all  European                              states from Euro zone had a big deficit, more than 60% admitted – and                              here we must include UK, despite their currency position.                               8. In the same time, 2007 brought not only a big crisis, but also an                              important  European  treaty,  which  is  able  to  deep  the  political  and                              administrative  integration  of  member  states:  August  2007  brought                              crisis, December brought a treaty which can be considered  – on the                              same time – first EU answer against the crisis: “United we stand”!                               We shall present here the main disposition of Preamble who speaks                                               10                              about the purposes  of this treaty:                              “………..      RESOLVED  to  mark  a  new  stage  in  the  process  of                              European  integration  undertaken  with  the  establishment  of  the                              European Communities,                               DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist                              inheritance  of  Europe,  from  which  have  developed  the  universal                              values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person,                              freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law,                               RECALLING the historic importance of the ending of the division of                              the  European  continent  and  the  need  to  create  firm  bases  for  the                              construction of the future Europe,                               ……….  DESIRING to enhance further the democratic and efficient                              functioning of the institutions so as to enable them better to carry out,                              within a single institutional framework, the tasks entrusted to them,                               RESOLVED  to  achieve  the  strengthening  and  the  convergence  of                              their  economies  and  to  establish  an  economic  and  monetary  union                              including, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty and of the                              Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a single and stable                              currency,                               DETERMINED  to  promote  economic  and  social  progress  for  their                              peoples, taking into account the principle of sustainable development                              and within the context of the accomplishment of the internal market                              and  of  reinforced  cohesion  and  environmental  protection,  and  to                              implement policies ensuring that advances in economic integration are                              accompanied by parallel progress in other fields,                                    10  Big letters underline and enforce this idea.                                                                  192","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 RESOLVED to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their                              countries,                               RESOLVED  to  implement  a  common  foreign  and  security  policy                              including the progressive framing of a common defence policy                               ………..      RESOLVED  to  continue  the  process  of  creating  an  ever                              closer union among the peoples of Europe,                               ………IN  VIEW  of  further  steps  to  be  taken  in  order  to  advance                              European integration,                               HAVE DECIDED to establish a European Union”.                               The first article of the Lisbon Treaty continues these ideas:                                “By  this  Treaty,  the  HIGH  CONTRACTING  PARTIES  establish                              among  themselves  a  EUROPEAN  UNION,  hereinafter  called  \"the                              Union\"  on  which  the  Member  States  confer  competences  to  attain                              objectives they have in common.                               This  Treaty  marks  a  new  stage  in  the  process  of  creating  an  ever                              closer  union  among  the  peoples  of  Europe,  in  which  decisions  are                              taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.                                The Union shall be founded on the present Treaty and on the Treaty                              on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as                              \"the Treaties\"). Those two Treaties shall have the same legal value.                              The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community.”                               9. However, big disparities between states and the big public deficit                              were impossible to be ignored, and in 2011 the daily news was like                              here:                                                                                           11                              Článek I.         a) ”Are we already in a two-speed Europe?                              Is a \"euromark\" the solution to the euro-crisis? The idea of creating a                              second  European  currency is  floated  in De  Standaard by  Belgian                              economist Peter De Keyzer. The new euro, which would be added to                              the old one, would bring together Germany, the Netherlands, Finland                              and \"other 'strong' countries whose budget deficit is below 3%, whose                              national debt is below 80% of GDP [...] and whose long-term interest                              rates  are  close  to  Germany's,\"  explains  Peter  De  Keyzer.  \"Germany                              would then have a strong currency and a credible fiscal policy. The                              southern  countries  would  have  a  heavily  weakened  currency,                              economic growth and a breather to clean up their financial act. No-one                              would be required to devalue or lose face, the euro would be saved                              and we'd have a strong European currency. Unfortunately, however,                                  11                                  http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/239021-are-we-already-two-                              speed-europe, 26 April 2010!                                                                  193","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 not everyone would come away a winner, there'd be a key loser, too:                              namely Europe and the European idea.\"”                                                                     12                              b) ”Sarkozy pushes for 'two-speed' Europe                              With France's borrowing costs on the up and with its prized triple-A                              rating  under  threat,  French  leader  Nicolas  Sarkozy  is  publicly                              advocating a fast-lane Europe for 'core' euro-countries.                               \"In  the  end,  clearly,  there  will  be  two  European  gears:  one  gear                              towards  more  integration  in  the  euro  zone  and  a  gear  that  is  more                              confederal  in  the  European  Union,\"  Sarkozy  said  Tuesday  (8                              November)  during  a  discussion  with  students  at  Strasbourg                              University.                               Key  to  his  argument  was  that  as  the  EU  will  one  day  take  on  the                              Balkan countries, deeper economic integration at 32, 33 or 34 member                              states will be \"impossible.\"”                                                                                  13                              c) “The two speed Europe solution was planned in 1994”                                                                  14                              d) “Two-speed Europe, or two Europes?                              The European Union is, in a sense, made up not of two but of                              multiple speeds. Think only of the 25 members of the Schengen                              passport-free travel zone (excluding Britain but including some                              non-EU  members),  or  of  the  25  states  seeking  to  create  a                              common  patent (including  Britain,  but  excluding  Italy  and                              Spain).                              If  the  euro  zone  survives  the  crisis—and  the  meltdown  of  Italy’s                              bonds in the markets suggests that is becoming ever more difficult—it                              will plainly require deep reform of the EU’s treaties. Done properly,                              by keeping the euro open to countries that want to join (like Poland)                              and deepening the single market for those that do not (like Britain),                              the creation  of  a  more  flexible  EU  of  variable  geometry  could  ease                              many of the existing tensions. Further enlargement need no longer be                              so neuralgic; further integration need no longer be imposed on those                              who do not want it.”                               10.  On  the  1  December  2011  French  president  Sarkozy  had  an                                                         15                              important  speech  on  Toulon .  Few  ideas  must  be  included  here,                                12                                 http://euobserver.com/18/114236, 10 November 2011                              13                                     http://www.parker-joseph.com/pjcjournal/2011/11/19/the-two-speed-                              europe-solution-was-planned-in-1994, 19 November 2011.                              14    http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/11/future-eu,   10                              November 2011.                               15                                   http://www.elysee.fr/president/les-actualites/discours/2011/discours-du-                              president-de-la-republique-a-toulon.12553.html                                                                 194","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 because France is one of the most important voices inside EU and for                              EU:                               “La crise est d’abord un révélateur de nos faiblesses. Mais pour peu                              que nous sachions en tirer les leçons, les crises nous indiquent aussi la                              voie  à  suivre  pour  reconstruire  et  elles  donnent  à  la  politique  une                              responsabilité et un champ d’action au fond sans précédent depuis la                              deuxième  guerre  mondiale  parce  qu’il  faut  tout  imaginer,  tout                              réinventer.                               L’Allemagne  et  la  France unies,  c’est l’Europe  toute  entière qui  est                              unie et forte. La France et l’Allemagne désunie, c’est l’Europe toute                              entière qui est désunie et qui est affaiblie. Je recevrai lundi prochain à                              Paris la chancelière Merkel et ensemble nous ferons des propositions                              pour garantir l’avenir de l’Europe.                               La France et l’Allemagne ont fait le choix de la convergence. Je ne                              reviendrai jamais sur ce choix.                               L’Europe n’est plus un choix. Elle est une nécessité. Mais la crise a                              révélé ses faiblesses et ses contradictions. L’Europe doit être repensée.                              Elle  doit  être  refondée.  Il  y  a  urgence.  Le  monde  n’attendra  pas                              l’Europe. Si l’Europe ne change pas assez vite, l’Histoire s’écrira sans                              elle.                               C’est la conviction de la France et de l’Allemagne.                               L’Europe a besoin de plus de solidarité. Mais plus de solidarité exige                              plus de discipline.                                C’est  le  premier  principe  de  la  refondation  de  l’Europe.  La                              refondation  de  l’Europe,  ce  n’est  pas  la  marche  vers  plus  de                              supranationalité.  Ce  n’est  pas  la  réouverture  des  vieilles  querelles                              entre les partisans de l’Europe des nations et de l’Europe fédérale.                               L’Europe  se  refondera  en  tirant  pragmatiquement  les  leçons  de  la                              crise.  La  crise  a  poussé  les  Chefs  d’États  et  de  gouvernements  à                              assumer  des  responsabilités  croissantes  parce  qu’au  fond  eux  seuls                              disposaient  de  la  légitimité  démocratique  qui  leur  permettait  de                              décider.  C’est  par  l’intergouvernemental  que  passera  l’intégration                              européenne parce que l’Europe va devoir faire des choix stratégiques,                              des choix politiques.                               Au  sein  de  la  zone  Euro, il  nous  faut  décider  maintenant  aller  sans                              crainte vers davantage de décisions prises à la majorité qualifiée.                               L’Europe  ouverte  à  tous  les  vents,  l’Europe  qui  ne  se  protège  par                              contre les  dumpings,  l’Europe  qui  ouvre  ses  marchés  sans  exiger la                              réciprocité de la part de ses concurrents, l’Europe qui laisse entrer des                              produits  de  pays  qui  ne  respectent  pas  les  règles  sociales  ou                              environnementales,  ça  ne  peut  plus  durer.  L’Europe  doit  négocier                              pieds à pieds la défense de ses intérêts commerciaux.                                                                    195","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 L’Europe  qui  fait  appliquer  à  l’intérieur  le  principe  de  la  libre                              circulation et qui ne contrôle pas ses frontières extérieures, ça ne peut                              plus durer. Schengen doit être repensé.                               L’Europe qui tolère le dumping social et le dumping fiscal entre ses                              États  membres,  l’Europe  qui  supporte  que  les  subventions  qu’elle                              verse à certains de ses membres pour les aider à combler leur retard                              sur  les  autres  puissent  servir  à  baisser  leurs  charges  et  leurs impôts                              pour faire aux autres une concurrence déloyale, ça ne peut plus durer.                               L’Europe ne peut pas laisser ses groupes industriels à la merci de tous                              les prédateurs du monde, parce qu’elle leur interdit de se regrouper au                              nom  d’une  fausse  conception  de  la  concurrence,  L’Europe  ne  peut                              plus  ignorer  la  nécessité  absolue  d’une  politique  industrielle,  pour                              soutenir nos filières et nos exportations.                               L’Europe  doit  défendre  sa  politique  agricole  commune  car  dans  un                              monde  de  ressources  rares,  la  sécurité  alimentaire  est  un  élément                              essentiel de l’indépendance.                               L’Europe  va  devoir  faire  des  choix  cruciaux  dans  les  semaines  qui                                                                                     16                              viennent. Ces choix ne peuvent plus être ceux des années 80.”                               11. Big politics is made by big states, and smaller one must resist for                              these actions and to accept watching their shoes.                               For sure, this speech announces a new text for European treaties, and,                              of course, it fixes the limits of modifications.                               So, for sure, in next year we’ll see a new kind of European law. On                              this idea there is another one just coming: what kind of EU law, what                              it will be kept and what it will be throw out? Where are the limits of                              national  parliament  acceptance,  because  this  process  –  create  by                              France and Germany will be solved in only two ways:                                   a)  everyone will accept, and EU will be radical transformed or                                  b)  some states will not accept, and EU will be broken in different                                      entities.                              Both  solutions  must  be  fulfilled  by  the  law  science  and  legal                              practitioners.                               Main question: what it can be solved?                               For  sure,  not  the  same  legal  kind  of  integration  on  public  law  and                              public  administration:  maybe  a  double  speed  Europe,  one  deep                              integrated and one less, or it will be renounced to almost all European                              common administrative procedures.                                  16                                 In European legal system is important to know French language, because                              of the legal traditions and legal history of the continent.                                                                  196","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 This solution is easy to be understood: to change something now on                              European public law means to have a deeper integration (impossible,                              because of the languages and the national force of economies) or to                              change into few levels of integration. To every level will be different                              procedures,  but  it  will  something  that  still  exists:  values  and  public                              law principles                                Private  law  has  a  simple  evolution  –  here,  the  globalization  cannot                              create problems: the harmonization on commercial law is something                              clear  for  everyone  and  it  will  continue  to  deep.  Internet  helps  now                              firms to communicate faster and a lot of commercial practices start to                              be universal or triple-continental: Europe, America (North and South,                              in this order) and Asia (partially).                               However, the main aspect of European law is the European values (the                              same  French  president  speaks  about  them)  and  the  European  law                              principles: good administration, non-discrimination, equality in front                              of  the  law  and  to  the  public  administration,  right  to  defense  on  the                              court of justice, etc.                               In this case, we can replace not only whole EU law with these words:                              values and principles, but we can add here another one: moral. And,                              somehow,  the  economy  makes  us  to  remember  that  sufferance  is                              eternal  and  only  the  human  naivety  is  deeper:  without  a  correct                              proportion between rights and obligations, our world will collapse –                              and we didn’t create something to replace it!                                 Literature:                                  -   Emil  Balan,  Instituţii  administrative  /  Administrative                                      institutions,  Bucharest,  C.H.  Beck,  2008,  240  pages,  ISBN:                                      978-973-115-269-1.                                  -   W. Bennett: The lawyer’s myth: reviving ideals in the legal                                      profession, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2001,                                      254 pages, ISBN: 0-226-04255-3,                                  -   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union                                      , consulted on 24 November 2011.                                  -   http://www.elysee.fr/president/les-                                      actualites/discours/2011/discours-du-president-de-la-                                      republique-a-toulon.12553.html,  consulted  on  1  December                                      2011                                  -   http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/239021-are-we-                                      already-two-speed-europe,  26  April  2010!,  consulted  on  24                                      November 2011.                                  -   http://euobserver.com/18/114236,   10   November   2011,                                      consulted on 24 November 2011.                                  -   http://www.parker-joseph.com/pjcjournal/2011/11/19/the-                                      two-speed-europe-solution-was-planned-in-1994,       19                                      November 2011, consulted on 24 November 2011.                                  -   http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/11/future                                      -eu, 10 November 2011, consulted on 24 November 2011.                                                                   197","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                    -   https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-                                      factbook/geos/ee.html, consulted on 1 December 2011                                Contact – email                              marius123vacarelu@gmail.com                                                                                                                                        198","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                          PRÁVO NA MAJETOK Z POHĽADU                                       EURÓPSKEJ A VNÚTROŠTÁTNEJ                                          LEGISLATÍVY A JUDIKATÚRY                                                      JOZEF VARMUS                                  Ústav verejného práva, Fakulta práva, Paneurópska vysoká škola,                                                    Bratislava, Slovensko                                 Abstract in original language                              Článok  sa  zaoberá  analýzou  európskej  právnej  úpravy  vlastníckych                              práv. Poukazuje a následne v kontexte príslušnej judikatúry analyzuje                              základné  princípy  vzťahujúce  sa  na  uplatňovanie  vlastníckych  práv.                              Venuje  sa  ústavnoprávnemu  základu  práva  na  majetok  v  SR  a                              princípom ústavnej ochrany majetku. Tieto sú doložené aj príslušnou                              judikatúrou.  Vnútroštátnu  úpravu  a  judikatúru  týkajúcu  sa                              vlastníckych práv porovnáva s európskou úpravou i judikatúrou.                               Key words in original language                              Právo na majetok, obsah pojmu majetok, princíp pokojného užívania,                              oprávnené zásahy štátu, pravidlá vyvlastnenia.                              Abstract                              The  article  deals  with  analysis  of  European  regulation  of  property                              rights. Points and then in the context of relevant case law analyzing                              the basic principles relating to the application of property rights. He is                              Constitutional  and  fundamental  rights  to  property  in  the  Slovak                              Republic  and  the  constitutional  principle  of  protection  of  property.                              These are accompanied by the relevant case law. National rules and                              case law on property rights compared with European legislation and                              case law.                               Key words                              The  right  to  property,  the  concept  of  property,  the  principle  of                              peaceful  enjoyment,  authorized  to  state  intervention,  expropriation                              rules.                               1. PRÁVO NA MAJETOK                                Právo  vlastniť  majetok  (vlastnícke  právo)  predstavuje  jedno  zo                              základných  ľudských  práv.  Ide  o komplex  parciálnych  oprávnení,                              ktoré  sú  ľudskej  spoločnosti  známe  od  jej  prvopočiatkov.  Ako  také                              totiž  súvisia  s  každodenným  životom,  s uspokojovaním  základných                              životných  a  existenčných  potrieb  a tak  v podstate  s  existenciou                              samotnej ľudskej spoločnosti. Rovnako tak možno do prvopočiatkov                              existencie ľudskej spoločnosti zaradiť aj prvé snahy o ochranu tohto                              práva.  Prirodzene,  úroveň,  forma,  rozsah  a jednotlivé  nástroje  tejto                              ochrany sa menili v závislosti od konkrétneho obdobia, v závislosti od                              vyspelosti civilizácie a jej usporiadania. V každom prípade je potrebné                              mať  na  zreteli  fakt,  že  zdroje  smerujúce  k uspokojovaniu  životných                              potrieb  majú  obmedzenú  povahu.  Aj  z toho  dôvodu  je  nevyhnutné                              vymedziť  to,  čo  môže  byť  predmetom  vlastníckych  vzťahov  a tiež                                                                  199","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 charakterizovať  vzťah,  ktorý  existuje  medzi  vecou  (predmetom                              vlastníckych  vzťahov)  a osobou  oprávnenou  na  jej  užívanie                              a používanie. Takéto vymedzenie predstavuje základ pre všetky úvahy                              týkajúce sa ochrany vlastníckych práv a obdobných práv. Táto otázka                              má nepochybne nadnárodný resp. európsky rozmer a teda ju nemožno                              vzťahovať  výhradne  k jednotlivým  právnym  poriadkom  ako  takým.                              Napriek  tomu  práve  v nich  je  možné  nachádzať  základnú  úpravu                              vlastníckych práv, úpravu princípov ich užívania, úpravu oprávnených                              zásahov  do  nich  a taktiež  aj  úpravu  dostupných  možností  ochrany                              vlastníckych práv ako aj čiastkových oprávnení, ktoré zahŕňajú. Popri                              vnútroštátnych normatívnych pravidlách uplatňovaných v tejto oblasti                              je však potrebné mať na zreteli aj nadnárodnú resp. európsku úpravu                              vlastníckych práv (ich obsahu) a tiež úpravu možností ochrany týchto                              oprávnení.                               2. EURÓPSKA  ÚPRAVA  A  JUDIKATÚRA  V  OTÁZKACH                              VLASTÍCKYCH PRÁV                               Vlastnícke  právo  je  typickým  ekonomickým  resp.  hospodárskym                              právom. Ako také sa prvýkrát objavuje v 18. storočí v ústavnoprávnej                              úprave Spojených štátov amerických, ktorá deklarovala jeho ochranu.                              Už v tomto dokumente (1791) bol zakotvený princíp, že obmedzenie                              vlastníckych  práv  je  síce  možné,  no  výhradne  na  základe  zákonnej                              úpravy.  Tiež  sa  zakotvila  možnosť  odňatia  vlastníctva  z dôvodu                              verejného záujmu a za primeranú náhradu.                                Ustanovenia o ochrane vlastníckych práv sa postupne rozširovali aj do                              právnych  úprav  ďalších  krajín  sveta.  Právnemu  zakotveniu  tohto                              inštitútu sa však pozornosť venovala nie len na národnej úrovni, ale aj                              na  úrovni  nadnárodnej.  Veľmi  významný  dokument  OSN  –                              Všeobecná deklarácia ľudských práv v čl. 17 zakotvila právo každého                              vlastniť majetok samostatne alebo spoločne s inými. Vyslovil sa tiež                              zákaz svojvoľného pozbavenia majetku. Možnosti realizácie ochrany                              vlastníckych  práv  sa  však  podrobnejšie  neupravili.  Efektívny                              mechanizmus ochrany vlastníckych práv bol vytvorený až päť rokov                              neskôr  na  úrovni  Rady  Európy.  Išlo  však  o veľmi  komplikovanú                              otázku,  ktorá  bola  veľmi  dlho  diskutovaná,  pripomienkovaná                              a následne opätovne riešená. Aj z toho dôvodu sa úprava vlastníckych                              práv  a ich  ochrany  nezakotvila  v samotnom  Dohovore  o ochrane                              ľudských  práv  a slobôd,  ale  až  v 1.  Protokole  k tomuto  Dohovoru.                              Tento  bol  podpísaný  20.  marca  1952  v Paríži  a účinný  sa  stal  po                              predpísanom počte ratifikácii 18. mája 1954. Postupne k tejto úprave                              pristupovali aj ďalšie členské štáty (popri pôvodných signatárskych).                              Nezávislosť  si  v tomto  smere  i doposiaľ  zachovalo  Švajčiarsko                              a Monako.                               Na základe vyššie uvedeného 1. Protokolu k Dohovoru bola do jeho                                                                                1                              textu včlenená úprava vlastníckych práv. Podľa nej  má:                                 1  Čl. 1 Dodatkového protokolu k Dohovoru o ochrane základných ľudských                              práv                                                                  200","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 každá fyzická i právnická osoba právo pokojne užívať svoj majetok,                               nikto  nesmie  byť  majetku  pozbavený  s výnimkou  prípadov                              odôvodnených  verejným  záujmom,  ak  sú  súčasne  splnené  zákonné                              podmienky a zásady medzinárodného práva,                               štáty  však  smú  prijať  a aplikovať  takú  úpravu,  ktorú  považujú  za                              nevyhnutnú s cieľom úpravy užívania majetku v súlade s všeobecným                              záujmom  tak,  aby  zaistili  platenie  daní,  poplatkov  a iných  pokút  do                              národných rozpočtov.                               Z pohľadu  tohto  znenia  možno  za  kľúčové  považovať  vymedzenie                              niektorých  pojmov.  Ide  hlavne  o pojem  ,,majetok“,  jeho  existencia                              a s ním  sa  spájajúce  legitímne  očakávania.  V súvislosti  s majetkom                              ako  takým  sa  taktiež  zaviedli  základné  pravidlá  (princípy)  jeho                              užívania a pravidlá pre oprávnené zásahy do neho.                               2.1 POJEM MAJETOK                               Každému  je  dané  právo  pokojne  užívať  svoj  majetok.  Pri                              interpretovaní  a  vykladaní  pojmu  ,,majetok“  je  v tomto  prípade                              potrebné  postupovať  autonómne  a nezávisle  od  národnej  legislatívy                              a národného práva jednotlivých členských štátov. Vzhľadom na tento                              fakt ani ESĽP nemôže rozhodovať o tom, či vlastnícke právo existuje                              podľa  národného  práva  a národnej  úpravy.  Jeho  rozhodnutia  sa                              vzťahujú  na  existenciu  vlastníckych  práv  v intenciách  Dohovoru.                              Podľa tohto je však možné pojem ,,majetok“ vykladať skutočne veľmi                              široko. Je pod neho možné zaradiť celý rad práv, ktoré často národné,                              vnútroštátne  úpravy  ani  nepoznajú  resp.  ich  neupravujú.  V žiadnom                              prípade nie je možné obmedziť chápanie majetku v zmysle Dohovoru                              na majetok hnuteľný a nehnuteľný. Ustanovenie čl. 1 sa totiž rovnako                              vzťahuje  na  práva  a iné  hodnoty  nehmotnej  povahy.  Typicky  ide                              o dobrú povesť, dávky sociálnej podpory a tiež napríklad aj nárok na                              dôchodok.  K takýmto  záverom  dospel  ESĽP  vo  svojej  bohatej                              judikatúre  týkajúcej  sa  práva  na  majetok.  Napríklad  vo  veci  Tre                              Traktörer  Aktiebolag  (TTA)  vs.  Švédsko  bolo  spoločnosti  TTA                              odmietnuté  vydanie  licencií  na  predaj  alkoholických  nápojov  v ich                              reštauračnom  zariadení. Keďže  poskytnutie licencie bolo  základným                              predpokladom  riadneho  a prosperujúceho  chodu  podniku,  jej                              neudelenie  malo  na  podnik  negatívny  dopad.  Zhoršila  sa  nie  len                              povesť  podniku,  poklesol  počet  zákazníkov  a automaticky  aj  tržby.                              V tejto  veci  ESĽP  judikoval,  že  ekonomický  záujem,  ktorý                              s udeleným licencie súvisí je súčasťou práva na majetok v zmysle čl. 1                              Protokolu.                               Pod  pojem  majetok  v zmysle  Protokolu  je  možné  začleniť  nie  len                                                                                            2                              aktuálne,  aj  budúce,  reálne  očakávané  a dosiahnuteľné  príjmy.                              Rovnako  sa  pod  tento  pojem  dá  zaradiť  aj  intelektuálne  (duševné)                                2                                 Rozsudok  vo  veci  Batelaan  and  Huiges  vs.  Netherlands,  č.  10438/83,                              rozhodnutie Komisie z 3. októbra                                                                  201","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                                       3                              vlastníctvo  a oblasť  ochranných  známok.   Pod  pojem  ,,majetok“                              v zmysle  čl.  1  je  možné  zaradiť  aj  obchodné  podiely,  akcie                                                                                        4                              obchodných  spoločností  podnikajúcich  podľa  národného  práva.   Ide                              totiž  o práva,  ktoré  na jednej  strane poskytujú  právo  podieľať  sa  na                              výnosoch  spoločnosti  (právo,  ktoré  má  ekonomickú  povahu)  a na                              druhej  strane  obsahuje  aj  zodpovedajúce  práva  ako  napr.  právo                              hlasovať  v orgánoch  spoločnosti,  právo  zúčastňovať  sa  podľa  miery                              podielu  na  riadení  spoločnosti.  V každom  prípade  teda  ide                              o majetkové  práva  a táto  povaha  im  bola  priznaná  aj  judikatúrou                              ESĽP.                               Za  majetok  je  možné  považovať  tiež  všetko,  čo  je  predmetom                              vlastníckych  práv  podľa  vnútroštátnej,  národnej  legislatívy,  ktorá                              upravuje  reštitúcie  konfiškovaných  majetkov  v období  predošlého                              režimu. Táto úprava však musela vstúpiť do platnosti až po ratifikácii                              Dohovoru zo strany zmluvného štátu a za splnenia tejto podmienky sa                              aj reštitučné nároky považujú za majetkové práva. Zmluvné štáty nie                              sú však povinné reštituovať majetok, ktorý bol na ne prevedený ešte                              pred  ratifikáciou.  Taktiež  nevymedzuje  rozsah  a ani  podmienky                              reštitúcií a navracania majetku. V tomto smere je štátom daná určitá                              miera úvahy v otázke vylúčenia istých skupín obyvateľstva, ktorým je                              právo  na  reštituovanie  majetku  priznané.  Osoby,  ktoré  však  priamo                              národná  legislatíva  vylučuje  z reštitučných  nárokov  sa  nemôžu                              následne  dovolávať  ochrany  svojich  legitímnych  očakávaní  ako                                                                     5                              majetkových práv v zmysle čl. 1 Protokolu.  Taktiež ESĽP judikoval,                              že  pod  pojem  majetok  je  možné  zaradiť  aj  právo  na  dobrú  povesť                                                              6                              advokátov, notárov alebo aj lekárov.                              2.2 EXISTENCIA MAJETKU                               Na to, aby ESĽP mohol kladne rozhodnúť vo veci nároku sťažovateľa,                              je potrebné, aby sa táto osoba domáhala ochrany takého majetkového                              (vlastníckeho) práva, ktoré už existuje. Majetok alebo vlastníctvo teda                              musia  už  v konkrétnom  prípade  existovať  v momente  sťažovaného                              porušenia  práva.  Na  preukazovanie  existencie  majetku  je  však                              povinný sám sťažovateľ. Podľa Dohovoru má ESĽP dané oprávnenie                              chrániť  majetkové  práva  (teda  práva  už  existujúce)  a nie  garantovať                                                                          7                              ich  budúce  získanie  (získanie  v budúcnosti).   Rovnako  tak  aj                              majetkové  nároky,  konkrétne  nároky  mzdové  je  možné  zaradiť  pod                                3  Rozsudok vo veci Melnychuk vs. Ukraine, č. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX                               4                                Rozsudok vo veci Iatridis vs. Grécko, z 25. marca 1999.                              5   Rozhodnutie  vo  veci  Kopecký  vs.  Slovakia,  č.  44912/98,  §  35(b),  ESĽP                              2004 - IX                               6  Rozhodnutie vo veci H. vs. Belgicko, z 30. novembra 1987                                 Rozhodnutie vo veci  Karni vs. Švédsko, z 8. marca 1988                               7  Rozhodnutie vo veci Marckx vs. Belgium, 13 jún 1979, § 50, Series A č. 31                                                                  202","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 pojem ,,majetok“ v zmysle Dohovoru iba v prípade, že už sú splatné,                              že  nárok  na  ne  už  vnikol  (teda  už  boli  riadne  a plne  odpracované).                              Veľmi  dôležité  je  napríklad  to,  že  spod  pojmu  majetok  v zmysle                              Dohovoru sú tiež vylúčené dedičské práva bez ohľadu na to, či sa dedí                              na základe zákona alebo na základe závetu. Judikatúra v tomto smere                              je veľmi bohatá a presne špecifikuje konkrétne nároky,  ktoré je pod                              právo  na  majetok  možné  začleniť  a ktoré  nie.  Určité  zhrnutie  tejto                              koncepcie chápania majetku je vidieť v rozhodnutí vo veci Slivenko a                              ďalší  vs.  Lotyšsko.  Podľa  tohto  rozhodnutia  ESĽP  sa  za  majetok                              považuje  existujúci  nárok  alebo  pohľadávka  vrátane  nároku,  pri                              ktorom  sťažovateľ  vie  preukázať  legitímne  očakávanie  jeho  vzniku                              a získania v budúcnosti. Majetkom nie je nárok, ktorý je už premlčaný                              a ani nárok, ktorý je istým spôsobom podmienený do budúcna.                               Sťažovateľ  sa  za  normálnych  okolností  môže  domáhať  výhradne                              ochrany už existujúcich práv. Výnimkou z tohto pravidla sú legitímne                              očakávania.  Tieto  sa  zakladajú  na  platných  a účinných  právnych                              aktoch  a na  odôvodnenej  dôvere  v ne.  Vo  vzťahu  k predmetu                              očakávania  musí  byť  preukázaná  vysoká  pravdepodobnosť  vzniku                              nároku v budúcnosti. Nepostačuje iba možnosť vzniku alebo nádej, že                              nárok v budúcnosti vznikne.                               2.3 ZÁKLADNÉ PRINCÍPY UŽÍVANIA MAJETKU                               Vymedzenie pojmu ,,majetok“ v zmysle čl. 1 Protokolu k Dohovoru                              možno pre oprávnenia tohto charakteru považovať za kľúčové. Popri                              tom však ESĽP, ktorý dozoruje dodržiavanie ustanovení z Dohovoru                              vyvodil  z čl.  1 tri  základné  pravidlá,  princípy,  v súlade  s ktorými  sa                              musí  užívanie  majetku  realizovať.  Stalo  sa  tak  v prípade  Sprorrong                              a Lönnroth vs. Švédsko v roku 1982.                               V úvodnej vete predmetného čl. 1 je obsiahnutý všeobecný a zásadný                              princíp pokojného užívania majetku, na ktorý má právo každá fyzická                              i právnická osoba. Nasledujúca veta je vyjadrením druhého princípu,                              podľa  ktorého  je  možné  odňatie  vlastníctva.  Samozrejme,  odňatie                              vlastníctva  sa  musí  obmedziť  výhradne  na  nevyhnutné  prípady                              a musia  byť  zároveň  splnené  podmienky,  ktoré  toto  ustanovenie                              predpokladá. V poslednej vete je upravený tretí princíp, podľa ktorého                              môžu  členské  štáty  kontrolovať  užívanie  majetku  a regulovať                              zaťaženie daňami, poplatkami a pokutami pri užívaní majetku. Týmito                              oprávneniami tak štáty získali rozsiahly priestor na voľné uváženie pri                              uskutočňovaní svojej sociálnej a hospodárskej politiky, ktorou môžu                              zasahovať  do  práva  na  majetok.  Samozrejme,  konkrétne  závažné                              zásahy musia byť v každom prípade upravené právnymi predpismi so                              silou zákona. V žiadnom prípade nemôže ísť o akékoľvek vnútroštátne                              úpravy,  čo  je  vyjadrené  aj  v tretej  vete  vyššie  citovaného  čl.1                              Protokolu. Môže ísť len o také zásahy, ktoré sú v súlade s verejným                              záujmom a musia smerovať k zabezpečovaniu fungovania štátu. Hoci                              bola  daná  zmluvným  štátom  možnosť  vnútroštátne  upraviť  určité                              otázky  týkajúce  sa  majetku  a majetkových  práv,  zostala  taktiež                              zachovaná  aj  možnosť  (a  zároveň  aj  úloha)  ESĽP  posudzovať                              zákonnosť  zásahov  do  tohto  práva.  Súd  síce  nemôže  nahradiť                              vlastným  úsudkom  posúdenie  veci  vnútroštátnymi  orgánmi,  no  má                                                                  203","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 možnosť  vyšetriť  skutočnosti,  na  ktoré  sa  v konkrétnom  prípade                              vnútroštátne orgány budú dovolávať.                               Pri  aplikácii  týchto  pravidiel,  teda  pri  zisťovaní,  či  došlo  alebo                              nedošlo k porušeniu čl. 1 Protokolu je dôležité to, že ESĽP postupuje                              pri skúmaní ich dodržania v opačnom poradí. Prvé zakotvené pravidlo                              je  vyjadrením  generálnej  klauzuly,  podľa  ktorej  má  každý  právo  na                              vlastnenie  a pokojné  užívanie  svojho  majetku.  Druhé  a aj  tretie                              uvedené  pravidlo  predstavuje  výnimku  z tejto  klauzuly.  Ide                              o výnimku, pri ktorej dochádza k obmedzeniu a k zásahom do práva                              pokojného  užívania  majetku.  Za  splnenia  podmienok,  ktoré  sú                              uvedené  v tomto  ustanovení  a ktoré  sú  v národnej  zákonnej  úprave                              konkretizované,  pôjde  o zásahy  a obmedzenia  legálne.  Podané                              sťažnosti  sú  preto  preskúmavané  v prvom  rade  z hľadiska  dodržania                              pravidiel  uvedených  v treťom  a druhom  bode  (princípe).  Ak  nie  sú                              dodržané  uvedené  podmienky  pre  takýto  zásah  resp.  ak  sa  ich                              naplnenie  a dodržanie  nedá  konštatovať,  potom  je  možné  uvažovať                              o narušení prvého pravidla, teda generálnej klauzuly.                              Zásahy,  ktoré  narúšajú  vlastnícke  práva  a ich  pokojné  užívanie                              podliehajú  podstatne  vyšším  nárokom  ako  opatrenia,  ktoré  regulujú                              užívanie  majetku.  Vo  vzťahu  k rušivým  zásahom  je  potrebné  vždy                              skúmať  hlavne  ich  flexibilitu,  dĺžku  trvania,  určenie  majetku,                              poskytnutie náhrady a tiež aj rovnováhu medzi záujmami jednotlivca                              a spoločnosti.  Veľmi  dôležitá  je  možnosť  preskúmania  daného                              prípadu  a situácie.  Vzhľadom  na  povahu  týchto  kritérií  je  potrebné                              uviesť,  že  sťažovatelia  majú  právo  dovolávať  sa  ochrany  svojich                              vlastníckych  práv  v množstve  rôznych  situácií,  v množstve  rôznych                              prípadov.  Takýchto  prípadov  môže  byť  vzhľadom  na  konkrétne                              okolnosti veľmi veľa. Preto sa dá povedať, že toto pravidlo je určitou                              sumarizáciou, zhrnutím prípadov, kedy k porušeniam práv na pokojné                              užívanie  majetku  došlo  (v  dôsledku  činnosti  či  nečinnosti  štátu).                              V tejto súvislosti ESĽP napríklad judikoval, že súdne konania, ktoré                              trvajú niekoľko desaťročí, ak zabraňujú v riadnom užívaní vlastníctva,                              majú povahu porušenia práva na pokojné užívanie majetku v zmysle                              prvého princípu. Rovnako tak je nevhodná aj intervencia zákonodarcu                                                                                 8                              do súdneho konania, ktoré už prebieha o týchto otázkach.                              Pre  posledné  obdobia  je  typické,  že  sa  stále  viac  a viac  objavujú                              prípady, kedy ESĽP judikuje neoprávnený zásah do práva na pokojné                              užívanie  majetku  či  už  samostatne,  alebo  na  základe  zhodnotenia                              ďalších dvoch kritérií. Obmedzenie vlastníckych práv a vyvlastnenie                              je  viazané  na  splnenie  uvádzaných  podmienok,  ktoré  musia  byť                              následne  konkretizované  aj  v národných  úpravách.  Existencia                              verejného  záujmu  a splnenie  vnútroštátnych  zásad  ako  aj  pravidiel                              medzinárodného práva sú v tomto prípade posudzované veľmi prísne                              a striktne.  Rovnako  takto  zásadne  pristúpil  ESĽP  aj  k výkladu                              primeranosti protihodnoty v prípadoch vyvlastnenia.                                8                                Rozhodnutie vo veci Erkner and Hofauer vs. Austria, 23 apríl 1987, Series                              A č. 117                                                                  204","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                   3. SLOVENSKÁ  ÚPRAVA  A  JUDIKATÚRA  V  OTÁZKACH                              VLASTNÍCKYCH PRÁV                               Vlastnícke  právo  je  v našich  podmienkach  jedným  z kľúčových                              inštitútov  súkromného  práva.  Vzhľadom  na  svoju  povahu  je                              nevyhnutné  na  zabezpečenie  funkčnosti  ekonomického  a trhového                              mechanizmu  u nás.  Od  prijatia  Deklarácie  práv  človeka  a Dohovoru                              o ochrane  ľudských  práv  a slobôd  predstavuje  neodmysliteľnú                              a neoddeliteľnú  súčasť  ústavnoprávnej  ochrany  v demokratických                                                    9                              štátoch a spoločnostiach.                              Všetky formy vlastníctva boli v našich podmienkach zrovnoprávnené                                                                             10                              a tiež je im poskytovaná aj rovnaká formy ochrany.  Ústavnoprávny                              základ je obsiahnutý v čl. 20 Ústavy Slovenskej republiky (zákon č.                              460/1992  Zb.  v znení  neskorších  právnych  predpisov,  ďalej  len                              ,,Ústava  SR“).  Pojem  aj  obsah  vlastníckych  práv  jednak  vyplývajú                              priamo  z tohto  ustanovenia,  no  niekoľkokrát  tiež  boli  predmetom                              rozhodovacej  činnosti  Ústavného  súdu  SR.  Z jednotlivých  judikátov                              možno konštatovať, že sa zhodujú alebo viac menej približujú trendu,                              ktorý v otázkach ochrany vlastníckych práv nastúpil ESĽP.                               Predmetom vlastníckych práv tak, ako sú garantované v čl. 20 Ústavy                              SR  sú  nie  len  hnuteľné  a nehnuteľné  veci,  no  pod  tento  pojem  je                              možné zaradiť aj iné práva majetkového charakteru. Sám Ústavný súd                              SR  konštatoval,  že  nejde  len  o veci,  ale  môže  ísť  aj  o práva  a iné                                                11                              majetkové  hodnoty.   V tomto  rozhodnutí  je  jednoznačne  viditeľný                              príklon k veľmi širokému výkladu pojmu majetok tak, ako ho vykladá                              aj ESĽP.                               Vo  vzťahu  k predmetom  vlastníckeho  práva  je  dôležitá  aj                              konkretizácia   vlastníckych   práv   jednotlivcov.   Každý   má                              predovšetkým právo na ovládanie predmetov vlastníckeho práva a tiež                              mu patria všetky čiastkové oprávnenia vychádzajúce z rímsko-právnej                              teórie  vlastníckych  práv  (právo  vec  držať,  nakladať  s ňou  podľa                                                                                           12                              svojho  uváženia,  právo  vec  užívať,  požívať  z nej  plody  a úžitky).                              Každému  vo  vzťahu  k svojmu  majetku  patrí  právo  na  nezávislé                              a samostatné ovládanie predmetov vlastníckych práv.                                     9                                 Svák,  J.,  Cibuľka,  L.:  Ústavné  právo  SR.  Prvé  vydanie.  Žilina:  Poradca                              Podnikateľa,   BVŠP, 2006, s.87 a nasl.                              10                                  Zrovnoprávnenie  všetkých  foriem  vlastníctva  priniesol  ústavný  zákon  č.                              100/1990 Zb.                               11                                 Rozhodnutie Ústavného súdu SR č. II. ÚS 19/97                              12  Rozhodnutie Ústavného súdu SR č. II. ÚS 8/97                                                                  205","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Ochrana vlastníckych práv, ktorá je vyjadrená v čl. 20 Ústavy SR sa                                                                                     13                              zakladá na troch kľúčových princípoch. Ide o ústavný princíp:                              rovnosti vlastníckych práv,                               nedotknuteľnosti vlastníckeho práva a                                záväznosti vlastníctva.                              Rovnosť vlastníckych práv zahŕňa jednak právo každého na získanie                              majetku  a tiež  skutočnosť,  že  všetky  vlastnícke  práva  majú  rovnaký                              obsah. Skutočnosť, že každý má právo získať majetok však nemožno                              interpretovať tak, že štát by mal povinnosť vytvárať možnosti získania                              majetku voči jednotlivcom. Úlohou štátu je vytvoriť voľný priestor na                              to, aby jednotlivci mohli majetok nadobudnúť. Pre minulé režimy bolo                              typické,  že  dedenie  sa  považovalo  za  amorálny  spôsob  získavania                              majetku  bez  vlastného  pričinenia  a práce.  Dôsledkom  takéhoto                              a samozrejme  nesprávneho  vnímania  vlastníckych  práv  je  fakt,  že                              možnosť  získavania  majetku  formou  dedenia  je  ústavne  zakotvená                              a garantovaná.  Je  však  potrebné  uviesť,  že  všetky  formy  zákonného                              získania  majetku  požívajú  ústavnoprávnu  ochranu.  Porušením                              pravidla prístupu k získaniu majetku nie je ani skutočnosť, že určité                              predmety  môžu  byť  výhradne  vo  vlastníctve  štátu  (prírodné  zdroje,                              liečivé prírodné vody, nerastné bohatstvo, vodné toky) alebo určitých                              právnických  osôb,  ktoré  sídlia  v Slovenskej  republike.  S cieľom                              ochrany  tých  najdôležitejších  hodnôt  je  toto  pravidlo  zakotvené                              priamo  ústavnoprávne.  Obsah  vlastníckych  práv  tvorí  súbor  práv                              a povinností  vo  vzťahu  k nim.  V prípade,  že  určité  veci  môžu  byť                              rovnako  vo  vlastníctve  rôznych  subjektov  (napr.  fyzických  osôb,                              právnických  osôb  či  štátu),  všetky  tieto  subjekty  majú  vo  vzťahu                              k svojim veciam rovnaký rozsah práv a povinností a to bez ohľadu na                                                        14                              povahu a charakter vlastníka.                              Nedotknuteľnosť  vlastníctva  je  základným  princípom,  v súlade                              s ktorým  sú  vlastnícke  práva  užívané.  Jeho  obsahom  je  že  nikoho                              nemožno  proti  jeho  vôli  pozbaviť  majetku.  Vo  svojej  podstate  ide                              o obdobu  druhého  princípu  zakotveného  v čl.  1  Protokolu                              k Dohovoru. Aj v tomto prípade je možný zásah do vlastníckych práv                              výhradne  po  splnení  určitých  podmienok.  Vlastnenie  ako  zásadný                              zásah do vlastníckeho práva je možné iba v určitom rozsahu. Týmto                              rozsahom  je  rozsah  nevyhnutný  na  dosiahnutie  účelu  vyvlastnenia.                              Samotné  vyvlastnenie  musí  byť  zdôvodnené  verejným  záujmom.                              Tieto  by  sa  mali  priamo  nachádzať  v zákonných  dôvodoch,  ktoré                              umožňujú  vyvlastnenie.  Nemusia  byť  vyjadrené  priamo,  no  v tom                              prípade  je  potrebné,  aby  vyplývali  z povahy,  zmyslu  a podstaty                                  13   Svák,  J.,  Cibuľka,  L.:  Ústavné  právo  SR.  Prvé  vydanie.  Žilina:  Poradca                              Podnikateľa, BVŠP, 2006, s.88 a nasl                               14  Rozhodnutie Ústavného súdu SR č. PL ÚS 38/95                                                                  206","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                               15                              daného  zákona.   Vyvlastnenie  pritom  nemôže  byť  realizované                              zákonom  priamo,  ale  iba  na  základe  zákona  a postupom,  ktorý                              upravuje. Vyvlastnenie je možné v každom prípade iba za primeranú                              náhradu.  Táto  by  mala  zohľadniť  aj  mieru  zásahu  do  vlastníckych                              práv, ktorú je ešte možné od vlastníka spravodlivo žiadať. Vychádzať                              by  mala  z trhovej  hodnoty  a mala  by  zohľadniť  pohyb  cien,  aby                              protihodnotu bolo možné v danom čase a na danom mieste považovať                                            16                              za spravodlivú.  Takto je vidieť jednak skutočnosť, že vyvlastnenie                              podlieha  zákonným  podmienkam,  no  orientuje  sa  aj  na  dôsledné                              naplnenie zásad, ktorými je naše právo ovládané.                               Záväznosť  vlastníckeho  práva  je  typická  predovšetkým  tým,  že                              vlastníctvo nie je len právom, ale zároveň sa s ním spájajú aj určité                              povinnosti. Popri oprávneniach, ktoré v sebe zahŕňa tiež predstavuje                              pre vlastníka povinnosť nezneužívať vlastníctvo na ujmu práv iných.                              Vlastnícke  právo  zaväzuje  hlavne  nepoškodzovať  zdravie  iných,                              prírodu, kultúrne pamiatky a ani životné prostredie nad mieru, ktorá je                              stanovená v právnych predpisoch.                              Literature:                               -  Svák,  J.,  Cibuľka,  L.:  Ústavné  právo  SR.  Prvé  vydanie.  Žilina:                                 Poradca Podnikateľa, BVŠP, 2006                              -  Protokol č. 1 k Dohovoru o ochrane základných ľudských práv                              -  Rozsudok  vo  veci  Batelaan  and  Huiges  vs.  Netherlands,  č.                                 10438/83, rozhodnutie Komisie z 3. októbra                              -  Rozsudok  vo  veci  Melnychuk  vs.  Ukraine,  č.  28743/03,  ECHR                                 2005-IX                              -  Rozsudok vo veci Iatridis vs. Grécko, z 25. marca 1999.                              -  Rozhodnutie vo veci Kopecký vs. Slovakia, č. 44912/98, § 35(b),                                 ESĽP 2004 - IX                              -  Rozhodnutie vo veci Marckx vs. Belgium, 13 jún 1979, § 50, Series                                 A č. 31                              -  Rozhodnutie vo veci Erkner and Hofauer vs. Austria, 23 apríl 1987,                                 Series A č. 117                              -  Rozhodnutie vo veci Erkner and Hofauer vs. Austria, 23 apríl 1987,                                 Series A č. 117                              -  Rozhodnutie Ústavného súdu SR č. PL ÚS 26/00                              -  Rozhodnutie Ústavného súdu SR č. II. ÚS 19/97                              -  Rozhodnutie Ústavného súdu SR č. II. ÚS 8/97                              -  Rozhodnutie Ústavného súdu SR č. PL ÚS 38/95                              -  Rozhodnutie Ústavného súdu SR č. PL ÚS 37/95                                    15                                 Rozhodnutie Ústavného súdu SR č. PL ÚS 26/00                              16  Rozhodnutie Ústavného súdu SR č. PL ÚS 37/95                                                                  207","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                  Contact – email                              viktor.varmus@gmail.com                                                                                                                                            208","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                  APLIKACE ENVIRONMENTÁLNÍHO PRÁVA EU                                                  ČESKÝMI SOUDY                                                   VOJTĚCH VOMÁČKA                                    Právnická fakulta, Masarykova univerzita, Česká republika                                Abstract in original language                              Příspěvek  zkoumá,  v  jakém  rozsahu  české  soudy,  zvláště  Nejvyšší                              správní  soud,  aplikují  unijní  legislativu  v  oblasti  práva  životního                              prostředí,  a  to  se  zaměřením  na  rozličné  principy  vycházející  z                              judikatury Soudního dvora EU. Oblastí zájmu je tak doktrína přímého                              účinku a souladné interpretace, rovněž jsou zmíněny další podstatné                              aspekty  aplikace  unijního  environmentálního  práva  –  odpovědnost                              státu, vliv souběžného řízení před Komisí a praxe národních soudů v                              předkládání předběžných otázek Soudnímu dvoru.                               Key words in original language                              aplikace environmentálního práva EU, přímý účinek, souladný výklad,                              řízení pro porušení povinnosti                              Abstract                              The main focus of the article is to explore the extent to which in the                              field of EU environmental law Czech national courts, particularly The                              Supreme  Administrative  Court,  apply  in  practice  the  various                              principles developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union                              designed to improve the implementation of EU law. The cases where                              the direct effect doctrine or the doctrine of consistent interpretation of                              EU  environmental  law  have  been  raised  in  relation  to  EU                              environmental legislation are analyzed. Several other aspects such as                              state  liability,  impact  of  parallel  infringement  proceeding  by  the                              European  Commission  or  the  practice  of  national  courts  concerning                              submissions of questions to the ECJ are discussed as well.                               Key words                              application  of  EU  environmental  law,  direct  effect,  consistent                              interpretation, consistent interpretation                                1. ÚVOD                               In Rozbor základních principů vnitrostátního působení unijního práva                              a obecnější příklady z české soudní a správní praxe poskytuje letošní                                                                      1                              společná publikace Bobka, Břízy a Komárka . Tento příspěvek pouze                                                                                            2                              podává  stručný  přehled  případů,  ve  kterých  bylo  českými  soudy                                 1   Bobek,  M.,  Bříza,  P.,  Komárek,  J.  Vnitrostátní  aplikace  práva  Evrospké                              unie. Vydání 1. Praha : C. H. Beck, 2011, 633 s.                               2  Zejména Nejvyšším správním soudem.                                                                  209","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                                                                        3                              aplikováno environmentální právo EU (dále rovněž \"PŽP EU\" ), tedy                              zejména  posouzen  soulad  vnitrostátní  a  unijní  právní  úpravy,  přímo                              aplikováno  unijní  právo  či  argumentačně  využity  judikatorní  závěry                              Soudního dvora Evropské unie.                               2. APLIKACE ENVIRONMENTÁLNÍHO PRÁVA EU                                Prvně je třeba nastínit a pro další přehlednost blíže vymezit, v jakých                              zásadních oblastech může aplikace unijního environmentálního práva                              probíhat. Zde se projevují specifika PŽP, jeho tvorby a implementace.                                     4                              Smolek  trefně rozlišuje mezi dvěma základními prvky implementační                              fáze procesu realizace nadnárodní environmentální normy, legislativní                              implementací a praktickou aplikací. Dodává, že „(v) této souvislosti se                              někdy také výstižně, i když poněkud nepřesně, hovoří o dvou rovinách                              implementace  nadnárodních  norem,  a  sice  o  rovině  legislativní  a                              administrativní.“  Za  prosazování  práva  v  užším  smyslu  lze  chápat                              administrativní  rovinu implementace  práva,  tedy  praktickou  aplikaci                              unijních  právních  norem  členským  státem,  na  prosazování  práva                              v širším  pojetí,  jehož  nástroje  jsou  předmětem  této  práce,  je  však                              obtížné  nahlížet  podobně  zjednodušujícím  prismatem,  případně  jej                              vymezit  jako  určitou  část  jiného  procesu.  Proto  také  Smolek  po                                                         5                              odlišení  definice  Kružíkové   od  implementace  definuje  pojem                              prosazování jako „systém opatření, nástrojů a metod, zaměřených na                              dosažení  zamýšleného  účinku  právních  norem,  zahrnující  kontrolu                              naplňování  požadavků  v nich  obsažených  a  mechanismy  reakce  na                                                                            6                              případná  zjištění  jejich  nesplnění  či  porušení“ .  Implementaci  a                              prosazování  chápe  jako  subprocesy  realizace  právních  norem,  které                              probíhají  paralelně.  Jeho  univerzálně  platnou  definici,  která  počítá                              s proměnlivostí  a  rozmanitým  prostředím  mezinárodních  norem                              v oblasti práva životního prostředí i mechanismů jejich prosazování,                              lze modifikovat pro oblast unijního práva tak, že prosazování PŽP EU                              představuje  souhrn  nástrojů  k  zajištění  realizace  právních  norem                                 3                                Třebaže unijní environmentální normy netvoří systematické práva životního                              prostředí,  ale jedná  se  spíše  o  množinu  norem  v  oblasti  ochrany  životního                              prostředí,  zkratka  \"EP  EU\"  nebo  jí  podobné  by  mohly  být  pro  čtenáře                              matoucí.                               4                                 Smolek,  M.  Implementace  a  prosazování  norem  mezinárodního  práva  a                              práva  Evropských  společenství  v oblasti  ochrany  životního  prostředí.                              Doktorská  disertační  práce.  Univerzita  Karlova  v Praze,  Právnická  fakulta,                              Katedra práva životního prostředí. 2004. str. 19.                               5                                Kružíková definuje prosazování jako „systém opatření, nástrojů a metod,                              zaměřených na dosažení zamýšleného účinku právních norem“ in Kružíková,                              E.  Ekologická  politika  a  právo  životního  prostředí  v Evropské  unii.  Praha.                              1997. str. 94.                               6                                 Smolek,  M.  Implementace  a  prosazování  norem  mezinárodního  práva  a                              práva  Evropských  společenství  v oblasti  ochrany  životního  prostředí.                              Doktorská  disertační  práce.  Univerzita  Karlova  v Praze,  Právnická  fakulta,                              Katedra práva životního prostředí. 2004. str. 22.                                                                  210","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 probíhajících po vstupu právních předpisů PŽP EU v platnost – a to ve                              vzájemné  interakci  s  jejich  implementací,  nezávisle  na  ní,  případně                              zcela samostatně tam, kde není implementace třeba. Zároveň platí, že                              právní normy obsažené v těchto předpisech musí být nejprve obecně                              závazné,  aby  mohly  být  prosazovány,  na  druhou  stranu  lze                              prosazování chápat i v tom smyslu, že prosazováno je i to právo, které                              dosud  nenabylo  účinnosti  –  a  jde  tedy  o  postup  vedoucí  k  řádné                              implementaci  unijního  práva,  a  to  ve  smyslu,  který  užívá                                          7                              Blombergová , tedy jako cesty k zajištění plné implementace unijního                                   8                              práva .  Podobně  jako  lze  vnímat  institut  implementační  pomoci,  je                              možné  vidět  prosazování  práva  v kontextu  s přípravou  a  pomocí                              prosazování,  tedy  alternativními  nástroji,  které se  uplatní  i  v situaci,                              kdy  je  teprve  v budoucnu  prosazované  právo  připravováno  a                              vytvářeno, a tedy fakticky není co prosazovat.                               Soudní    dvůr   ve   svých   rozhodnutích   uplatňuje   několik                              implementačních,  resp.  aplikačních  doktrín,  z  nichž  některé  jsou                              obecné  a  další  specifické  ve  vztahu  k  PŽP  EU.  Aplikaci  PŽP  EU                              vnitrostátními  soudy  je  tak  možno  zkoumat  zejména  ve  vztahu  k                              následujícím oblastem:                               1) Doktrína přímého účinku                               Zde  půjde  o  případy,  kdy  vnitrostátní  soud  konstatoval,  že  jsou  či                              nejsou  splněny  podmínky  přímé  aplikovatelnosti  normy  PŽP  EU,                              případně  kdy  posoudil  jako  přímo  aplikovatelná  ustanovení                              mezinárodních  environmentálních  smluv  uzavřených  Unií  (viz                              například případ Pêcheurs de l'Étang de Berre). Důležité jsou případy,                              v nichž se uplatní přímý účinek principů ochrany životního prostředí                              upravených SFEU. V případu Fratelli Costanzo Soudní dvůr dospěl k                              plošnému  uplatnění  přímého  účinku,  tedy  že  všechny  vnitrostátní                              správní orgány, včetně místních a regionálních orgánů, jsou povinny                              platit přímo účinná ustanovení unijního práva. Do této oblasti spadá                              také užití tzv. Waddenzee / Kraaijveld doktríny, podle níž je národní                              soud  povinen  zkoumat,  zda  vnitrostátní  správní či legislativní  orgán                              nepřekročil  meze  volného  uvážení  stanovené  směrnicí.  Dále  do  této                              oblasti  můžeme  zařadit  aplikaci  tzv.  interenvironmentální  doktríny,                              kdy  se  podle  Soudního  dvora  musí  členské  státy  během  lhůty  pro                              provedení  směrnice  zdržet  přijímání  takových  opatření,  které  by                              mohly vážně ohrozit cíl směrnice. Doktrína přímého účinku se může                              projevit  i  v  negativním  směru,  pokud  národní  soud  konstatuje                              nemožnost horizontálního přímého účinku, případně přímého účinku                              vůči  třetím  osobám  (což  může  mít  výrazný  dopad  v  oblasti                                 7                                 Blomberg,  A.  European  Influence  on  National  Environmental  Law                              Enforcement:  Towards  an  Integrated  Approach.  Review  of  European                              Administrative Law. vol. 1, nr. 2, Europa Law Publishing. 2008. str. 39                               8   Kromě  toho  je  podle  Blombergové  zajištění  efektivního  a  účinného                              prosazování  práva  životního  prostředí  v  členských  státech  zásadní  pro                              zajištění rovných podmínek v rámci Unie. Tamtéž, str. 40                                                                  211","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 odpovědnosti  za  škodu  na  životním  prostředí)  nebo  obráceného                              přímého  účinku.  Nelze  opomenout  ani  možnost  nepřímého                              horizontálního přímého účinku směrnice a potenciální dopad na třetí                              osoby, kupříkladu držitele různých povolení či licencí (viz  rozsudek                              ve věci 201/02 Wells [2004], s. I- 723)                               2) Souladná interpretace PŽP EU                               Zde  je  možné  zkoumat,  zda  existují  případy,  kdy  vnitrostátní soudy                              používají  doktrínu  souladného  výkladu  PŽP  EU  (viz  Marleasing                              [1990], s. I-4135 a Pfeiffer [2004], s. I-8835. Ta je však do jisté míry                              omezena a uplatní jak je to jen možné, tedy nikoliv contra legem a s                              ohledem  na  princip  právní  jistoty  viz  (Arcaro  [1996],  s.  I-4705)                              zejména v oblasti trestního práva.                               3) Nadřazenost práva EU                               Sem  spadají  případy,  kdy  vnitrostátní  soud  dospěl  k  závěru,  že  se                              místo ustanovení vnitrostátních  právních předpisů užije nadřazených                              ustanovení PŽP EU                                4) Odpovědnosti státu                              Sem  spadají  zejména  případy  odpovědnosti  státu  z  důvodu                              neprovedení  směrnice  PŽP  EU  (Francovich  [1991],  s.  I-5357                              Brasserie du Pecheur [1996], s. I-1029)                               5) Aplikace PŽP EU z vlastního podnětu                               Případy, kdy národní soud zkoumá soulad vnitrostátní právní úpravy s                              úpravou unijní, případně aplikuje PŽP, aniž by tento požadavek byl                              vznesen stranami sporu (viz Kraaijeveld [1996], s. I-5403)                               6) Vliv řízení před Komisí                               Sem  je  možno  zařadit  případy,  kdy  existence  současně  vedeného                              řízení před Komisí významný dopad na paralelně vedené řízení před                              vnitrostátním soudem (zejména v procesní rovině, v podobě zastavení                              řízení nebo přiznání odkladného účinku).                               7) Vnitrostátní procesní pravidla                               Co  se  procesního  zajištění  PŽP,  je  tradičně  členským  státům                              ponechávána  značná  míra  autonomie,  nicméně  tomu  tak  není  vždy.                              Unijní  právo  ve  vztahu  k  právním  řádům  členských  států  zhusta                              neobsahuje  komplexní  úpravu,  stanoví  především  hmotněprávní                              základy,  a  jejich  institucionální  a  procesní  realizaci  ponechává  na                              právních  řádech  členských  států.  Výchozím  principem  v  těchto                              oblastech  je  pak  procesní  autonomie  členských  států  při  realizaci                              unijního práva na vnitrostátní úrovni (srov. např. rozsudek Soudního                              dvora  ze  dne  16.  12.  1976,  Rewe-Zentralfinanz  eG et  Rewe-Zentral                              AG proti Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland, 33/76, Recueil, s.                              1989, bod 6, rozsudek ze dne 12. 2. 2008, Willy Kempter KG proti                                                                  212","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Hauptzollamt  Hamburg-Jonas,  C-2/06,  zatím  nepublikováno,  zejm.                              body 45 a 57 či rozsudek ze dne 13. 3. 2007, Unibet (London) Ltd a                              Unibet (International) Ltd proti Justitiekanslern, C-432/05, Sb. rozh.,                              s.  I-2271,  zejm.  body  39  -  44;  viz  též  rozsudek  NSS  ze  dne  19.  7.                              2006, čj. 3 Azs 259/2005 - 42, č. 977/2006 Sb. NSS, nebo rozsudek                              NSS ze dne 30. 7. 2009, č. j. 7 As 7/2009 - 88). Z principu procesní                              autonomie obecně vyplývá, že není-li určitá procesní otázka výslovně                              upravena  právem  Společenství,  zůstává  její  řešení  v  pravomoci                              členských států, resp. Jejich právních řádů. Může dojít k situaci, kdy                              národní  soud  shledá  vnitrostátní  procesní  úpravu  rozpornou  s                              požadavky a principy PŽP EU.                                8) Národní zásady ochrany životního prostředí                               Zásadní  principy  PŽP  EU  vycházejí  z  národních  principů  ochrany                              životního  prostředí,  podobně  jako  nástroje  prosazovaní  PŽP  EU  v                              některých  směrech  staví  na  nástrojích  národních.  Vzhledem  k                              nutnému  výběru  modelového  nebo  kompromisního  systému  může                              docházet ke střetům s odlišnými národními principy ochrany životního                              prostředí  a  rovněž  tak  zásadami  mimo  environmentální  oblast                              (ochrana  vlastnictví,  svobodné  podnikání,  prevence,  proporcionalita                              apod.).                               9) Kontrola \"ústavnosti\" PŽP EU                               Sem je možno zařadit mimořádné případy, kdy národní soud posoudí                              ustanovení PŽP jako rozporné s primárním unijním právem, případně                              s vnitrostátním ústavním právem.                               10) Položení předběžné otázky                               Národní soudy se musí zabývat tím, zda předložit předběžnou otázku                              Soudnímu dvoru, často se dokonce jedná o požadavek jedné ze stran.                              Argumentace soudu je podstatná, ať už předběžná otázka položena je                              či  nikoliv.  Zajímavé  z  pohledu  aplikace  PŽP  je  rovněž  postup  po                              vydání rozhodnutí Soudního dvora.                               3. JUDIKATURA NEJVYŠŠÍHO SPRÁVNÍHO SOUDU                               S ohledem na výše uvedené třeba uvést, že judikatura NSS ve vztahu                              k PŽP EU zdaleka nezasahuje do všech vymezených oblastí. Nicméně                              aplikace  PŽP  v  případech  před  NSS  není  ani  žádným  výjimečným                              úkazem.  Protože  je  relevantní  judikatura  NSS  výrazně  ovlivněna                              typologií  projednávaných  kasačních  stížností  a  návrhů  na  rušení                              opatření  obecné  povahy,  nečlenil  jsem  dále  rozebíraná  rozhodnutí                              podle výše vymezených kategorií, ale s ohledem na povahu řešených                              případů.                               4. AARHUSKÁ ÚMLUVA A SMĚRNICE EIA                               Již v roce 2006 (rozsudek ze dne 18. 7. 2006, č. j. 1 Ao 1/2006 – 74)                              ve věci návrhu na zrušení opatření obecné povahy (změny Územního                              plánu  sídelního  útvaru  hl.  m.  Prahy)  se  NSS  vyjádřil  k  pozici                                                                  213","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Aarhuské úmluvy v kontextu unijního (komunitárního) práva. Vyšel z                              imperativu  souladného  výkladu  vnitrostátního  práva  s  mezinárodně                              právními  závazky  (čl.  1  odst.  2  a  čl.  10  Ústavy)  s  tím,  že  je-li                              pořizování nebo změnu územně plánovací dokumentace možné podle                              vnitrostátního  práva  vnímat  vícero  způsoby,  pak  přednost  má  dostat                              ten  výklad,  který  naplňuje  požadavky  Aarhuské  úmluvy.  Dospěl  k                              závěru,  že  \"(k)e  stejného  výsledku  lze  dojít  na  půdorysu  práva                              Evropských společenství (práva komunitárního): rozhodnutím Rady č.                              2005/370/ES  ze  dne  17.  února  2005  přistoupilo  také  Evropské                              společenství k Úmluvě o přístupu k informacím, účasti veřejnosti na                              rozhodování  a  přístupu  k  právní  ochraně  v  záležitostech  životního                              prostředí (Úřední věstník Evropské unie ze dne 17. 5. 2005, L 124/1).                              Úmluva se tak stala součástí práva komunitárního, a to v režimu tzv.                              smíšených smluv. Jedná se o smlouvy, kde existuje dělená pravomoc                              mezi Evropská společenství a členské státy a kde se signatáři příslušné                              mezinárodní  úmluvy  stávají  jak  Společenství,  tak  členské  státy.                              Problematika  informace  a  spoluúčasti  veřejnosti  na  rozhodování  ve                              věcech  ochrany  životního  prostředí  v  kontextu  územního  plánování                              spadá do pravomoci Společenství (srov. článek 174 a článek 175 odst.                              2  písm.  a)  Smlouvy  o  založení  Evropského  společenství  a  četnou                              legislativu  v  této  oblasti,  mimo  jiné  též  Směrnici  Evropského                              parlamentu  a  Rady  2003/4/ES  ze  dne  28.  ledna  2003  o  přístupu                              veřejnosti  k  informacím  o  životním  prostředí,  Zvláštní  vydání                              Úředního  věstníku  EU,  kap.  15,  sv.  07,  str.  375).  Skutečnost,  že  se                              Úmluva stala součástí  práva  komunitárního jí  propůjčuje systémové                              vlastnosti  práva  komunitárního,  tedy  především,  za  splnění                              příslušných podmínek předepsaných komunitárním právem, přednost                              a přímý účinek (srov. z boha té judikatury Soudního dvora Evropských                              společenství  k  této  otázce  např.  spojené  věci  21  až  24/72,                              International  Fruit  Company  NV  and  others  v  Produktschap  voor                              Groenten  en  Fruit [1972]  ECR 1219;  věc  C-149/96,  Portugalsko  v.                              Rada [1999] ECR I-8395 či věc C-93/02 P, Biret International SA v                              Rada  [2003]  ECR  I-10497).  Nicméně  i  kdyby  ustanovení  Úmluvy                              přímého  účinku  v  právních  řádech  členských  států  schopná  nebyla,                              orgány  členských  států  mají  stále  povinnost  souladného  výkladu,  tj.                              povinnost  vykládat  vlastní  právní  úpravu  v  souladu  s  mezinárodně                              právním  závazkem  Evropského  společenství  (viz  např.  věc  C-53/96,                              Hermès [1998] ECR I-3603, bod 35 a té ž spojené věci C-300/98 a C-                              392/98, Parfums Christian Dior SA [2000] ECR I-11307, body 47 -                              48). Lze tedy uzavřít, že meritorně stejné řešení, tedy povinnost vyložit                              vnitrostátní  právní  úpravu  tak,  aby  byl  umožněn  soudní  přezkum                              územního  plánu  či  jeho  změny,  vyžaduje  též  komunitární  právo  a                              členství České republiky v Evropské unii.\" Tento závěr NSS následně                              ve své rozhodovací činnosti několikrát potvrdil, např. v                               V rozsudku ze dne 14. 6. 2007, č. j. 1 As 39/2006 – 55, dospěl NSS k                              závěru,  že  ustanovení  směrnice  EIA  týkající  se  práva  na  soudní                              ochranu  nesplňují  požadavky  na  přímou  aplikovatelnost,  když  se  v                                                                 9                              souladu s judikaturou Soudního dvora  jedná o otázku tzv. acte clair                                9   S  výslovným  odkazem  na  rozsudek  ze  dne  6.  10.  1982  ve  věci                              238/81  Srl  CILFIT  a  Lanificio  di  Tabardo  SpA  proti  Ministerstvu                                                                 214","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 (naprosto zjevný a jasný výklad unijního práva bez dalšího), a to právě                                                                  10                              s ohledem na znění Aarhuské úmluvy.  Podání předběžné otázky tak                              není na místě. Podle NSS \"k provedení této směrnice je třeba přijetí                              dalšího  právního  předpisu  členskými  státy  Evropských  společenství,                              který  určí  příslušnou  fázi  přezkumu.\"  Úvahy  o  široké  možnosti                              uvážení  členských  států  ve  výběru  fáze  přezkumu  podpořil  NSS                              anglickým, německým, francouzským, slovenským a polským zněním                              směrnice  se  závěrem,  že  \"předpisy  práva  Společenství  nevyžadují                              samostatný  soudní  přezkum  rozhodnutí,  aktů  a  nečinností  (např.  i                              předmětného    stanoviska   žalovaného),   ale   postačuje   jejich                              přezkoumání  v  pozdější  fá  zi  (tj.  v  rámci  přezkumu  konečného                              rozhodnutí),  pokud  jsou  zároveň  splněny  podmínky  spravedlnosti,                              nestrannosti, včasnosti a finanční dostupnosti takového přezkumu. K                              tomu soud dodává, že právě na základě uvedených ustanovení práva                              Společenství musí být žalobcům z řad dotčené veřejnosti vyhovováno k                              jejich návrhům na přiznání odkladného účinku správní žaloby tak, aby                              nemohlo  docházet  k  situacím,  kdy  v  době  rozhodování  o  správní                              žalobě již byl povolený záměr nevratně realizován (typicky provedení                              stavby). Pokud by návrhu na přiznání odkladného účinku vyhovováno                              nebylo, došlo by k porušení čl. 9 odst. 4 Aarhuské úmluvy a čl. 10a                              směrnice 85/337/EHS, neboť poskytovaná soudní ochrana by nebyla                              včasná  a  spravedlivá.\"  Totožnou  argumentaci  NSS  zvolil  o  pár  dní                              později, v rozsudku ze dne 26. 6. 2007, č. j. 4 As 70/2006 – 72. Navíc                              konstatoval,  že  ve  věci  A.  Verholen  a  další  v.  Sociale                              Verzekeringsbank  Amsterdam,  Recue  il  s.  I-3757,  z  něhož                              stěžovatelka  dovozovala  právo  na  přezkoumání  stanoviska  k                              posouzení vlivů na životní prostředí, rozhodoval Soudní dvůr o zcela                              jiných otázkách. NSS tak ohledně přezkumu stanoviska EIA uzavřel,                              že  \"(z)ávěr  soudu  je  zcela  v  souladu  s  právem  Společenství  a                              mezinárodními  závazky  ČR,  což  ostatně  potvrzuje  i  obdobná  právní                              úprava soudního přezkumu procedury EI A v jiných členských státech                              EU,  které  mají  shodné  závazky  jako  Česká  republika.\"  Závěry  NSS                              podpořil  i  Ústavní  soud,  když  odmítl  navazující  ústavní  stížnost                              spojenou s návrhem na předložení věci Soudnímu dvoru (usnesení ze                              dne 24. 7. 2008, sp. zn. III. ÚS 2738/07). Odkázal mimo jiné na svůj                              nález ze dne 12. 10. 2001, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24/2000, ohledně výkladu                              směrnice EIA perspektivou Aarhuské úmluvy pak na rozsudek NSS ze                              dne 29. 8. 2007, č. j. 1 As 13/2007 - 63, publ. pod č. 1461/2008 Sb.                              NSS, který opakuje závěry zmíněné výše s odkazem na již zmíněná                                   zdravotnictví, Recueil s. 3415 a ohledně přímého účinku na rozsudek                              ze  dne  4.  12.  1974  ve  věci  41/74,  Yvonne  Van  Duyn  proti                              Ministerstvu vnitra, Recueil s. 1337.                               10  Shodou okolností v rozsudku v rozsudku ze stejného dne, č. j. 2 As                              59/2005 - 134, se NSS zabýval otázkou samostatné přezkoumatelnosti                              stanoviska  vydaného  podle  §  10  zákona  EIA  a  konstatoval,  že  toto                              stanovisko představuje pouze odborný podklad pro vydání následných                              rozhodnutí, která přezkoumatelná v rámci správního soudnictví jsou.                                                                  215","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                          11                              rozhodnutí.  K povaze Aarhuské úmluvy jako součásti unijního práva                              dodává: \"Na závěru o souladu vnitrostátní právní úpravy s Úmluvo u v                              řešeném  případě  nic  nemění  ani  povaha  Aarhuské  úmluvy,  která  je                              rovněž s míše no u smlouvou ve smyslu čl. 300 Smlouvy ES, která byla                              Společenstvím ratifikována rozhodnutím Rady ze dne 17. února 2005                              č. 2005/370/ES (Úř. věst. L 124/1 ze d ne 17. 5. 2005) a která podle čl.                              300  odst.  7  Smlouvy  ES  je  závazná  jakožto  pramen  práva  ES  i  pro                              členské státy. Jestliže je, jak Nejvyšší správní soud výše dovodil, česká                              úprava  v  souladu  s Aarhuskou  úmluvo  u  jako  u  takovou,  pak  není                              patrné, v čem by se měl tento závěr lišit s ohledem na skutečnost, o                              jaký  typ  smlouvy  (výlučný,  smíšený  či  jiný)  se  jedná.\"  NSS                              neopomenul  zmínit  ani  odůvodněné  stanovisko  Komise  vydané                              (tehdy)  dle  čl.  226  SES  ze  dne  27.  6.  2007,  č.  j.  2006/2271,                              (2007)2927, jehož obsahem je sdělení České republice, že porušila své                              závazky  vyplývající  z  členství  v  ES  tím,  že  nedostatečně                                                                 12                              implementovala čl. 10a směrnice EIA.  Podle NSS k problematické                              situaci,  kterou  vymezila  Komise  ve  svém  stanovisku  v  řešeném                              případě  nedošlo,  neboť  stěžovatel  měl  zajištěno  právo  účastnit  se                                11                                 Obdobně rozsudek NSS ze dne 28. 6. 2007, č. j. 5 As 53/2006 – 46,                              (a  to  včetně  vývoje  před  Ústavním  soudem),  kde  NSS  citoval  z  již                              uvedeného  rozsudku  ze  dne  14.  6.  2006,  č.  j.  2  As  59/2005  -  136.                              Obdobně dále i rozsudek ze dne 22. 2. 2008, č. j. 6 As 52/2006 – 155                              (rovněž neúspěšně u Ústavního soudu) a rozsudek ze dne 9. 1. 2008, č.                              j. 3 As 48 2006 – 52. Podobně pak rozsudek ze dne 23. 10. 2008, č. j.                              3  As  36/2008  –  57  ve  věci,  v  níž  se  stěžovatel  domáhal  přezkumu                              závěru  zjišťovacího  řízení,  v  němž  správní  orgán  konstatoval,  že                              záměr  podléhá  posouzení  podle  zákona  EIA  a  uložil  stěžovateli                              doplnění dokumentace.                               12  Ve stanovisku Komise uvádí, že vnitrostátní právní úprava v České                              republice  obsahuje  několik  prvků,  které  sice  samy  o  sobě  nejsou  v                              rozporu  s  požadavky  směrnice,  jejich  vzájemnou  kombinací  však                              dochází  k  situacím,  které  v  rozporu  s  požadavky  směrnice  jsou.                              Těmito prvky jsou: (i) oddělení procedury posuzování vlivů na životní                              prostředí  a  správního  řízení  o  povolení  záměru,  (ii)  stanovisko  k                              posouzení  vlivu  na  životní  prostředí  podle  §  10  zákona  EIA  není                              soudně  přezkoumatelné  samostatně,  nýbrž  až  v  rámci  soudního                              přezkumu správního rozhodnutí o žádosti o povolení záměru a (iii) ne                              všechny  osob  y  z  řad  dotčené  veřejnosti  mají  právo  účastnit  se                              správního  řízení  o  žádosti  o  povolení  záměru.  V  důsledku  podle                              Komise  většina  dotčené  veřejnosti,  která  má  možnost  vyjádřit  své                              připomínky a stanoviska v řízení o posuzování vlivů, a to v některých                              případech  včetně  nevládních  organizací,  které  splňují  požadavky                              uvedené v čl. 1 odst. 2 směrnice EIA, nebude mít možnost dosáhnout                              soudního  přezkumu  zákonnosti  jakýchkoli  rozhodnutí,  aktů  nebo                              nečinnosti  učiněných  během  řízení  o  posuzování  vlivů.  Takováto                              legislativní konstrukce tedy není v souladu s ustanovením čl. 10a odst.                              1, 2 a 3 směrnice EIA.“                                                                    216","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 správního  řízení  a  následně  i  právo  podat  správní  žalobu  proti                              správnímu  rozhodnutí,  a  dosáhnout  tak  přezkoumání  napadeného                              stanoviska žalovaného k posouzení vlivu na životní prostředí.                               Rozsudkem  ze  dne  30.  7.  2009,  č.  j.  7  As  7/2009  -  88,  zrušil  NSS                              rozsudek  krajského  soudu  z  důvodu  nepřezkoumatelnosti  pro                              nedostatek  důvodů  (krajský  soud  se  nezabýval  námitkou  ohledně                              uplatnění  Aarhuské  úmluvy).  NSS  upozornil  na  skutečnost,  že                              Nejvyšší soud Slovenské republiky se zabýval otázkou výkladu čl. 9                                                     13                              odst. 3 Aarhuské úmluvy  položil Soudnímu dvoru předběžné otázky                              ohledně přímého účinku čl. 9 Aarhuské úmluvy, zvláště jeho odstavci                                14                              3.                              V rozsudku ze dne 19. 1. 2010, č. j. 1 As 91/2009  – 83, k námitce                              stěžovatelů,  že  do  rozhodnutí  orgánu  ochrany  přírody  ze  dne  25.  9.                              2006 měly být převzaty podmínky stanoviska EIA ze dne 15. 11. 1996                              s odvoláním na ustanovení § 10 zákona EIA, NSS vyšel z premisy, že                                13  Ve věci sp. zn. 5 Sžp 41/2009, předběžné otázky předloženy usnesením ze                              dne 22. 6. 2009.                               14  Soudní dvůr v rozsudku ve věci Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK                              (C-240/09), dospěl k závěru ustanovení čl. 9 odst. 3 Aarhuské úmluvy                              neobsahuje žádnou jasnou a přesnou povinnost, která by mohla přímo                              upravovat  právní  situaci  jednotlivců.  Vzhledem  k tomu,  že  pouze                              osoby z řad veřejnosti splňující kritéria, pokud jsou nějaká stanovena                              ve vnitrostátním právu, mají práva stanovená v uvedeném čl. 9 odst. 3,                              závisí  provedení  a účinky  tohoto  ustanovení  na  vydání  pozdějšího                              aktu:  „Je  tedy  na  předkládajícím  soudu,  aby  vyložil  procesní  právo                              upravující podmínky, které je nutno splnit pro účely podání správního                              opravného  prostředku  nebo  žaloby,  způsobem,  který  v co  největším                              možném  rozsahu  zohlední  cíle  čl. 9  odst. 3  Aarhuské  úmluvy,  jakož                              i cíl  účinné  soudní  ochrany  práv  poskytnutých  právem  Unie,  aby                              taková organizace na ochranu životního prostředí, jako je zoskupenie                              VLK, mohla soudně napadnout rozhodnutí vydané v rámci správního                              řízení, které by mohlo být v rozporu s právem Unie v oblasti životního                              prostředí.“ Rozhodnutí v této věci se stalo součástí argumentačního                              rejstříku NSS - když rozsudkem ze dne 25. 5. 2011, 3 Ao 3/2011 – 41,                              NSS  odmítl návrh  na  zrušení  opatření  obecné  povahy  –  změny  č.  4                              územního plánu sídelního útvaru Libkova Voda jako podaný osobou                              zjevně  k  tomu  neoprávněnou,  odkazoval  i  na  toto  rozhodnutí                              Soudního  dvora.  Navrhovatel  byl  občanským  sdružením  založeným                              dle zákona č. 83/1990 Sb. s celostátní působností a jako takový podle                              NSS neměl oprávnění podat návrh na zrušení opatření obecné povahy                              – územního plánu obce či jeho změny. NSS dodal, že takové právo                              nelze  dovodit  ani  z  komunitárních  předpisů  či  z  Aarhuské  úmluvy,                              podle níž je napadený územní plán koncepcí ve smyslu čl. 7. Právo na                              přístup  k  soudu,  dle  čl.  9  odst.  3  Úmluvy  však  nemá  přímý  účinek                              (odkaz na rozsudek ve věci Lesoochranárske zoskupenie)                                                                    217","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 zákon  EIA  by  měl  být  od  1.  5.  2004  vykládán  v  souladu  s  právem                              Evropské unie. Stanovisko EIA, i když bylo vydáno podle zákona č.                              244/1992  Sb.,  by  proto  mělo  být  závazným  podkladem  (podle  §  10                              zákona č. 100/2001 Sb.) pro rozhodnutí správního orgánu. NSS přitom                              vyšel z výkladu článku 8 směrnice EIA, podle něhož výsledky jednání                              a informace shromážděné podle článků 5, 6 a 7 (kam spadají rovněž                              stanoviska  dotčených  orgánů  k  posouzení  vlivů)  musí  být  brány  v                              úvahu  v  povolovacím  řízení.  Po  vstupu  do  Evropské  unie  dne  1.  5.                              2004  nelze  podle  NSS  připustit,  aby  \"přechodná  ustanovení                              národního  zákona  (§  24 zákona  č. 100/2001  Sb.)  zbavovala  členský                              stát  závazků  vyplývajících  z  citované  směrnice,  tj.  i  z  povinnosti                                                                                          15                              zohlednit stanovisko EIA ve všech následných správních řízeních.\"                              V rozsudku ze dne 20. 5. 2010, č. j. 8 Ao 2/2010 – 644, publ. pod č.                              4/2010  Sb.  NSS,  se  NSS  vypořádal  v  řízení  o  návrhu  na  zrušení                              opatření  obecné  povahy  č.  8/2009  -  Zásady  územního  rozvoje                              Hlavního  města  Prahy,  schváleného  usnesením  zastupitelstva                              Hlavního  města  Prahy  ze  dne  17.  12.  2008,  č.  32/59,  s  námitkami                              stěžovatelů,  podle  kterých  vyhodnocení  vlivů  ZÚR  na  životní                              prostředí bylo provedeno v rozporu s právními předpisy (mimo jiné i                              směrnice SEA ohledně povinnosti posoudit kumulativní a synergické                              vlivy  s  ohledem  na  jednotlivé  složky  životního  prostředí,  zde                                                                                       16                              kumulativní a synergické vlivy SOKP a letiště Praha – Ruzyně ). Za                              tím účelem NSS rozsáhle odkazoval na judikaturu Soudního dvora a                              citoval  z  ní  ohledně  výkladu  čl.  4  a  6  směrnice  o  stanovištích                              (rozsudek ze dne 13. 1. 2005, Società Italiana Dragaggi SpA a další                              proti  Ministero  delle  Infrastrutture  e  dei  Trasporti  a  Regione                              Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia, C-117/03, Sbírka rozhodnutí 2005,                              S.  I-00167.  \"Jeví  se  tedy, že  pokud  se  jedná  o  lokality  vhodné  jako                              lokality  významné  pro  Společenství  uvedené  na  státních  seznamech                              předaných Komisi, mezi kterými mohou být uvedeny zejména lokality,                              které  jsou  místem  výskytu  prioritních  přírodních  stanovišť  nebo                              prioritních druhů, členské státy jsou podle směrnice povinny přijmout                              vhodná  ochranná  opatření  k  ochraně  uvedeného  ekologického                              zájmu\").  NSS  citoval  i  závěry  rozsudku  ze  dne  14.  9.  2006,  Bund                              Naturschutz  in  Bayern  eV  a  další  proti  Freistaat  Bayern,  C-244/05,                              Sbírka rozhodnutí 2006, S. I-08445 (dále jen „Bund Naturschutz“), v                              němž Soudní dvůr uzavřel, že „členské státy musí přijmout v souladu                              s  ustanoveními  vnitrostátního  práva  veškerá  opatření,  která  jsou                              nezbytná pro zamezení zásahů, které mohou vážně ohrozit ekologické                              charakteristiky  lokalit,  které  jsou  uvedeny  na  státním  seznamu                                                   17                              předloženém  Komisi“.   Podle  NSS  je  tak  v  souladu  se  závěry                               15                                  Ministerstvo  životního  prostředí  argumentovalo,  že  podle                              přechodných  ustanovení  zákona  EIA  se  posouzení  zahájená  před                              účinností tohoto zákona dokončí podle zákona č. 244/1992 Sb.                               16  Tuto námitku shledal NSS důvodnou.                               17   Srovnej  např.  s  rozsudkem  NSS  ze  dne  30.  1.  2009,  č.  j.  8  As                              21/2008  –  153,  v  němž  se  jednalo  o  přezkum  rozhodnutí  o  udělení                              licence (tedy neenvironmentální agendu) a NSS se zde vyjádřil k míře                                                                 218","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Soudního  dvora  způsob  ochrany  předvídaný  směrnicí  o  stanovištích                              poskytován pouze evropsky významným lokalitám zařazeným na tzv.                              evropský  seznam.  Členské  státy  jsou  povinny  přijmout  opatření                              uvedená ve směrnici o stanovištích ve vztahu k lokalitám, které byly                              formálně  schváleny  Komisí.  Lokality,  jejichž  zařazení  na  tzv.                              evropský seznam je navrženo, však musí být také vhodně chráněny, a                                                                                      18                              to  již  od  okamžiku,  kdy  figurují  na  tzv.  národním  seznamu.   Díky                              výkladu  opřenému  o  výše  uvedená  rozhodnutí  Soudního  dvora  pak                              NSS dospěl k závěru, že  nebyl povinen obrátit se na Soudní dvůr s                              předběžnou  otázkou.  V  tomto  rozsudku  NSS  rovněž  opakoval  svůj                              konstantní  výklad  (nedostatku)  přímého  účinku  Aarhuské  úmluvy  a                              směrnice  EIA  s  doplněním  o  vztah  ke  směrnici  SEA:  \"To  platí  tím                              spíše,  že  směrnice  Evropského  parlamentu  a  Rady  č.  2001/42/ES, o                              posuzování  vlivů  některých  plánů  a  programů  na  životní  prostředí                              (dále  jen  „SEA  směrnice“),  na  rozdíl  od  směrnice  č.  85/337/EHS,                              požadavek na soudní kontrolu procesu posuzování vlivů koncepcí na                              životní prostředí vůbec neobsahuje.\"                               Lze srovnat i s usnesením NSS ze dne 21. 2011, č. j. 8 Ao 7/2010 –                              65.  V  této  věci  se  totiž  navrhovatelé  domáhali  zrušení  nařízení                              Jihomoravského  kraje  (změna  přílohy  č.  2  nařízení  Jihomoravského                              kraje č. 384/2004, kterou tvoří Program ke zlepšení kvality ovzduší).                                uvážení členských států ohledně procesní úpravy při realizaci unijního                              práva: \"Právo Společenství však ve vztahu k právním řádům členských                              států  zhusta  neobsahuje  komplexní  úpravu,  stanoví  především                              hmotněprávní  základy,  a  jejich  institucionální  a  procesní  realizaci                              ponechává na právních řádech členských států. Výchozím principem v                              těchto  oblastech  je  pak  procesní  autonomie  členských  států  při                              realizaci  práva  Společenství  na  vnitrostátní  úrovni  (srov.  např.                              rozsudek Soudního dvora ze dne 16. 12. 1976, Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG                              et Rewe-Zentral AG proti Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland,                              33/76, Recueil, s. 1989, bod 6, nejnověji např. rozsudek ze dne 12. 2.                              2008, Willy Kempter KG proti Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, C-2/06,                              zatím  nepublikováno,  zejm.  body  45  a  57  či  rozsudek  ze  dne  13.  3.                              2007,  Unibet  (London)  Ltd  a  Unibet  (International)  Ltd  proti                              Justitiekanslern, C-432/05, Sb. rozh., s. I-2271, zejm. body 39 - 44; viz                              též  rozsudek  NSS  ze  dne  19.  7.  2006,  čj.  3  Azs  259/2005  -  42,  č.                              977/2006 Sb. NSS). Z principu procesní autonomie obecně vyplývá, že                              není-li určitá procesní otázka výslovně upravena právem Společenství,                              zůstává její řešení v pravomoci členských států, resp. Jejich právních                              řádů.\"  Právě  rozhodnutí  ve  věci  Freistaat  Bayern  tento  princip                              částečně  oslabuje  a  promítá  účel  unijní  úpravy  i  do  vnitrostátního                              procesního práva, viz zejména odst. 39: „Z výše uvedeného vyplývá,                              že  fyzické  či  právnické  osoby  přímo  dotčené  rizikem  překročení                              výstražných prahových hodnot nebo mezních hodnot musí mít možnost                              od  příslušných  orgánů  požadovat,  případně  s  pomocí  příslušných                              soudů, aby byl vypracován akční plán, jestliže takové riziko existuje.“                               18                                  Zde  NSS  poukázal  i  na  stanovisko  generální  advokátky  Kokott  ve  výše                              uvedené věci C-117/03.                                                                  219","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 Z unijní úpravy poukázali na čl. 7 a 8 směrnice Rady 96/62/ES z 27.                              9.  1996,  o posuzování a  řízení  kvality  vnějšího  ovzduší,  a rozsudek                              Evropského soudního dvora (ESD) č. C-237/07 z 25. 7. 2008, v němž                              soud deklaroval právo fyzických a právnických osob přímo dotčených                              špatnou kvalitou ovzduší požadovat zpracování plánů a programů ke                              zlepšení kvality ovzduší včetně možnosti domáhat se tohoto práva u                              národních soudů. Důvody návrhu rozdělili do tří okruhů: rozpor s §                              10a a násl. zákona EIA, rozpor s § 10d odst. 3 téhož zákona a rozpor s                              § 7 odst. 6 zákona o ochraně ovzduší. NSS konstatoval, že se v daném                              případě  je  výslovně  stanovena  forma  příslušného  právního  aktu                              (opatření  obecné  povahy),  není  tu  tedy  prostor  pro  jiné  soudní                              hodnocení  povahy  takového  aktu.  NSS  však  shledal  návrh                              nepřípustným,  neboť  nebylo  napadeno  opatření  obecné  povahy.                              Odkazy  navrhovatelů  na  komunitární  (unijní)  právní  úpravu  a                              judikaturu pak seznal nepřípadnými. Uzavřel, že \"(k)romě tzv. „jiných                              prostředků“,  jimiž  se  lze  domáhat  zajištění  kvality  ovzduší  (např.                              samostatným  posouzením  při  schvalování  územně  plánovací                              dokumentace  apod.),  je  v  České  republice  zaručena  i  dostatečná                              soudní ochrana, a to v podobě přezkumu Ústavního soudu a pokud by                              dospěl  k  závěru,  že  se  nejedná  o  právní  předpis,  pak  případně  i                              přezkumu  ve  správním  soudnictví.  Není  tu  tedy  rozpor  s  požadavky                              komunitární právní úpravy (čl. 7 a násl. Směrnice Rady č. 96/62/ES).\"                               Ve  věci  přezkumu  návštěvního  řádu  Národního  parku  Šumava                              vydaného ve formě opatření obecné povahy (rozsudek ze dne 13. 10.                              2010,  č.  j.  6  Ao  5/2010  –  43),  dospěl  NSS  s odkazem  na  rozsudek                              Soudního dvora ze dne 15. 10 2009 ve věci C - 263/08 (Djurgården-                              Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening) k závěru, že čl. 10a směrnice EIA                              lze přiznat za určité situace přímý účinek. Vyšel přitom z následující                              úvahy: „cílem čl. 10a směrnice o posuzování vlivů (...) je zajistit tzv.                              dotčené veřejnosti přístup k soudnímu přezkumu ve věcech spadajících                              do  působnosti  cit.  směrnice  a  tento  cíl  je  z  uvedeného  článku  jasně                              seznatelný.  Při  jeho  naplnění  je  členským  státům  však  ponechán                              prostor  pro  úvahu,  jak  cíle  dosáhnout,  mimo  jiné  tím,  že  stanoví                              příslušnou  fázi,  v  níž  bude  soudní  přezkum  umožněn  (druhý                              pododstavec  čl.  10a  cit.  směrnice).  Ve  věci  nyní  projednávané  před                              Nejvyšším správním soudem se však jedná (...) o jediné správní řízení,                              jehož  výsledek  -  návštěvní  řád  vyhrazující  místa  k  provozování                              vodních  sportů  -  může  být  podroben  soudnímu  přezkumu  v  jediném                              typu soudního řízení. Je tedy zřejmé, že v této věci se uvážení svěřené                              České republice, resp. jejímu zákonodárci nemohlo vůbec uplatnit; je-                              li možno vést pouze jediné soudní řízení, není prostor pro určení fáze,                              v níž lze návštěvní řád soudně přezkoumat. V takovém případě je třeba                              naplnit cíl daného ustanovení a umožnit dotčené veřejnosti přístup k                              soudu  (...)  Nejvyšší  správní  soud  tedy  posoudil  otázku  aktivní                              legitimace navrhovatelů v probíhajícím řízení podle § 101a s. ř. s. ve                              spojení  s  čl.  10a  směrnice,  jeho  prvním  a  třetím  pododstavcem.                              Vycházel při tom též z definice pojmu dotčená veřejnost v čl. 1 odst. 2                              směrnice  a  zohlednil  i  výklad,  který  podal  Soudní  dvůr  ve  věci  C-                              263/08, Djurgarden-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening.“                               Podle NSS sice článek 10a směrnice EIA ponechává na vnitrostátním                              zákonodárci,  aby  určil  podmínky,  které  mohou  být  požadovány  k                                                                 220","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 tomu,  aby  nevládní  organizace  podporující  ochranu  životního                              prostředí  jakožto  sdružení  mohla  mít  právo  dosáhnout  přezkum  za                              výše uvedených podmínek, musí vnitrostátní pravidla takto stanovená                              jednak  zajistit  široký  přístup  k  právní  ochraně,  a  jednak  zajistit                              ustanovením směrnice EIA týkajícím se práva dosáhnout přezkoumání                              soudem jejich užitečný účinek. Nesmí tedy hrozit, že tato vnitrostátní                              pravidla  zbaví  plné  účinnosti  ustanovení  práva  Společenství,  která                              stanoví,  že  ti,  kdo  mají  dostatečný  zájem  napadnout  záměr,  a  ti,  do                              jejichž  práva  je  zasaženo,  mezi  něž  patří  sdružení  na  ochranu                              životního  prostředí,  musí  mít  možnost  aktivní  legitimace  v  řízeních                              před příslušnými soudy.                                V určitém směru doplněním tohoto rozhodnutí je pak rozsudek ze dne                              22.  7.  2011,  č.  j.  7  As  26/2011  -  175.  V  něm  NSS  reflektoval                              nejnovější  vývoj  judikatury  Soudního  dvora  k  posuzování  vlivů  na                              životní prostředí: \"Nelze však dovozovat, že občanská sdružení hájící                              veřejný  zájem  v  podobě  ochrany  životního  prostředí  mají  odlišná                              procesní  práva  než  ostatní  účastníci.  Soud  proto  do  jisté  míry                              přezkoumává i hmotněprávní podmínky správního úkonu a rozpor i s                              hmotněprávní úpravou. Jistou výjimku představuje ust. § 23 odst. 10                              zákona o  posuzování vlivů  (…)  Stěžovatel  by  se  tedy  mohl  domáhat                              přezkumu  rozhodnutí i  v  ryze  hmotněprávní  rovině v  případě,  že  by                              jeho žalobní legitimace byla odvozena od tohoto ustanovení, případně                              od přímo aplikovatelného čl. 10a směrnice Rady 85/337/EHS ze dne                              27.  6.  1985,  o  posuzování  vlivů  některých  veřejných  a  soukromých                              záměrů  na  životní  prostředí,  ve  znění  směrnice  Evropského                              parlamentu a Rady 2003/35/ES ze dne 26. 5. 2003 (viz např. rozsudek                              Nejvyššího správního soudu ze dne 13. 10. 2010, č. j. 6 Ao 5/2010 –                              43, www.nssoud.cz, a rozsudek Soudního dvora Evropské unie ze dne                              12. 5. 2011, C-115/09, Trianel Kohlekraftwerk Lünen).\"                                5. PŘEPRAVA ODPADŮ                               Relativně  samostatnou  skupinu  věcí  posuzovaných  Nejvyšším                              správním  soudem  s  prvkem  aplikace  unijního  práva  tvoří  případy  z                              oblasti přepravy odpadů.                               Usnesením ze dne 30. 6. 2010, č. j. 5 As 49/2009 – 186, zastavil NSS                              řízení v případě přeshraniční přepravy odpadů ze Spolkové republiky                              Německo  do  České  republiky.  Původní  námitka  byla  vznesena  z                              důvodu nesprávné klasifikace operace využití, resp. odstranění odpadu                              dle přílohy 3 a 4 zákona č. 185/2001 Sb., o odpadech v oznámení o                              přeshraniční přepravě odpadů. Na základě kasační stížnosti žalobce se                              Nejvyšší správní soud usnesením ze dne 8. 7. 2009, č. j. 5 As 49/2009                              -  138,  obrátil  na  Soudní  dvůr  po  analýze  jeho  judikatury  s                              předběžnými  otázkami  ohledně  výkladu  čl.  2  písm.  i)  a  k)  nařízení                              Rady (EHS) č. 259/93 ze dne 1. února 1993 o dozoru nad přepravou                              odpadů  v  rámci  Evropského  společenství,  do  něj  a  z  něj  a  o  její                              kontrole ve spojení s čl. 1 písm. e) a f) směrnice Rady 75/442/EHS ze                              dne  15.  července  1975  o  odpadech  a  bodem  D10  Přílohy  IIA  a  R1                              přílohy IIB téže směrnice. Protože však vzal žalobce kasační stížnost                              zpět,  nezbylo  Nejvyššímu  správnímu  soudu  než  řízení  zastavit.                              Zároveň odpadl důvod, pro nějž se NSS původně obracel na Soudní                                                                  221","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 dvůr,  proto  vzal  svou  žádost  o  rozhodnutí  Soudního  dvora  o                              zmiňovaných předběžných otázkách zpět.                               V rozsudku ze dne 9. 2. 2011, č. j. 1 As 110/2010 – 151, se zabýval                              NSS případem, kdy žalobkyně jakožto dopravce dovezla ve dnech 5.,                              6.,  18.  a  19.  října  2006  do  České  republiky  4  kamiony  odpadu  o                              úhrnné  hmotnosti  85  tun  ze  Spolkové  republiky  Německo,  a  to  bez                              jakéhokoliv povolení. Byla jí uložena pokuta za porušení § 54 odst. 2                              zákona  o  odpadech.  Bránila  se,  že  skutková  podstata  §  66  odst.  4                              písm.  g)  zákona  o  odpadech  je  naplněna  jen  tehdy,  když  dojde  k                              porušení  nejen  zákona  o  odpadech,  ale  i  evropského  právního                              předpisu. NSS odkázal na rozsudek Soudního dvora EU ze dne 21. 6.                              2007 ve  věci trestního stíhání proti společnosti Omni Metal Service                              (C-259/05,  Sb.  rozh.  s.  I-4945),  zabýval  se  výkladem  pojmů                                                                      19                              „odstraňování  odpadu“  a  „využití  odpadu“ .  Dále  se  NSS  zabýval                              smyslem nařízení Rady č. 259/93 a k výkladu deliktní odpovědnosti                              provedeným  žalobkyní  dospěl  k  závěru,  že  \"(p)ovinnosti  stanovené                              nařízením nemohou být uloženy rovněž národní legislativou (srov. věc                              Variola  cit.  v  bodě  [43]  shora,  body  10  a  11).  Je  proto  zásadně                              vyloučeno,  aby  určité  jednání  porušilo  povinnost  stanovenou                              nařízením a současně i obsahově shodnou povinnost uloženou českým                              zákonem.  Nesmyslný  by  byl  rovněž  takový  výklad,  který  by  založení                              deliktní  odpovědnosti  vázal  na  porušení  povinnosti  stanovené                              právními  předpisy  EU  a  současně  na  porušení  obsahově  odlišné                              povinnosti  uložené  českým  zákonem.  Deliktní  odpovědnost  by  při                              tomto výkladu vznikla teprve porušením dvou různých povinností. To                              je absurdní a značně by snížilo možnost vymáhat povinnosti uložené                              nařízením Evropských společenství. Členské státy jsou přitom povinny                              účinně  prosazovat  právo  EU  [srov.  k  tomu  též  nález  sp.  zn.  Pl.  ÚS                              66/04 ze dne 3. 5. 2006 (N 93/41 SbNU 195; 434/2006 Sb.) ve věci                              Evropského  zatýkacího  rozkazu,  bod  81].\"  NSS  se  proto  přiklonil  k                              výkladu založenému na systémovém argumentu, který reflektuje vztah                              mezi právem EU a právem vnitrostátním. Správního deliktu dle § 66                              odst. 4 písm. g) zákona o odpadech se tak podle něj lze dopustit jak                              porušením  povinnosti stanovené  právními  předpisy  EU  upravujícími                              dozor  nad  přepravou  odpadů,  tak  pouze  porušením  povinnosti                              stanovené zákonem o odpadech pro přeshraniční přepravu odpadu.                               V rozsudku ze dne 23. 2. 2011, č. j. 7 As 6/2011 – 63, posuzoval NSS                              povahu výpalků z destilace lihovin. Vyšel z eurokonformního výkladu                              směrnice Rady (ES) č. 75/442/EHS o odpadech a judikatury Soudního                              dvora  (rozsudky  Soudního  dvora  ve  věcech  C-129/96  Inter-                              Envirnnement  Wallonie,  Sb.rozh.  s.  I-7411,  bod  26;  C-1/03  Van  de                              Walle  a  další,  Sb.rozh.  s.  I-7613,  bod  42;  C-252/05  Thames  Water                              Utilities, Sb.rozh. s. I-3883, bod 24; C-195/05 Komise proti Itálii, Sb.                                 19   NSS  odkázal  na  usnesení  Soudního  dvora  ze  dne  27.  2.  2003  ve  věci                              Oliehandel Koeweit BV a další, C-307/00 až C-311/00, Recueil, rozsudek ze                              dne 27. 2. 2002 ve věci Abfall Service AG - ASA, C-6/00, Recueil s. I-1961s.                              I-1821 a rozsudek ze dne 3. 4. 2003 ve věci SITA EcoService Nederland BV,                              C-116/01, Recueil s. I-2969.                                                                  222","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 rozh.I-11699,  bod  34,  a  mnoho  dalších).  Dovodil,  že  se  v                              posuzovaném  případě  jedná  o  otázku  acte  éclairé,  a  proto  sám                              předběžnou otázku Soudnímu dvoru nepředložil. Dospěl k názoru, že                              \"(s)kutečnost,  že  výpalky  z  výroby  lihu  jsou  podřaditelné  například                              pod kód Q1 přílohy č. 1 zákona o odpadech, tedy není rozhodující. Je                              potřeba  posoudit  chování  stěžovatelky  a  její  případný  úmysl  se                              výpalků  zbavit.\"  Výraz  \"zbavit  se\"  pak  vyložil  ve  světle  nejenom                              základního  cíle  směrnice  o  odpadech  (podle  jejího  třetího  bodu                              odůvodnění  „ochrana  lidského  zdraví  a  životního  prostředí  před                              škodlivými vlivy sběru, přepravy, zpracování, skladování a ukládání                              odpadů“),  ale  i  ve  světle  čl.  174  odst.  2  Smlouvy  o  založení                              Evropského  společenství  (čl.  191  odst.  1  SFEU),  který  stanovil,  že                              „(p)olitika Společenství v oblasti životního prostředí je zaměřena na                              vysokou  úroveň  ochrany,  přičemž  přihlíží  k  rozdílné  situaci  v                              jednotlivých  regionech  Společenství.  Je  založena  na  zásadách                              obezřetnosti a prevence [...]“.                                Ohledně  výkladu  nařízení  Rady  (EHS)  č.  259/93  lze  zmínit  také                              rozsudek NSS ze dne 31. 10. 2008, č. j. 2 As 44/2007 - 212, publ. pod                              č.1768/2009  Sb.  NSS,  v  němž  NSS  dospěl  k  závěru,  že  v  této  věci                              není  nutné  předběžnou  otázku  podat,  neboť  rozhodovací  praxe                              Soudního  dvora  ve  věci  stanovení  hranice,  kdy  je  spalování odpadu                              možné  považovat  za  operaci  využití  nebo  odstranění  pro  účely                              přeshraniční přepravy odpadů, je poměrně bohatá a kritéria vyslovená                              Soudním  dvorem  lze  aplikovat  i  na  posuzovaný  případ.  Ohledně                              námitky  stěžovatelek  týkající  se  oprávněnosti  žalovaného  vznést                              námitku  proti  plánované  přepravě  odpadů  určených  k  využití  NSS                              odkázal rovněž na judikaturu Soudního dvora (kritérium výhřevnosti                              odpadu). Dospěl k názoru, že kritéria stanovená v § 23 odst. 1 zákona                              o odpadech nejsou v rozporu s komunitárním právem, neboť upřesňují                              pojem  „energetické  využívání  odpadů“,  a  proto  není  možné  je                              nezohlednit.  Shrnul,  že  \"pokud  by  bylo  rozhodnutí  žalovaného  o                              námitce  oprávněné,  nejednalo  by  se  s  ohledem  na  výše  uvedená                              ustanovení SES o rozhodnutí, jež by bylo v rozporu s komunitárním                              právem, neboť by se jednalo o jeho samotnou aplikaci. Odpad je sice                              možné  vnímat  jako  specifický  druh  „zboží“,  nicméně  i  při  přepravě                              odpadů určených k využití je nutné (v závislosti na zařazení odpadu)                              dodržovat  podmínky  stanovené  právem  Společenství  i  právem                              národním.\"                               K aplikaci unijního práva v oblasti přepravy odpadů lze zmínit také                              rozsudek NSS ze dne 26. 3. 2009, č. j. 5 As 24/2008 -  92.                               6. OCHRANA VEŘEJNÉHO ZDRAVÍ                                Do oblasti ochrany veřejného zdraví jsem zařadil další judikaturu NSS                              s \"evropským\" rozměrem, byť se ne vždy jedná o rozhodnutí směřující                              k  ochraně  veřejného  zdraví  v  užším  smyslu,  ani  o  rozhodnutí  ve                              věcech  ochrany  životního  prostředí.  Přesto  se  mnohdy  jedná  o                              rozhodnutí zajímavá a z pohledu aplikace unijního práva přínosná (pro                              účely tohoto příspěvku budiž tedy tato kategorie kategorií sběrnou).                                                                     223","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 V rozsudku ze dne 29. 6. 2011, č. j. 9 As 7/2011 – 70, se tak NSS                              zabýval  výkladem  nařízení  Rady  (EHS)  č.  2204/90,  které  stanoví                              povinnost  používat  kasein  a  kaseináty  při  výrobě  sýrů  na  základě                              předchozího  povolení,  a  prováděcího  a  nařízení  Komise  (ES)  č.                                        20                              1547/2006.   Podle  stěžovatelky  se  sice  jednalo  o  předpisy  unijního                              existující  a  přímo  závazné  v  rozhodné  době,  avšak  zákon  ani  jiný                              právní předpis nestanovil, který orgán je k vydání takového povolení                              příslušný  a  jaké  náležitosti  má  splňovat  žádost  o  vydání  tohoto                              povolení.  NSS  připomněl  bezprostřední  použitelnost  nařízení  v  tom                              smyslu, že ke své aplikovatelnosti ve vnitrostátním právu na rozdíl od                              směrnic  nevyžadují  přenesení  svého  obsahu  do  vnitrostátního                              transpozičního aktu (v případě navazujících vnitrostátních předpisů se                              tak  nejedná  o  opatření  transpoziční  či  transformační,  ale  o  opatření                              konkretizační či doplňující vydávaná na základě přímého požadavku                              nařízení  či  obecně  čl.  4  EU),  a  k  výjimečné  přípustnosti  přenesení                              obsahu  nařízení  odkázal  na  rozsudek  Soudního  dvora  ze  dne  28.  3.                              1985,  Komise  proti  Itálii,  272/83.  Ohledně  požadavků  na  obsah  a                              formu implementačních opatření NSS odkázal na rozsudek Soudního                              dvora ze dne 20. 6. 2002, Mulligan, C-313/99 a z hlediska vnitrostátní                              právní úpravy na Metodické pokyny pro zajišťování prací při plnění                              legislativních závazků vyplývajících z členství ČR v EU a Legislativní                              pravidla  vlády.  Námitku  stěžovatelky  shledal  NSS  důvodnou  se                              závěrem,  že  až  do  června  2006  nebyla  potřebná  prováděcí  opatření                              obsažena  ani  v  právní  úpravě  na  komunitární/unijní  úrovni,  ani  ve                              vnitrostátní právní úpravě.                               V  rozsudku  ze  dne  16.  11.  2010,  č.  j.  5  As  69/2009  -  86,  se  NSS                              potýkal  s  výkladem  směrnice  Evropského  parlamentu  a  Rady                              2001/95/ES ze dne 3. prosince 2001, o obecné bezpečnosti výrobků.                              Tímto unijním právním předpisem je velmi zjednodušeně stanoveno,                              že výrobek, který nesplňuje kritéria bezpečného výrobku, je výrobkem                              nebezpečným. Odpovídá- li výrobek technické normě, považuje se za                              bezpečný.  V  předmětné  věci  se  jednalo  o  posouzení  povahy                              zapalovačů, které byly dovezeny do Evropské unie a uvedeny na trh v                              některých  členských  zemích  EU,  kde  je  žalobce  rovněž  nakoupil  a                              dodal  na  trh  v  České  republice.  NSS  ve  své  argumentaci  rozsáhle                              odkázal na judikaturu Soudního dvora ohledně volného pohybu zboží                              zaručeného v rámci společného trhu - a taky možností, podmínek pro                              jeho  omezení  (opatření  s  rovnocenným  účinkem)  a  výjimek  z                              obecného pravidla - tzv. důvodů obecného zájmu uvedených v čl. 36                              SFEU,  mezi  něž  patří  mj.  ochrana  veřejného  pořádku,  veřejné                              bezpečnosti  a  ochrana  zdraví,  jednak  tzv.  kategorických  požadavků                              stanovených judikaturou Soudního dvora, mezi něž patří též ochrana                              spotřebitele.  NSS  dále  upozornil  na  odlišnou  situaci,  je-li  příslušná                              oblast  harmonizována  sekundárním  právem  EU  -  vnitrostátní  právní                                 20   Rozsáhlý  výklad  k  unijnímu  právu  provedl  NSS  v  jiné  věci  týkající  se                              uvádění potravinářských výrobků do oběhu (rozsudek ze dne 23. 7. 2010, č. j.                              2  As  55/2010  –  167).  Protože  šlo  především  o  značení  výrobku  (\"čerstvé                              máslo\")  a  nikoliv  o  složení  výrobku,  uvádím  toto  rozhodnutí  pouze  v                              poznámce.                                                                  224","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 předpisy  pak  musejí  být  posouzeny  především  s  ohledem  na                              ustanovení tohoto harmonizačního předpisu, a nikoliv na ustanovení                              článků 34 a 36 SFEU. NSS svůj výklad ukončil závěrem, že nařízení                              vlády  č.  198/2007  Sb.  není  v  rozporu  se  systematikou  směrnice  o                              obecné  bezpečnosti  výrobků,  jak  tvrdil  krajský  soud,  ani  se                              systematikou  zákona  o  obecné  bezpečnosti  výrobků,  který  tuto                              směrnici transponuje.                               V  rozsudku  ze  dne  21.  9.  2011,  č.  j.  2  Ans  9/2011  –  336,  NSS                              neshledal  důvod  pro  předložení  předběžné  otázky  Soudnímu  dvoru,                              jednak proto, že považuje svůj setrvalý právní názor ve věci samé za                              souladný  s  unijním  právem,  aniž  by  v  této  otázce  vyvstaly  jakékoli                              pochybnosti ohledně výkladu unijního práva ve smyslu čl. 267 SFEU;                              jednak  proto,  že  nyní  vůbec  nepřezkoumával  nepřípustné  kasační                              námitky  žalovaného  mířící  do  údajně  nesprávného  posouzení  těchto                              věcných právních otázek, nýbrž pouze námitku zásadního procesního                              pochybení  městského  soudu,  jež  jediná  byla  přípustná  ve  smyslu  §                              104  odst.  3  písm.  a)  s.  ř.  s.  V  tomto  případě  žalobce  požádal                              společnost ČEZ, a. s., o informaci s odkazem na ustanovení § 17 odst.                              1  atomového  zákona  a  jeho  žádost  byla  odmítnuta  s  odkazem  na                              skutečnost,  že  požadoval  dokumenty,  které  navíc  podléhaly                              obchodnímu  tajemství.  Důvodem  předložení  této  předběžné  otázky                              měla  být  podle  žalovaného  skutečnost,  že  §  1  zákona  o  svobodném                              přístupu  k  informacím  vymezuje,  že  účelem  zákona  je  provedení                              Směrnice  Evropského  parlamentu  a  Rady  č.  2003/98/ES  ze  dne  17.                              listopadu  2003  o  opakovaném  použití  informací  veřejného  sektoru.                              Podle  žalovaného  by  proto  bylo  namístě  položit  Soudnímu  dvoru                              předběžnou  otázku,  zda  může  být  provedením  této  směrnice  zákon,                              který by nařizoval poskytování informací i obchodním společnostem s                              majetkovou  účastí  státu,  jejichž  účelem  je  pouze  podnikání  a  jež                              nebyly  zákonem  výslovně  zmocněny  k  rozhodování  o  právech,                              právem chráněných zájmech a povinnostech ve smyslu § 2 zákona o                              svobodném přístupu k informacím a nesplňují znaky veřejnoprávního                              subjektu ve smyslu této směrnice.                               Z  dalších  zajímavých  rozhodnutí  z  pohledu  aplikace  unijního                              environmentálního práva lze zmínitit např. rozsudek NSS ze dne 30.                              4.  2010,  č.  j.  5  As  89/2008  –  78  (výklad  Směrnice  Evropského                              parlamentu a Rady 2001/80/ES ze dne 23. října 2001 o omezení emisí                              některých  znečišťujících  látek  do  ovzduší  z  velkých  spalovacích                              zařízení, jednalo se o chválení Plánu snižování emisí na zvláště velký                              spalovací  zdroj  znečišťování  ovzduší  Energotrans,  a.  s.  –  elektrárna                              Mělník I), nebo rozsudek ze dne 18. června 2009, č. j. 8 As 33/2009 –                              56 (odstřel špačka a výklad směrnice Rady 79/409/EHS, ze dne 2. 4.                              1979, o ochraně volně žijících ptáků), případně rozsudek NSS ze dne                              27.  5.  2011,  č.  j.  5  As  49/2010  -  82  (vypouštění  odpadních  vod,                              výklad  Směrnice  Rady  91/271/EHS  ze  dne  21.  5.  1991,  o  čištění                              městských  odpadních  vod)  či  z  části  i  rozsudek  NSS  ze  dne  26.  8.                              2010,  č.  j.  As  17/2010  –  294  (zařazení  do  seznamu  výrobců                              elektrozařízení).                                                                     225","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                Literature:                               -  Bobek,  M.,  Bříza,  P.,  Komárek,  J.  Vnitrostátní  aplikace  práva                                 Evrospké unie. Vydání 1. Praha : C. H. Beck, 2011, 633 s.                                Contact – email                              vomacka@law.muni.cz                                                                                                                                        226","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                           NEW VISION OF THE EU PATENT                                 PROTECTION: PATENTS WILL BE CHEAP,                                     BUT NOT AVAILABLE IN NATIONAL                                                     LANGUAGES                                                      VLADIMÍR TYČ                               1.  INTRODUCTORY REMARKS                               The traditional European patent system based on the European Patent                              Convention  (Munich  1978)  making  possible  to  obtain  protection                              through the unique European patent in chosen European coutries, is                              now  facing  difficulties.  The  reason  is  the  compulsory  validation  of                              granted  European  patents  in  all  chosen  countries,  including  the                              translation  into  the  official  language  of  each  country.  The  costs  of                              those  translations  are  so  enormous,  that  the  patent  protection  in                              Europe  becomes  too  expensive  and  implicates  an  obstacle  to  the                              technological development in the EU. This is the main reason why the                              EU tries to establish a specific EU protection on the basis of a unique                              EU patent, which would be cheap and effective. The new EU patent                              system  is  supposed  to  operate  within  the  current  European  Patent                              Convention as its special segment.                                      The  way  to  achieve  this  goal  is  to  reduce  considerably                              translation  costs  eliminating  the  compulsory  translation  of  granted                              patents into languages of all EU Member States. This may become a                              problem, since  the patent description, constituting the main part of the                              patent document, specifies the extent of the patent protection. If not                              available  in  the  language  of  the  EU  Member  State  of  protection,  it                              would be difficult to require any person (enterprise) in such state to                              refrain from using the patented invention or the patented method.1                                   1      Let us remind new EU competencies brought by the Lisbon Treaty.                              New Art. 118 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU stipulates:                                      In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal                              market, the European Parliament                                       and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative                              procedure, shall establish measures                                       for the creation of European intellectual property rights to provide                              uniform protection of intellectual                                       property  rights  throughout  the  Union  and  for  the  setting  up  of                              centralised Union-wide authorisation,                                       coordination and supervision arrangements.                                      The  Council,  acting  in  accordance  with  a  special  legislative                              procedure, shall by means of regulations                                                                  227","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                        All legal duties and obligations of individuals imposed by the                              law  must  be  available  in  the  national  language.  This  is  obvious  for                              legal rules. Let us examine now translation requirements for EU law                              as such and for international treaties.                               2. EU LAW                                       Regulation  1/58  imposes  compulsory  official  publication  of                              all EEC (now EU) legal regulations in official language versions of all                              Member States. However, it does not determine legal consequences of                              the absence of a particular language version. We can find the solution                              in  the    ECJ  judgment  Skoma-Lux  (C-161/06).  A  regulation  not  yet                              published  in  the  official  language  of  a  particular  Member  State  is                              nonetheless  valid  and  effective for  that  State,  but  cannot be applied                              against  an  individual  of  that  State.  This  judgment  proceeds  from                              former ECJ case law.                                      In the judgment in Case C-98/78 Racke the Court stated, that                              an act adopted by a Community institution, such as the regulation at                              issue in the main proceedings, cannot be enforced against natural and                              legal persons in a Member State before they have the opportunity to                              make  themselves  acquainted  with  it  by  its  proper  publication  in the                              Official Journal of the European Union.                                      The  Court  has  held  that  the  principle  of  legal  certainty                              requires  that  Community  legislation  must  allow  those  concerned  to                              acquaint  themselves  with  the  precise  extent  of  the  obligations  it                              imposes  upon  them,  which  may  be  guaranteed  only  by  the  proper                              publication  of  that  legislation  in  the  official  language  of  those  to                              whom it applies (see also, to that effect, Case C-370/96 Covita ,  Case                              C-228/99 Silos and Case C-108/01 Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma                              and Salumificio S. Rita.2                                      The principles of legal certainty and equality of citizens are                              safeguarded,  inter  alia,  by  the  formal  requirement  of  proper                              publication  of  legislation  in  the  official  language  of  the  person  to                              whom it applies (see Case C-209/96 United Kingdom v Commission                              and Case C-108/01 Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma and Salumificio                              S. Rita).3                                           establish  language  arrangements  for  the  European  intellectual                              property rights. The Council shall act                                       unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.                                 2      Paragraphs 37 and 38 of the judgment Skoma-Lux C-161/06.                               3          Acknowledgment  of  the  referring  court  shared  by  the  author.                              Paragraph 21 of the same judgment.                                                                  228","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                        Conclusions  of  the  Court:  The  principle  of  legal  certainty                              requires  that  Community  legislation  must  allow  those  concerned  to                              acquaint  themselves  with  the  precise  extent  of  the  obligations  it                              imposes  upon  them,  which  may  be  guaranteed  only  by  the  proper                              publication  of  that  legislation  in  the  official  language  of  those  to                              whom it applies. Observing fundamental principles of that kind is not                              contrary to the principle of effectiveness of Community law since the                              latter  principle  cannot  apply  to  rules  which  are  not  yet  enforceable                              against individuals.4                                      The  message  of  the  ECJ  case  law  seems  to  be  clear:  An                              individual cannot be affected for the breach of its legal duty which has                              not been laid down in a manner making it available to him, it means in                              his language.                               3. INTERNATIONAL TREATIES                                      A  similar  solution  has  been  adopted  in  most  countries  for                              international  treaties:  Provisions  of  an  international  treaty  can  be                              applicable  to  an  individual  only  after  the  official  publication  of  the                              translated  text.  Art.  10  of  the  Czech  Constitution  provides:                              Promulgated international treaties binding on the Czech Republic and                              approved by the Parliament, become constituting parts of the Czech                              legal order (i.e. are binding on individuals).                                      What  means  \"promulgated\"?  The  sense  of  that  term  is                              determined  by  the  Act  on  the  Collection  of  Laws  and  International                              Treaties    (Official  Journal).  Promulgation  means  the  official                              publication  of  the  treaty  in  one  of  the  original  languages  (authentic                              text) and also in the Czech language as its official translation. It seems                              necessary to remind that authentic text of a treaty is only the language                              version  in  which  the  treaty  has  been  signed.  Czech  translation  is                              official, but not authentic. Individuals may rely on the Czech text, but                              in the case of a discrepancy between the authentic text and the official                              Czech  translation  the  authentic  text  prevails.  Anyway  for  Czech                              individuals it is guaranteed that the official Czech translation provided                              by the State is always available.                                      We now can conclude that the availability of the official text                              in  the  national  language  is  guaranteed for  EU law and  international                              treaties.                               4. EU PATENT                                      EU patent is not an EU regulation nor an international treaty.                              It is an administrative act, i.e. a public law act, granting the patent to                              an individual, but having general effect (erga omnes). This document                              provides  a  public  law  protection  to  the  owner  of  the  patent.                              Consequently, it is prohibited to any unauthorized person to use the                                 4      Paragraph 1 of the Summary of the Judgment Skoma-Lux 161/06.                                                                  229","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 patented  invention  for  the  production  of  protected  products.  The                              \"patented  invention\"  means  the  technical  solution  described  in  the                              patent.                                      Legal  implications  of  the  granted  patent  are  the  following                              ones: It is prohibited, without the consent of the patent owner, to use                              the  patented  invention  as  it  is  described  in  the  patent  specification.                              This  is  a  legal  obligation  to  refrain  from  a  certain  conduct.  This                              prohibited  conduct  must  be  described  and  the  description  must                              available  in  the  way  understandable  to  the  addressee.  This  is  the                              reason  for  which  so  far  European  (EPO)  patents  must  be  translated                              into languages of States where the protection is claimed. This is the                              core  of  the  problem:  those  multiple  translations  guarantee  the  legal                              security, but are too expensive.                                      The solution envisaged by the EU5 is based on Art. 14 para. 6                              of  the  European  Patent  Convention:  The  whole  description  of  the                              patented invention will be available in the language of filing (English,                              French or German) and the claims6 will be translated into two other                              official EPO languages. No further translations will be required.7                                       For the transitional period, which is intended to take 12 years,                              following rules have been proposed:                               During  a  transitional  period  ,  a  request  for  unitary  effect  shall  be                              submitted together with the following:                               (a) where the language of the proceedings (the application) is French                              or German, a full translation                                    of the specification of the European patent into English; or                               (b) where the language of the proceedings is English, a full translation                              of the                                specification of the European patent into any official language of the                                participating Member States that is an official language of the Union                              (i.e. the language of the applicant).                                    5      Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  implementing  enhanced                              cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard                              to  the  applicable  translation  arrangements,  doc.  COM(2011)  216  final,                              2011/0094 (CNS), 13.4.2011                               6      Claims are the decisive part of the patent description, that relatively                              briefly  defines  the  substance  of  the  invention,  i.e.  what  is  really  new  and                              consequently protected.                               7      Art. 3 of the draft regulation mentioned in note 5.                                                                  230","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                 This  will  ensure  that  the  whole  patent  specification  will  always  be                              available in English.8                                      It  means that an EU patent protected in the Czech Republic                              will  not  be  available  in  the  Czech  language.  Is  that  acceptable?  A                              granted  patent  imposes  to  all  other  potential  users  a  negative                              obligation to respect the patent, i.e. to refrain from using the patented                              invention for the production of their own products. They are legally                              forced to refrain from a behaviour not specified in their own language.                              There are two basic consequences of this strange situation:                               1.  The  users  (producers) will  be  obliged  to translate  themselves  the                              description  of  a  granted  patent  into  their  language.  There  is  no                              guarantee that their translation will be correct.                               2. In the case of a dispute, the owner of the patent will have to provide                              the  translation  of  the  patent  into  the  language  of  the  defendant,                              otherwise he would not be able to claim his patent rights. It is logical,                              but a bit late. If the defendant had the access to the text of the patent in                              its language before, probably he would respect it.                                In both cases the translation into the other language would be made on                              the private law basis.                                      The envisaged solution to impose solely the English, French                              or German versions to users of all EU countries is very problematic. A                              compromise solution could be to translate into official languages of all                              countries  of  protection  not  the  whole  specification  of  the  patented                              invention, but only the patent claims of each granted patent effective                              in  the  EU.  Patent  claims  contain  the  description  of  the  protected                              solution and are relatively brief. The costs of the translation of claims                              into  all  EU  languages  would  not  cause  catastrophic  costs  for                              applicants and in the same time would ensure a sufficient degree of                              legal certainty. Unfortunately, this solution has been rejected by the                              EU Council and some Member States.                                      The  comments  made  by  some  Czech  lawyers  and  other                              experts are very sceptical. Some say, that the general knowledge of                              the  English,  French  or  German  languages  is  not  sufficient  for  the                              understanding  of  a  highly  technical  text  using  a  very  special                              terminology.  The  violator  of  patent  rights  could  act  in  good  faith                              without any knowledge about the exact extent of rights that he is in                              fact violating. Any person must have the access to the contents of the                              patent specification that he is supposed to respect.9 The access to the                              text available only in a foreign language is therefore not sufficient.                                  8      Ibid., Art. 6                               9      Sources  of  mentioned  remarks:  http://euractiv.cz/podnikani-a-                              zamestnanost/clanek/schudny-kompromis-nad-evropskymi-patenty-je-                              mozna-na-svete-008093       and       http://euractiv.cz/podnikani-a-                                                                 231","Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011 [online]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2012 ISBN                                  (soubor) 9788021047334. Dostupné z: http://www.law.muni.cz/content/cs/proceedings/                                        Apparently,  this  is  a  conflict  between  economic  interests  of                              applicants  and  the  legal  certainty  of  others.  The  draft  regulation  is                              aware  of  this  problem,  but  the  envisaged  solution  is  far  to  be                              satisfactory. In the case of a dispute relating to a European patent with                              unitary effect, the patent                                proprietor should provide at the request and the choice of an alleged                              infringer, a full                                translation of the patent into an official language of the participating                              Member State in                                which  either  the  alleged  infringement  took  place  or  in  which  the                              alleged infringer is                                domiciled.10 It means that the \"violator\" will learn about the extent of                              rights that he has inadvertently violated only after having been sued                              by the patent owner. This is unacceptable.                                      The solution proposed by the EU does not take into account                              that the efforts to make the patent protection in the EU cheaper must                              not affect the legal certainty of enterprises. The comparison of costs of                              the patent protection in the EU and the USA does not make sense.11                              The  USA  are  one  country  with  one  language,  while  the  EU  is  a                              community of 27 countries with 23 different languages. Consequently,                              the EU unitary patent can never be as cheap as the US patent, since                              languages of different member countries must be respected, otherwise                              the patent protection based exclusively on three leading languages is                              very  doubtful  and  would  lead  to  conflicts  emerging  from  lack  of                              understanding the extent of protected rights.                                      As a final appropriate compromise solution, we repeat again,                              is that the translation of the whole patent specification into languages                              of all countries of protection is dispensable, but the patent claims must                              be available in all languages.                                             zamestnanost/clanek/prekladat-ci-neprekladat-patenty-tot-otazka-006362,                              cited November 15, 2011                               10     Art. 4 of the draft regulation mentioned in note 5.                               11     It has been calculated that the patent effective in the whole EU is                              now five times more expensive that the patent protecting the invention in the                              USA.                                                                  232","Vědecká redakce MU                prof. PhDr. Ladislav Rabušic, CSc., Mgr. Iva Zlatušková,                prof. RNDr. Zuzana Došlá, DSc., Ing. Radmila Droběnová, Ph.D.,                Mgr. Michaela Hanousková, doc. PhDr. Jana Chamonikolasová, Ph.D.,                doc. JUDr. Josef Kotásek, Ph.D., Mgr. et Mgr. Oldřich Krpec, Ph.D.,                doc. PhDr. Růžena Lukášová, CSc., prof. PhDr. Petr Macek, CSc.,                Mgr. Petra Polčáková, doc. RNDr. Lubomír Popelínský, Ph.D.,                Mgr. Kateřina Sedláčková, Ph.D., prof. MUDr. Anna Vašků, CSc.,                prof. PhDr. Marie Vítková, CSc.,                doc. Mgr. Martin Zvonař, Ph.D., PhDr. Alena Mizerová                       Dny práva 2011 – Days of Law 2011                   Interpretace a aplikace mezinárodního                a evropského práva vnitrostátními soudy                       Vydala Masarykova univerzita roku 2012                Spisy Právnické fakulty MU č. 425 (řada teoretická)                 Ediční rada:  J. Kotásek (předseda), J. Bejček, V. Kratochvíl,                                     N. Rozehnalová, P. Mrkývka, J. Hurdík, R. Polčák, J. Šabata                  Zhotovení CD ROM: Tribun  EU s.r.o., Cejl 32, Brno                  1. vydání, 2012                   ISBN 978-80-210-5957-3"];