Lex Caecilia Didia a její odraz v judikatuře Ústavního soudu

Mgr. Radek Černoch, Ph.D.

Rigorózní práce

Caecilian Didian Law and its Reflection in Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic

Anotace:

Tato rigorózní práce se zabývá některými aspekty římského legislativního procesu které byly zakotveny lege Caecilia Didia de modo legum promulgandarum roku 98 př. n. l. Některé z těchto aspektů byly implicitně reflektovány ve vybraných rozhodnutích Ústavního soudu. Úvodní kapitoly se věnují problematice pramenů práva, přičemž důraz je kladen na období přijetí legis Caeciliae Didiae. Třetí kapitola se věnuje úpravě legislativního procesu s důrazem na leges rogatas, jichž je Lex Caecilia Didia představitelkou. Jsou zde rovněž rozebrány aspekty náboženské a problematika retroaktivity. Čtvrtá kapitola se věnuje legi Caeciliae Didiae samotné. Nejprve jsou rozebrány historické okolnosti jejího vzniku a její navrhovatelé (Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos st. a T. Didius ml.). Hlavní pozornost je pak věnována požadavkům legis Caeciliae Didiae na obsahovou souvislost ustanovení návrhu zákona (ne quid per saturam ferretur) a dodržení lhůty mezi vyhlášením návrhu a hlasováním o něm (trinum nundinum). Pátá kapitola se věnuje vybraným rozhodnutím Ústavního soudu s převážně "přílepkovou tematikou" (zejména Pl. ÚS 77/06, Pl. ÚS 24/07 a Pl. ÚS 55/10), přičemž jsou zdůrazňovány rysy a okolnosti podobné římskoprávní regulaci a legi Caeciliae Didiae. Šestá kapitola se věnuje využitelnosti římskoprávních poznatků v této oblasti pro legislativní proces v České republice. Zatímco o významu římského práva pro oblast práva soukromého není pochybováno, u práva veřejného bývá tato otázka považována za poněklud spornou. Závěry této práe však ukazují, že římskoprávní poznatky jsou v některých případech schopny účinně podpořit či vyvrátit argumentaci ve zmíněných rozhodnutích Ústavního soudu, q. e. d.

Abstract:

This rigorous thesis deals with some specific aspects of legislative procedure in ancient Rome that were enacted by the Lex Caecilia Didia de modo legum promulgandarum (Caecilian Didian Law on the mode how laws shall be proposed ) in 98 BC (hereinafter referred to as „lex Caecilia Didia“). Those aspects are implicitly reflected in some decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. Both legal and non-legal (literary) sources (especially Cicero) were used. The first chapter – Introduction opens the thesis with explanation of relationship between law in general and its sources as well as stresses the contrast in genesis between key sources of law – custom that arises spontaneously, whereas law arises as a result of a precise procedure. The second chapter – Sources of Law begins with theoretical classification of sources of law. This classification is followed by three subchapters concerning the sources of law in ancient Rome that are divided according to the periodisation of Roman state – the kingdom (till 510 BC), the republic (till the age of Octavian Augustus) and the empire (till the age of Justinian). The subchapter concerning the Roman empire is further divided into sections of the Principate (since the age of Octavian Augustus), the Dominate (since the age of Diocletian) and the Codification of Justinian. Emphasis is given to the description of different kinds of laws from the procedural point of view. The third chapter – Legislative Procedure is devoted to the description of enacting Roman laws, especially regarding so called leges rogatae (proposed laws). Among Roman laws, the leges rogatae are of highest importance and the procedure of their enacting is well attested – at least in comparison with quite mystic leges regiae (royal laws) or leges generales (imperial laws) that are issued rather according to the will of an emperor than as a result of a specified procedure. Leges rogatae are named according to the gentilic name(s) of their proposer(s) that is/are called rogator(es). Leges rogatae are also the most important ones for this thesis, because lex Caecilia Didia is a lex rogata. Religious aspects of Roman laws and the problems of retroactivity are examined as well in this chapter. The fourth chapter – Caecilian Didian Law is divided into four subchapters. The first one describes historical circumstances preceding the enactment of lex Caecilia Didia such as agrarian crises, conflict of the populares (L. Appuleius Saturninus, C. Marius, C. Julius Caesar) and the optimates (L. Cornelius Sulla, Cn. Pompeius, M. Licinius Crassus) and the wars against the Teutones and the Cimbri as well as against Numidian king Jugurtha. In the second subchapter there are characterised the rogatores of lex Caecilia Didia – Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (father) and T. Didius (son). Next two subchapters constitute the main body of the thesis because they analyse the two provisions of lex Caecilia Didia. The first forbids joining miscellaneous provisions into one law in formal sense (lex satura) as it stipulates ne quid per saturam ferretur (that the laws shall be proposed in such a way that one law in formal sense contains only one law in material sense). The other provides for the trinum nundinum (or trinundinum) to elapse between the promulgatio (proposing the bill) and suffragium (ballot). The dispute is whether the trinum nundinum means three Roman weeks (i. e. 24 days) as most researchers think or whether it means three market days and the period among them (i. e. 17 days). Some researchers are trying to find a different solution in order to reconcile both possibilities. The fifth chapter – Decisions of the Constitutional Court is another key part of the thesis as it analyses three decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (Ústavní soud) that in some way reflect the problems that were in ancient Rome regulated by lex Caecilia Didia. Decision file number Pl.ÚS 77/06 cancels a law

Abstract:

because it was containing miscellaneous provisions and its structure was so complicated that orientation in the law was excessively difficult cause it could by compared to Geheimgesetzgebung (i. e. „legislation by stealth“ or „concealed acts“). Decision file number Pl. ÚS 24/07 restricts the impact of Pl. ÚS 77/06 only to cases when miscellaneous provisions appeared in the law during the legislative procedure via modifying motion without accessorial relationship to the subject matter of the bill (i. e. via so called „wild riders“). Decision file number Pl. ÚS 55/10 deals with the period between proposing the bill or modifying motion and the ballot. The way of counting the time is also one of issues of the decisions. The period of time prescribed in the law of the Czech republic is very short (depending on situation it can be e. g. 24 hours or 5 days with possibility to reduce the time unlimitedly) cause in the case of Pl. ÚS 55/10 only 42 or even 7 minutes elapsed between the session was called and ballot began. This was one of the reasons why the Constitutional Court cancelled the law that was passed this way. Following some conclusions of the above-mentioned decisions, the rules of legislative procedure and submitting modifying motions were changed.

Klíčová slova

Cicero, Doba k prostudování návrhu, Obsahová souvislost, Pl. ÚS 24/07, Pl. ÚS 55/10, Pl. ÚS 77/06, Pozměňovací návrh, Prameny práva, Přílepek, Smíšený zákon, Utajené zákonodárství, Zákon Caeciliův Didiův, Zákonodárný proces. Appendix legis, Fontes iuris, Lex Caecilia Didia, Lex celata, Lex satura, Modus legum ferendarum, Mutatio rogationis, Ne quid per saturam ferretur, Trinum nundinum (trinundinum). Accessorial Relationship, Caecilian Didian Law, Concealed Acts (Legislation by Stealth), Legislative Procedure, Mixed Law, Modifying Motion, Period to Study a Bill, Sources of law, Wild riders.

Jazyk práce: čeština

Datum vytvoření / odevzdání či podání práce: 9. 1. 2013

Obhajoba závěrečné práce

• Obhajoba proběhla 21. 5. 2013
• Oponent: prof. JUDr. Michael Skřejpek, DrSc., doc. JUDr. Michaela Židlická, Dr.

Masarykova univerzita

Právnická fakulta

Rigorózní řízení / obor:
Právo a právní věda / Právo