2004/06/23 - III. ÚS 209/04: Effective Protection of Rights

23 June 2004

HEADNOTES


The

Constitutional Court considers the fact that the complainant elected

the route of a civil law proceeding for the protection of his rights of

personhood, which were allegedly violated in the course of a criminal

proceeding, as a defective and inefficient means of proceeding, giving

rise to future complications and delays.  A criminal proceeding,

governed by Act No. 141/1961 Coll., on Criminal Judicial Proceedings, as

subsequently amended (hereinafter „Criminal Procedure Code“ or „CPC“)

is an independent type of proceeding.  The Criminal Procedure Code

contains a sufficient number of legal instruments by which a person, who

considers himself to be affected in his rights by the steps taken by

bodies acting in the criminal process, can seek the protection of his

rights.  As examples of such institutes can be given the remedial

measure against decisions of bodies acting in the criminal process (for

example, the complaint - § 141 and following of the CPC), the petition

for the review of steps taken by police organs and state attorneys (§

157a of the CPC), etc.  As far as concerns the level of legal protection

accorded, the legal provisions governing these institutes in the Czech

Criminal Procedure Code corresponds to the standard which is usual in

other mature democratic law-based states.


The

Constitutional Court observes that delays occurring in this civil court

proceeding were, among other things, due to the fact that the

complainant elected to assert his allegedly infringed rights by

procedural proposals and steps that were evidently inappropriate and

ineffective, the resolution of which nonetheless (unnecessarily)

complicated and dragged out the proceeding.  If concurrently with the

ongoing criminal proceeding, the complainant initiated a civil law

proceeding by submitting an action for the protection of personhood,

future procedural steps are made significantly more difficult, since

this brings about the need for various state bodies (courts in civil

proceedings, courts in criminal proceedings, police bodies, state

attorneys) to request file material from each other, the duplication of

procedural steps and excessive formalism in general, which undermines

the economy and efficiency of the proceeding.  In such cases, the

negative consequences arising therefrom, especially delays in the civil

court proceeding, cannot be attributed to the fault of state bodies.
The

Constitutional Court also considers as inappropriate and bordering on

obstruction the complainant’s constantly repeated and unwarranted

objections of bias and requests to have excluded judges who were hearing

the case under consideration, as well as the proposals to amend the

complaint.  Smooth progress in hearing the matter was also impeded by

the repeated failure to appear for court hearings, on the part either of

the complainant or his legal council.

 


CZECH REPUBLIC

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
RESOLUTION


IN THE NAME OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC


On

23 June 2004, the Constitutional Court, sitting as a panel composed of

its Chairperson, JUDr. Jan Musil, and of Justices JUDr. Miloslav Výborný

and JUDr. Pavel Holländer, decided, without holding a hearing and

without the parties being present, in the matter of the constitutional

complaint of complainant, Tomáš Hanzel, residing at Šárovo kolo 2/981,

153 00 Prague 5, legally represented by Mgr. Anna Větrovská, attorney AK

Štěpánská 633/49, 110 00 Prague 1, against the 20 February 2004 ruling

of the High Court in Prague, file no. Nco 10/2004-231, and further for

delay in the proceeding conducted before the Municipal Court in Prague

in the matter .32 C 44/94, as follows:
 

The constitutional complaint is rejected on preliminary grounds.
 



REASONING
 


I.
 

In

his constitutional complaint, which was delivered to the Constitutional

Court on 6 April 2004 and supplemented by a submission delivered on 8

April 2004, the complainant seeks the quashing of the 20 February 2004

ruling of the High Court in Prague, action no. Nco 10/2004-231, due to

the violation of his right to judicial protection enshrined in Art. 36

para. 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms

(hereinafter „Charter“).  In his constititonal complaint the complainant

further requests the Constitutional Court to declare that the means by

which the Municipal Court in Prague proceeded in the matter heard before

that court, under file no. 32 C 44/94, constituted a violation of his

fundamental right to have his case considered within a reasonable time

and without unnecessary delay, guaranteed by Art. 38 para. 2 of the

Charter, as well as by Art. 6 para. 1 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter

„Convention“), and further that the Constitutional Court forbid the

Municipal Court in Prague from continuing in the violation of the

complainant’s basic rights in the manner stated above.
 

The

complainant asserts in his constitutional complaint that by the action

filed in 1994, which the Municipal Court in Prague has been considering

already for nine years without yet the presenting the action or

admitting evidence, the complainant seeks the protection of his

personhood and misuse of his given name and surname in the files of the

Czech Republic Police and against the unauthorized conduct of a house

search and photographing of the complainant in his residence without his

consent, without statutory basis and, above all, without a lawful

warrant to conduct such action.
 

The

complainant asserts in his constitutional complaint that on 20 October

2003 he made a motion to admit as evidence witness testimony of JUDr.

Jaroslava Lobotková, who was hearing this matter as case no. 32 C

44/94.  The complainant substantiate his motion by the fact that the

given matter has been under consideration already for longer than nine

and one-half years, without the court even getting at least to the

presentation of the action, while, from the manner in which the judge is

conducting the matter, the complainant judges that the judge is

consciously bringing the proceeding „to a loss“.  Since, according to

the complainant, the judge has learned more about the case than solely

that which is contained in the file, the complainant proffers as

evidence the questioning of this judge, and in particular with a focus

on the issue of whether she spoke with anybody outside of the courtroom

concerning the matter under consideration, whether she has or has not

been influenced (in whatever manner) in this matter, how (not) to

proceed and in reference to further issues which, as the complainant

stated, he would not announce in advance, so as not to spoil this

evidence.  The court has competence to decide whether to admit proffered

evidence; it is the complainant’s view, however, that, with regard to

the requirement of impartiality and non-bias, it is incompatible for the

very judge whose witness testimony is proposed would herself decide on

the motion proposing that witness testimony be taken.  Without the High

Court in Prague in any way in the reasoning of its decision dealing with

the merits of the matter, that is, with the reason for which the

objection of bias was raised by the complainant which consists in the

incompatibility of the status of judge and, at the same time, witness,

it decided that the mentioned judge would not be excluded from hearing

and deciding in the matter.  According to the complainant, the High

Court, by its decision, created a situation in which the judge, JUDr.

Jaroslava Lobotková, would herself decide on whether evidence,

consisting of her witness testimony, would or would not be taken. 

According to the complainant, the High Court in Prague did not concern

itself with these reasons at all and satisfied itself with a routine

declaration by the judge that she did not feel herself to be biased, and

neglected the merits of the complainant’s motion.

In

order to judge the constitutional complaint, the Constitutional Court

requested the files kept at the Municipal Court in Prague as nos. 32 C

44/94 and Spr 4564/94.

 

At

the Constitutional Court’s request, a judge of the Municipal Court in

Prague, JUDr. Jaroslava Lobotková, in a memorandum delivered to the

Constitutional Court on 24 May2004, gave her views on the submitted

constitutional complaint.  In her statement of views, the judge asserted

that the complainant had repeatedly made objections of bias, most

recently by a submitting which reached the court on 20 October 2003. 

The submission did not meet all requirements, in particular, the grounds

upon which the judge is alleged to be biased where not stated therein. 

By its 27 October 2003 ruling, the court called upon the complainant to

cure the defects in his submission, and included a notice concerning

the consequences should he fail to comply with the request.  Even though

the complainant failed to comply with the request, the High Court in

Prague did not reject his submission in accordance with § 43 para. 2 of

the Civil Procedure Code, rather merely decided that the judge would not

be excluded.  In the judge’s view, it is evident from the text of the

submission that the plaintiff was deliberately creating a situation when

he proposed the questioning of the judge, without giving any grounds of

bias, and by these means attempts to create such grounds.  The judge of

the Municipal Court in Prague stated that he has repeatedly drawn out

the proceeding by making similar such submissions, by changing the petit

he is attempting, by means of an action for the protection of

personhood, to get the civil law court to modify part of a criminal file

or to review the legality of the conduct of bodies acting in the

criminal proceeding.  He has excused himself from scheduled hearings at

the last moment, requested a continuance, and made other submission

which have lead to the postponement of a decision.
 


II.
 

The

Constitutional Court does not form a part of the ordinary court system

and does not possess a right of supervision over the decision-making of

ordinary courts.  The Constitutional Court is authorized to intervene

into the decision-making of ordinary courts only in the case that the

final decision of one of those courts results in the violation of a

constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right or basic freedom.
 

The

Constitutional Court first of all reviewed the contested 20 February

2004 decision of the High Court in Prague, no. Nco 10/2004-231, as well

as the proceeding leading up to it, from the perspective of the

objections put forward by the complainant in his constitutional

complaint.  With regard to the fact that it may engage in review solely

as concerns the constitutionality of a proceeding, it came to the

conclusion that this part of the constitutional complaint is not

well-founded.
 

By its 20

February 2004 ruling, action no. Nco 10/2004-231, the High Court in

Prague decided not to exclude JUDr. Jaroslava Lobotková, judge of the

Municipal Court in Prague, from taking part in and deciding on the

matter being heard before that court as file no. 32 C 44/94.  In the

reasoning of its decision, the court stated that, in the case under

consideration, the plaintiff did not raise such objections as would, in

the sense meant by § 14 para. 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, justify the

exclusion of the judge of the Municipal Court in Prague from taking

part in and deciding on the matter.
 

A

judge can be excluded from taking part in and deciding on an already

matter only in exceptional and on genuinely serious grounds which truly

prevent her from deciding in conformity with the law, impartially and

fairly.
 

In order to reach a

conclusion on a violation of the constitutional safeguards of the purity

of a judicial proceeding and the observance of the principles of fair

process (Art. 36 and following of the Charter), the complainant’s merely

general or subjective conviction does not suffice (judgment no. III. ÚS

230/96).  The subjective perspective of the parties to the proceeding,

or possibly of the judges themselves, functions as an impetus for

decision-making on potential bias, however, decisions on this issue must

be taken exclusively on the basis of an objective point of view.  That

means that it is not admissible to proceed solely on the basis of doubts

as to the judges‘ relation to the matter under consideration or to the

persons which the transactions affects, rather also from a substantive

law analysis of the facts which gave rise to these doubts.
 

A

judge can be excluded from taking part in and deciding on a matter only

in a case where it is evident that the relation of the judge to the

given matter, the parties, or their representatives attains such a

nature and intensity that, even despite the statutorily prescribed

obligation, they would not be able or capable to decide independently

and impartially (judgment no. II. ÚS 105/01).
 

In

his constitutional complaint, the complainant refers to the

Constitutional Court’s judgment in matter no. I. ÚS 167/94, in which it

stated that the „condition of § 14 para. 1 of the Civil Procedure Code

provides for the exclusion of judges from taking part in and deciding on

a matter not solely due to any actually demonstrated bias, but even in

the case that it is possible to entertain doubts concerning their lack

of bias.“  The complainant did not, however, go on to cite the following

sentences from that judgment, where it is stated:  „It is not a matter

merely of assessing the judge’s subjective feelings as to whether she

does or does not feel biased, or the assessment of her personal

relations to the parties to the proceeding, rather it concerns objective

considerations as to whether – with regard to the circumstances of the

case – it can be considered that the judge could be biased.“
 

With

regard to what is stated above, the Constitutional Court did not find

as well-founded the complainant’s objections directed against the

above-mentioned ruling of the High Court in Prague.
 


III.
 

In

his constitutional complaint, the complainant also made objections to

delay in the proceeding conducted before the Municipal Court in Prague

in matter no. 32 C 44/94.
 

The

Constitutional Court has already, in a host of its decisions, dealt

with the issue of delay in proceedings before ordinary courts. 

Justified delays in a proceeding represent „some other encroachment“

upon the complainant’s fundamental rights (Art. 87 para. 1, lit. d) of

the Constitution of the Czech Republic, and further § 72 para. 1, lit.

a) of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as

subsequently amended), enshrined in Art. 38 para. 2 of the Charter of

Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms.  This provision guarantees to

everyone the right to have her case considered without unnecessary delay

(or within a reasonable period), and a conflict with this provision

naturally results if there has been undue delay in the proceeding in a

concrete case before an ordinary court.  The Constitutional Court has

repeatedly adjudged that delay in a proceeding cannot be justified even

by the courts‘ general overburdened state, since „it is up to the State

to organize its judiciary in such a way that the principles of the

judiciary, enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic

Freedoms, be respected, and any possible inadequacies in this regard

cannot work to the detriment of citizens who justifiably expect from the

courts the protection of their rights within a reasonable time“

(compare Constitutional Court judgments nos. IV. ÚS 55/1994, III. ÚS

70/1997).
 

In assessing

unnecessary delays in a proceeding and the unreasonable length of a

proceeding, it is not decisive whether delays are caused by a subjective

factor standing on the side of the ordinary court (that is, primarily

the conduct of the judge deciding the matter) or an objective factor

consisting in the amount of matters submitted to the courts, in the

legal regulation of the judicial organization, or in the insufficient

administrative and technical background of the ordinary courts.  It is

the State as a whole, without regard to its division into individual

units, which should guaranteed the protection of an individual’s rights,

while timeliness is also an indispensible attribute of such protection.
 

In

the complainant’s case, the proceeding before the ordinary courts has

lasted more than 9 years, which could hypothetically be interpreted as

an encroachment upon his fundamental rights.  Nonetheless, for the

purposes of adjudging delays in a proceeding, a decisive issue is

whether the delays are attributable solely to the state authority (the

court) or whether they are also by the conduct of a party to the

proceeding or even by the complainant directly (I. ÚS 600/03).
 

Following

a comprehensive analysis of the file of the Municipal Court in Prague,

no. 32 C 44/94, the Constitutional Court is constrained to declare that

it is the complainant himself who bears the decisive share of blame for

the delays which have occurred and are still occurring in this case, who

by his obstructive behavior and inappropriate procedural tactics

prevented the proceeding from being completed within a reasonable time. 

The complainant’s legal representative in the civil law proceeding, the

Independent Trade Union Commission (with its headquarters in Prague 5 –

Radotín, Šárovo kolo 2/981), is also in part to blame for the delays

that were caused.  It should be said, in addition, that the judicial

bodies are in part to blame for the delays that have occurred, due to

several incorrect steps, as noted in the attached file of the Municipal

Court in Prague, no. Spr 4564/94; nonetheless, the length of the

proceeding was not in any substantial way prolonged by the manner in

which they proceeded.


Since

the Constitutional Court is not competent to review in detail ordinary

courts‘ procedural steps on the level or „ordinary“ law, it is not

necessary, in the reasoning of this judgment, for it to concern itself

with a comprehensive analysis of all steps taken in the given civil law

proceeding, conducted under file no. 32 C 44/94.  Merely examples will

be given of those steps taken by the complainant which contributed to

delays in the proceeding.


This civil law proceeding was initiated by the complainant’s „action for

the protection of personhood and desisting of the harassment of the

plaintiff, with a motion seeking the issuance of preliminary measures“

submitted to the Municipal Court in Prague on 18 March 1994.  The

subject of the lawsuit was the improper conduct of the Czech Republic

Police – Office of Investigations of the Capitol City of Prague in the

criminal proceeding, conducted under file no. ČVS: MVV-33/103-93, by

which the plaintiff considered himself to be affected in his rights of

personhood.  For example, the plaintiff asserts that the police organs

in an ongoing criminal proceeding have made unauthorized entries onto

land in the plaintiff’s use, took photographs while there, and examined

items which were found there, incorrectly designated the names of the

persons involved in the criminal proceeding, improperly detained the

plaintiff, etc.
 

The

Constitutional Court considers the mere fact that the complainant

elected the route of a civil law proceeding for the protection of his

rights of personhood, which were allegedly violated in the course of a

criminal proceeding, as a defective and inefficient means of proceeding,

giving rise to future complications and delays.  A criminal proceeding,

governed by Act No. 141/1961 Coll., on Criminal Judicial Proceedings,

as subsequently amended (hereinafter „Criminal Procedure Code“ or „CPC“)

is an independent type of proceeding.  The Criminal Procedure Code

contains a sufficient number of legal instruments by which a person, who

considers himself to be affected in his rights by the steps taken by

bodies acting in the criminal process, can seek the protection of his

rights.  As examples of such institutes can be given the remedial

measure against decisions of bodies acting in the criminal process (for

example, the complaint - § 141 and following of the CPC), the petition

for the review of steps taken by police organs and state attorneys (§

157a of the CPC), etc.  As far as concerns the level of legal protection

accorded, the legal provisions governing these institutes in the Czech

Criminal Procedure Code corresponds to the standard which is usual in

other mature democratic law-based states.
 

If

concurrently with the ongoing criminal proceeding, the complainant

initiated a civil law proceeding by submitting an action for the

protection of personhood, future procedural steps are made significantly

more difficult, since this brings about the need for various state

bodies (courts in civil proceedings, courts in criminal proceedings,

police bodies, state attorneys) to request file material from each

other, the duplication of procedural steps and excessive formalism in

general, which undermines the economy and efficiency of the proceeding. 

In such cases, the negative consequences arising therefrom, especially

delays in the proceeding, cannot be attributed to the fault of state

bodies.
 

In the case under

consideration, such delays, called forth by the „dual-track“ nature of

the proceeding, did in fact occur.  As an example, the court in the

civil law proceeding quite naturally could not do without the criminal

file, thus on 28 March 1995, the court requested the file (no. 1. 49). 

However, at that point in time, the criminal proceeding has not yet been

finally completed; therefore, the requested file was not sent until 10

October 1995 (no. 1. 54).
 

The

Constitutional Court observes that delays occurring in this proceeding

were also due to the fact that the complainant elected to assert his

allegedly infringed rights by procedural proposals and steps that were

evidently inappropriate and ineffective, the resolution of which

nonetheless (unnecessarily) complicated and dragged out the civil court

proceeding.  For example, on 18 March 1994, together with his lawsuit

the complainant submitted a request for the ordering of provisional

measures by which the Police of the Czech Republic should refrain from

carrying out a number of criminal procedural steps pursuant to § 158 of

the Criminal Procedure Code.  In the 27 October 1995 ruling (file no. 32

C 44/94) of the Municipal Court in Prague, this request was properly

rejected on the merits with the persuasive reasoning that the conditions

laid down in § 102 and § 74 para. 1 of the Civil Procedure Code were

not met because the investigation in the criminal matter has already

been completed, so that the plaintiff was not threatened with the

repetition of the conduct from which he asked them to refrain; in

addition, the court came to the conclusion that the steps prescribed in §

158 of the Criminal Procedure Code could not be reviewed in a civil law

dispute.  The complainant appealed this negative ruling; however, by

its 17 March 1997 ruling (file no. 1 Co 467/95), the High Court in

Prague turned his appeal down.  By employing evidently ineffective

instruments, which in this matter was the unwarranted request for the

ordering of provisional measures, the complainant contributed to the

delay of the proceeding.
 

The

Constitutional Court also considers as inappropriate and bordering on

obstruction the constantly repeated and unwarranted objections of bias

and requests to have excluded judges who were hearing the case under

consideration, as well as the proposals to amend the complaint, for

example:
  - in his 10 November 1995 appeal (no. l. 61), he objected

that the single judge, JUDr. Naděžda Žáková, was biased (rejected on the

merits in the 27 October 1995 ruling of the Municipal Court in Prague,

file no. 32 C 44/94);
  - in his submission of 16 November 1995

(no.l. 63) he requested that the matter be assigned to the Regional

Court in Prague; in his 27 April 1998 motion (no.l. 100) he withdrew

this proposal;
  - in his 21 April 1998 proposal (no. 1. 92) he

withdrew the complaint against the Police of the Czech Republic and

proposed the dismissal of the proceeding; after the Municipal Court in

Prague, in its 22 September 1998 ruling - file no. 32 C 44/94 (no. l.

102), granted this proposal and dismissed the proceeding in this part,

on 20 October 1998 the complainant submitted an appeal for which,

however, he gave no reasons until being called upon to do so by the

court on 26 January 1999; subsequently, in its 22 March 1999 ruling,

file no. 1 Co 165/98, the High Court in Prague did not grant his appeal

in this part;
  - in the course of the 28 June 1999 hearing before

the Municipal Court in Prague (no. l. 128v), the complainant raised the

objection of bias against judge JUDr. Jaroslava Lobotková, but gave no

written reasons supporting that claim until his 10 July 1999 submission;

on 7 December 1999, the High Court in Prague rejected it as unfounded –

file no. Nco 228/99 (no. l. 141 and following);
  - by his 20

October 2003 memorandum (no. l. 220), the complainant raised a further

objection of bias against judge JUDr. Jaroslava Lobotková, but in its 20

February 2004 ruling, no. Nco 10/2004-231, the High Court in Prague

decided not to exclude the judge; that decision was contested by means

of the present constitutional complaint and for this reason, in the

course of the oral hearing, held on 7 April 2004, judge JUDr. Jaroslava

Lobotková suspended the proceeding and adjourned the hearing

indefinitely, as the submitted constitutional complaint called the

judge’s impartiality into doubt, which impedes further action by the

court.
 

The Constitutional

Court cannot disregard the fact that smooth progress in hearing the

matter was impeded by the repeated failure to appear for court hearings,

on the part either of the complainant or his legal council.  For

example, the file contains written excuses from the complainant and his

legal council and requests for a continuance of hearings which were

scheduled to take place on 8 January 1998 (no. l. 83), 12 February 1998

(no. l. 86), 21 April 1998 (no. l. 96), 7 October 2000 (no. l. 145),

dále dne 17 January 2001 (no. l. 149), and 27 October 2003 (no. l.

220).  The Constitutional Court cannot, and does not intend to,

scrutinize whether the complainant’s excuses (explained by his health

problems) were or were not valid.  Nonetheless, it is certain that these

excuses were often submitted at the last moment prior to the start of a

hearing, which, as an objective matter, makes it difficult for the

trial court to ensure the smooth course of the proceeding.  In the

circumstance where the complainant was represented in the proceeding by

his legal council, it is warranted to presume that, if the complainant

had been more willing to cooperate, the further course of the proceeding

could have been sped up markedly.
 

The

Constitutional Court concurs with complainant’s objection that there

were some procedural errors in the way in which the ordinary courts

proceeded in the case, which also contributed to the delay in the

proceeding.  As is substantiated in the file, already on the occasion of

the first hearing before the Municipal Court in Prague, on 31 October

1994, the panel chairman made a mistake in preparing the record in that

it was written there that, in the course of the hearing, the complaint

was read out and views expressed upon it, even though it had not in fact

been read out.  In reaction to the complainant’s complaint to the

chairman of the Municipal Court in Prague, which was found to have

merit, the panel chairman was reproached for this error (see the

supplemental file of the Municipal Court in Prague under file no. Spr

4564/94, č. l. 9).  The Constitutional Court has no intention of

trivializing this error but considers that it could have easily been

corrected and did not, in and of itself, have to result in further

delays.  The fact that the complainant and his legal council submitted a

criminal notice against the panel chairman and that notice was fully

investigated by the police (file of the Local Division of the Police of

the Czech Republic on Vyšehradská Street in Prague 2, file no. OR 2

520/94/MP 1-Tč 95), resulted in further time consuming and inefficient

procedures, which held up the course of the civil law proceeding.
 

The

unwillingness of the complainant’s legal council to contribute, by his

cooperation, to the successful progress of the civil law proceeding is

substantiated, as well, by his attitude during the 28 June 1999 hearing

before the first instance court (no. l. 128): after being requested by

the panel chairwoman to present the case, he refused and designated the

ongoing court proceeding as „tomfoolery“, and made an objection of bias

against the penal chairwoman.  The Constitutional Court is compelled to

observe that such conduct is unbecoming, degrades the dignity of court

proceedings, and kindles an undesirable atmosphere which can, as well,

have an effect on in the smooth running of the proceeding.
 

The

Constitutional Court thus came to the conclusion that (undesirable)

delay in the proceeding that has occurred was caused for the most part

by the complainant himself.  To the extent that certain error can be

seen in the court’s manner of proceeding, it was not of such a character

as to entail a violation of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental

rights or basic freedoms, in the matter under consideration the

violation, specifically cited by the complainant, of Art. 36 para. 1 or

Art. 38 para. 2 of the Charter, or Art. 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
 

Pursuant

to § 43 para. 2 lit. a) of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., as subsequently

amended, without holding an oral hearing and without the parties being

present, the Panel shall by preliminary ruling reject the petition, if

the petition is manifestly unfounded.

 

On

the basis of these facts, the Constitutional Court has, pursuant to §

43 para. 2 lit. a) of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., as subsequently amended,

rejected the constitutional complaint as a manifestly unfounded

petition, without holding an oral hearing and without the parties being

present

Notice:  Decisions of the Constitutional Court can not be appealed.

Brno, 23 June 2004