![PDF ikona](fileadmin/Default_theme/Images/filetypes/pdf.png)
HEADNOTES
The
election judiciary is based on the principle of protecting a mandate,
and not every determined and proved violation of law necessarily leads
to such serious consequences as the non- establishment of an elected
representative body. Therefore, it is the obligation of an election
court to review to what extent the violation of the law had or could
have had an effect on the voting results, which must be understood not
as a mechanical addition of the votes cast in one election district, but
in relation to the purpose and aim of such voting, the decision to
elect particular candidates and determine the order of substitutes. The
“result” of voting in one election district, the number of votes cast,
has no value in and of itself, but only when it is taken into account in
determining the elected candidates (or determining the order of
substitutes).
However,
if an election court declares invalid voting or invalid elections on
the basis of a qualified, i.e. sufficiently intensive violation of law,
such a conclusion always necessarily means the non-election of a
representative body (§ 54 par. 1 let. a) of the Act on Elections to
Municipal Representative Bodies).
CZECH REPUBLIC
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
JUDGMENT
IN THE NAME OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC
A Panel of the Constitutional Court, composed of its Chairman František Duchoň and judges Ivana Janů and Jiří Nykodým, decided on 12 December 2006 in the matter of a constitutional complaint from the petitioner Ing. O. P., represented by JUDr. J. T., attorney, against a decision by the Regional Court in Brno of 10 November 2006, ref. no. 30 Ca 203/2006-13, with the participation of the Regional Court in Brno as a party to the proceeding, and the Brno City Hall, the Office of the City District Brno – Královo Pole and M. D., represented by Mgr. P. B., attorney, as secondary parties to the proceedings, as follows:
I.
The decision by the Regional Court in Brno of 11 November 2006, file
no. 30 Ca 203/2006, in the part concerning voting in election district
no. 113, city district Brno – Královo Pole, in elections to the Brno
representative body, violated the petitioner’s right guaranteed by Art.
21 par. 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
II.
The decision by the Regional Court in Brno of 11 November 2006, file
no. 30 Ca 203/2006, in the part concerning voting in elections to the
Brno representative body, which took place on 20-21 October 2006 in
election district no. 113 in the city district Brno – Královo Pole,
district Brno – City, is annulled.
III. The remainder of the constitutional complaint is denied.
REASONING
I.
1.
In his constitutional complaint, delivered to the Constitutional Court
on 27 November 2006, the petitioner contests the resolution of the
Regional Court in Brno (the “Regional Court”) of 10 November 2006, ref.
no. 30 Ca 203/2006-13 (the “resolution”), which decided that voting in
elections to the representative bodies in the city and city district
that took place 20-21 October 2006 in the district of Brno – City, city
district Brno – Královo Pole, election district no. 113, is invalid. The
petitioner proposed that the Constitutional Court annul the entire
resolution, or the parts concerning elections to the Brno representative
body.
II.
Recapitulation of Facts
2.
A decision of the president of 13 July 2006, no. 369/2006 Coll., called
elections on 20-21 October 2006 to the Senate of the Parliament of the
Czech Republic, to municipal representative bodies and to representative
bodies of city parts and city districts in statutory cities and to the
Prague City Council and representative bodies of Prague city districts,
under Art. 63 par. 1 let. f) and under Art. 17 par. 1 of the
Constitution of the Czech Republic and § 1 par. 3 of Act no. 247/1995
Coll., on Elections to the Parliament of the Czech Republic and Amending
and Supplementing Certain Other Acts, as amended by later regulations,
under § 3 par. 1 of Act no. 491/2001 Coll., on Elections to Municipal
Representative Bodies and Amending Certain Acts, as amended by later
regulations, and under § 123 of Act no. 131/2000 Coll., on the Capital
City of Prague, as amended by later regulations, and under § 3 par. 1 of
Act no. 491/2001 Coll., on Elections to Municipal Representative Bodies
and Amending Certain Acts, as amended by later regulations.
3.
In accordance with § 47 of Act no. 491/2001 Coll., on Elections to
Municipal Representative Bodies and Amending Certain Acts (the “Act on
Elections to Municipal Representative Bodies”), on 22 October 2006 the
registration office of the Brno City Hall posted election results on its
official bulletin board by publishing the record of results of
elections to the Brno representative body. Fifty-five members of the
representative body were elected in the elections. The members of the
Brno representative body acquired their mandates by election, i.e. by
the end of voting (§ 55 par. 1, § 39 par. 1 of the Act on Elections to
Municipal Representative Bodies). Under § 53 of the Act on Elections to
Municipal Representative Bodies, on 6-7 November 2006 the registration
office gave candidates confirmations of election. In accordance with the
law, the current mayor of Brno, PhDr. Richard Svoboda, called a
constituent assembly of the newly-elected council, which was held on 7
November 2006. There, all the elected representatives took their oath of
office, and the representative body then, among other things, elected
the mayor of Brno, his deputies, and other council members.
4.
On 30 October 2006 the Regional Court in Brno received a proposal from
Ms. M. D. (the secondary party) regarding “invalidity of voting and
invalidity of the elections.” After being called up to do so by the
Regional Court, the secondary party, in accordance with § 90 par. 1 of
the Administrative Court Procedure Code, amended her proposal and
proposed that the Regional Court rule that “voting in election district
no. 113 for the Statutory City of Brno, cidy district Brno – Královo
Pole, in elections to municipal representative bodies on 21 and 22
October 2006, is invalid.” On 10 November 2006 the Regional Court, in
the contested resolution, file no. 30 Ca 2003/2006, decided that “voting
in elections to the municipal representative body and city district
representative body that took place on 20 October - 21 October 2006 in
election district no. 113 in the city district Brno – Královo Pole,
district Brno – City, is invalid.”
5.
The essence of the petitioner’s arguments and the reasoning of the
contested resolution is the fact that 93 voters in election district no.
113 in the city district Brno – Královo Pole were given, at the polling
place, a voting envelope that did not have an official stamp. During
the subsequent counting of votes, those 93 votes were deemed invalid by
the district commission (§ 41 par. 2 let. d) of the Act on Elections to
Municipal Representative Bodies). The Regional Court in Brno, after
admitting as evidence the election documentation from election district
no. 113 in the city district Brno – Královo Pole, and on the basis of a
statement from the chairman of the district election commission, L. B.,
found that there was violation of § 31 par. 1 and § 33 par. 3 of the Act
on Elections to Municipal Representative Bodies. According to the
Regional Court, the violation of the cited statutory provisions
“undoubtedly” affected the voting results, as the votes of 93 voters out
of 363 were not counted. The Regional Court’s resolution went into
legal effect on 10 November 2006.
III.
The Content of the Constitutional Complaint
6.
The petitioner ran for election to the Brno representative body on the
candidate list of the Czech Social Democratic Party, was elected, and
was issued a confirmation of election on 6 November 2006.
7.
After recapitulation of the facts and the content of the contested
resolution, the constitutional complaint states that the Regional
Court’s resolution violated his fundamental rights enshrined in the
Constitution of the Czech Republic (the “Constitution”) and in the
Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”).
8.
The petitioner considers the Regional Court’s conclusions to be
incorrect. He concludes that the Act on Elections to Municipal
Representative Bodies requires, as a fundamental prerequisite for filing
a proposal to declare voting invalid, that the petitioner believe that
provisions of the Act were violated in a manner which could affect the
voting results (§ 60 par. 2 of the Act on Elections to Municipal
Representative Bodies). Thus, the court must determine the scope
(number) and intensity of violations of the law, and evaluate how
relevant the consequences of any illegality found to exist are to the
voting results. In other words, it must weigh to what extent that
violation actually affected or distorted the voting results.
9.
According to the petitioner, this basic criterion for intervention in
election matters by the judicial branch to be permissible is
consistently required to be met by the settled case law of all courts of
last resort, for all kinds of elections, i.e. communal elections,
elections to regional representative bodies (§ 53 par. 2 to 4 of Act no.
130/2000 Coll. on Elections to Representative Bodies of Regions and
Amending Certain Acts), to the Chamber of Deputies and to the Senate (§
87 par. 3 to 5 of Act no. 247/1995 Coll., on Elections to the Parliament
of the Czech Republic and Amending and Supplementing Certain Other
Acts), and to the European Parliament (§ 57 par. 2 of Act no. 62/2003
Coll., on Elections to the European Parliament and Amending Certain
Acts). The petitioner also refers in detail to a number of
Constitutional Court judgments that already formulated the basic
principles for judicial review of elections.
10.
According to the petitioner, the Regional Court did not base the
contested resolution on these viewpoints at all; it stated, purely on
the basis of the record of the conduct and results of voting in election
district no. 113, the secondary party’s claim and the statement from
the district election commission, that 93 voters out of 363, i.e. 25.6 %
of the voters who received envelopes from the commission in that
election district, did not receive an official envelope, and their votes
were therefore not valid. By not respecting the duty to thoroughly
review the fulfillment of statutory elements, the Regional Court is
alleged to have erred to such a degree that the error can be described
as intensive violation of the relevant constitutionally enshrined right.
11.
The petitioner considers results of voting to the Brno representative
body to be the results of voting for individual candidate lists and
candidates determined by the procedure under § 45 of the Act, i.e. the
results determined after adding the votes from all election districts.
These data are then provided in the record of results of elections to
the municipal representative body under § 46 par. 2 of the Act, i.e.
data on the total number of voters who were given official envelopes
(let. d), on the number of official envelopes handed in (let. e), on the
total number of valid votes cast for each party (let. f) and on the
number of valid votes cast for individual candidates (let. g). From
these data, not only from data on voting in a single election district,
the candidates elected to the representative body can be determined
(let. h). The petitioner also states that the invalid votes of 93 voters
in one election district must be compared with the total number of
voters in all election districts who were given official envelopes for
elections to the Brno representative body, and likewise with the total
number of valid votes cast for each party and for individual candidates.
This comparison indicates that the number of invalid votes resulting
from violation of the law in election district no. 113 is a mere 0.0719%
of the total number of voters who were given official envelopes and
only 0.0722% of the number of official envelopes handed in. Thus,
according to the petitioner, under no circumstances can one conclude
that the overall results of voting to the Brno representative body could
have been affected.
12.
Thus, the petitioner does not agree with the Regional Court’s statement
that the Act on Elections was violated “in a manner which undoubtedly
affected the results of voting,” and points to the text of § 54 par. 1
let. a) and § 60 of the Act on Elections to Municipal Representative
Bodies. He concludes that a formalistic interpretation of these
provisions could lead to extreme conclusions. However, in a democratic
state governed by the rule of law it is surely not possible to interpret
a statute in such an absurd manner, permitting, in essence, any
elections to be easily obstructed.
13.
The Ministry of the Interior and a court must follow constitutional
instructions, i.e. the interpretation of legal norms can not remove or
endanger the foundations of the democratic state (Art. 9 par. 3 of the
Constitution), and the statutory framework for political rights, and the
way it is interpreted and applied, must protect the free competition of
political forces in a democratic society (Art. 22 of the Charter).
14.
According to the petitioner, in its resolution the Regional Court said
nothing about the existence or non-existence of the representative body
(the mandates of the representative), or did not question that the
representatives elected in elections to the Brno representative body
acquired their mandates by election under § 55 par. 1 of the Act on
Elections to Municipal Representative Bodies. The court’s resolution
thus creates a situation of legal uncertainty. In the petitioner’s
opinion, the Regional Court committed the same procedural error when it
recognized only the district election commission as a party (defendant).
Under § 90 par. 2 of Act no. 150/2002 Coll., The Administrative Court
Procedure Code, as amended by later regulations, the parties to
proceedings on a petition to declare elections invalid, declare voting
invalid, or declare the election of a particular candidate invalid,
always include, in addition to the petitioner, the election body in
question and the person whose election to office is being contested. The
petitioner considers those parties to be the Office of the city
district Brno – Královo Pole (for elections to the representative body
of the city district) and the Brno city hall (for elections to the Brno
representative body).
15. As
regards the requirements for his active standing, the petitioner states
that his election was not expressly contested by the proposal submitted
to the Regional Court, but the Regional Court, by concluding that the
violation of the law undoubtedly affected the resulting numbers of votes
for individual candidates, admitted, without anything further, that
declaring the voting invalid, and the consequent repeat voting, can
affect whether the petitioner actually remains in office. Nevertheless,
the Regional Court did not consider the petitioner to be a party to the
proceedings.
16. In this
case, the petitioner considers particularly relevant the will of the
simple majority of voters who cast their valid votes for the candidate
lists of the political parties, or for individual candidates, in the
elections to the Brno representative body on 20 and 21 October 2006, and
thus decided its composition, decided to elect the basic representative
body of local self-government, for a four-year term (Art. 102 par. 2 of
the Constitution). As citizens, the elected candidates –
representatives – have a right to equal conditions for access to elected
and other public offices (Art. 21 par. 4 of the Charter), or the right
to uninterrupted exercise of office during the specified time period
which arises from that right (see judgment file no. Pl. US 30/95). The
representatives freely elected to represent the citizens of their
municipality thereby also exercise their right to take part in the
administration of public affairs. (Art. 21 par. 1 of the Charter).
17.
In conclusion, the petitioner summarizes that a court may intervene in
the election process only under conditions provided by law, while
respecting constitutional safeguards. Therefore, a decision whereby a
general court finds justified a petition to declare voting invalid can
be taken only if the result connected with the decision, i.e. the
non-election of a representative body (§ 54 par. 1 of the Act) can be
justified in light of preserving the will of the majority of voters,
which was expressed in a manner free of legal defects. Otherwise, the
court decision is not only unlawful, but, above all, inconsistent with
the constitutionally enshrined principles of a democratic, law-based
state and with fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed rights.
18.
The petitioner refers to a number of provisions of the Constitution and
the Charter, which he considers relevant to review of the
constitutionality of the contested decision:
Article 2 par. 2 of the Charter reads:
State authority may be asserted only in cases and within the bounds provided for by law and only in the manner prescribed by law.
State authority may be asserted only in cases and within the bounds provided for by law and only in the manner prescribed by law.
Article 21 of the Charter reads:
(1) Citizens have the right to participate in the administration of public affairs either directly or through the free election of their representatives.
(2) Elections must be held within terms not exceeding the regular electoral terms provided for by law.
(3) The right to vote is universal and equal, and shall be exercised by secret ballot. The conditions for exercising the right to vote shall be provided for by law.
(4) Citizens shall have access, on an equal basis, to any elective and other public office.
(1) Citizens have the right to participate in the administration of public affairs either directly or through the free election of their representatives.
(2) Elections must be held within terms not exceeding the regular electoral terms provided for by law.
(3) The right to vote is universal and equal, and shall be exercised by secret ballot. The conditions for exercising the right to vote shall be provided for by law.
(4) Citizens shall have access, on an equal basis, to any elective and other public office.
Article 22 of the Charter reads:
Any
statutory provisions relating to political rights and freedoms, as well
as the interpretation and application of them, shall make possible and
protect the free competition among political forces in a democratic
society.
Article 2 par. 3 of the Constitution reads:
State authority is to serve all citizens and may be asserted only in cases, within the bounds, and in the manner provided for by law.
State authority is to serve all citizens and may be asserted only in cases, within the bounds, and in the manner provided for by law.
Article 9 par. 3 of the Constitution reads:
Legal norms may not be interpreted so as to authorize anyone to do away with or jeopardize the democratic foundations of the state.
Legal norms may not be interpreted so as to authorize anyone to do away with or jeopardize the democratic foundations of the state.
Article 102 of the Constitution reads:
(1) Members of representative bodies shall be elected by secret ballot on the basis of a universal, equal, and direct right to vote.
(2) Representative bodies shall have a four-year electoral term. The circumstances under which new elections for representative bodies shall be called prior to the expiration of an electoral term shall be designated by statute.
(1) Members of representative bodies shall be elected by secret ballot on the basis of a universal, equal, and direct right to vote.
(2) Representative bodies shall have a four-year electoral term. The circumstances under which new elections for representative bodies shall be called prior to the expiration of an electoral term shall be designated by statute.
19.
Given the interest in rapidly removing doubts about the validity of
individual acts by public authorities in Brno, the petitioner proposed
priority treatment of the matter under § 39 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll.,
on the Constitutional Court, as amended by later regulations (the “the
Act on the Constitutional Court”).
IV.
Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
20.
The constitutional complaint was delivered on 27 November 2006. On 4
December 2006, the Constitutional Court requested from the Regional
Court in Brno file no. 30 Ca 203/2006, to which election documentation
from election district no. 113 in the city district Brno – Královo Pole
was attached, and also asked the Regional Court for a response to the
constitutional complaint. On 6 December 2006 the secondary parties to
the proceeding were also asked for responses to the constitutional
complaint.
21. In its
response to the constitutional complaint, the Regional Court in Brno, as
a party to this proceeding, stated that the Act on Elections to
Municipal Representative Bodies connects the conduct and results of
voting with voting in an election district, and the results of voting is
not the same thing as the results of elections. Insofar as a proposal
to declare voting invalid was filed in this matter, and the Regional
Court was bound by this proposal, the issue for review was whether the
law was violated in a manner that could affect the results of voting in
the election district, which had been questioned by the proposal.
22.
In contrast, according to the Regional Court, the issue for review was
not the determination and evaluation of violation of the law in a manner
that could affect the results of the elections, because this was not a
proposal under § 60 par. 3 of the Act on Elections to Municipal
Representative Bodies. According to the Regional Court, it follows from
this that the issue for review by the court was not the question of
whether the proposal to declare voting invalid would lead to a result
under § 54 par. 1 of the Act on Elections to Municipal Representative
Bodies (failure to elect a representative body). The evidence showed
that, as a result of violation of § 33 par. 3 of the Act on Elections to
Municipal Representative Bodies “the votes of 25.6% of voters who took
part in the elections were invalidated.” In the Regional Court’s
opinion, § 60 par. 2 of the Act on Elections to Municipal Representative
Bodies protects “the value of voting in an election district, as a
prerequisite for the real and true result of that voting.”
23.
In its written response to the constitutional complaint, the secondary
party, the Office of the city district Brno – Královo Pole,
recapitulates the tasks that it fulfills as the election authority in
organizing and ensuring the conduct of elections. Because it believes
this matter concerns evaluation of the gravity of violation of the law
during voting, it defers to the authority of the district election
commission.
24. The
secondary party, the Brno City Hall, responded briefly to the
constitutional complaint to the effect that it “confirms the facts
stated in the constitutional complaint.” It enclosed with its response a
notarized copy of the report from the Czech Statistical Office, from
which it concludes that the 93 invalid envelopes in election district
no. 113 could not have affected the results of elections to the Brno
representative body.
25. The
secondary party to the proceeding, M. D., through her representative,
responded to the petition in writing to the effect that she agreed with
the constitutional complaint in the part that concludes that the
election defects are relative. At the same time, the secondary part
agrees with the conclusions of the Regional Court in Brno that if
one-fourth of votes in the relevant election district was invalid for
obvious reasons, there is a substantial violation of law as regards the
elections to the representative body of the city district Brno – Královo
Pole. As regards the elections to the representative body of the city
of Brno, she acknowledges that the contested resolution lacks in-depth
arguments. However, she emphasizes the substantial error by the election
body, which caused the violation of the constitutionally guaranteed
right to vote. The secondary party also objects that the relevant court
can not be expected to examine the ballot papers that were deemed
invalid more closely. In her opinion it is important that the invalidity
of a vote caused by an error by the election authority is of a
completely different nature than invalidity of a vote for other reasons.
In conclusion, the secondary party emphasizes that she was led to
submit the proposal to declare elections valid in an effort to point out
the violation of the law and an effort to prevent any manipulation with
the voting results by the district election commission. She is also
dissatisfied with the extreme media attention paid to the matter and the
possible results of the contested decision, which she was not fully
aware of at the time she filed the proposal.
26.
The petitioner made use of the opportunity to submit a written answer
to the response of the Regional Court. In particular, he disputed the
opinion of the Regional Court in Brno that the prior proceeding reviewed
only “the value of voting in the election district.” On the contrary,
the petitioner believes that the “voting results” under § 60 par. 3 of
the Act on Elections to Municipal Representative Bodies, must always be
considered to be the overall results of voting to the elected body under
§ 46 par. 2 let. d) to g) of the Act on Elections to Municipal
Representative Bodies. The voting results in an election district have
no value in and of themselves, but only in context with the voting
results in other districts. The petitioner also points to § 54 par. 1 of
the Act on Elections to Municipal Representative Bodies, where the
proposal to declare voting invalid and the proposal to declare elections
invalid were presented as alternatives. He similarly disputes the
Regional Court’s other claims regarding the steps followed when
inspecting voting, and closes by stating that the Regional Court insists
on formal application of the law without addressing the petitioner’s
objections.
27. The
Constitutional Court decided to grant the petitioner’s proposal to
proceed under § 39 of the Act on the Constitutional Court and reviewed
the constitutional complaint as a priority matter on the most expedited
basis.
28. On the basis of a
summons to a hearing, which was delivered to the parties and secondary
parties to the proceeding on 6 December 2006, the Regional Court in
Brno, the Brno City Hall, and the Office of the city district Brno –
Královo Pole sent written responses excusing themselves from the
hearing.
29. In the hearing
ordered for 12 December 2006 the parties did not present any new
proposals to submit evidence, and referred to their written position
statements.
V.
Presentation of Evidence before the Constitutional Court
30. The Constitutional Court’s file includes documentary evidence attached to the constitutional complaint. Th is primarily:
- The record of the results of elections to the representative body of Brno, district Brno - City, held on 20 and 21 October 2006. This is marked “Posted on: 22 October 2006, taken down on: 7 November 2006.” It contains the first and last names of the elected members of the representative body and the first and last names of the substitutes and their order.
- Certification of election as a member of the representative body of Brno issued on 6 November 2006 by the Brno City Hall to Ing. O. P., born 14 June 1970, permanent address Pod Hájkem 2, Brno.
- The record of the constituent assembly of the Representative Body of Brno held on 7 November 2006.
- The record of the results of elections to the representative body of Brno, district Brno - City, held on 20 and 21 October 2006. This is marked “Posted on: 22 October 2006, taken down on: 7 November 2006.” It contains the first and last names of the elected members of the representative body and the first and last names of the substitutes and their order.
- Certification of election as a member of the representative body of Brno issued on 6 November 2006 by the Brno City Hall to Ing. O. P., born 14 June 1970, permanent address Pod Hájkem 2, Brno.
- The record of the constituent assembly of the Representative Body of Brno held on 7 November 2006.
31.
The Constitutional Court also admitted as evidence the file of the
Regional Court in Brno, file no. 30 Ca 203/2006, which includes the
following documentary evidence:
- “Proposal to declare invalid voting and invalid elections,” dated 30 October 2006, delivered to the Regional Court on 31 October 2006, signed by the secondary party M. D.
- The summons from the Regional Court to the secondary party of 1 November 2006 to identify a party to the proceeding and state what the secondary party seeks.
- “Supplement to the Proposal for Court Review in Accordance with the Court Summons,” dated 3 November 2006, delivered by the applicant to the Regional Court on 6 November 2006, with the proposal: “Voting in election district no. 113 for the Statutory City of Brno, city district Brno – Královo Pole for elections to the representative bodies of the municipalities on 21 and 22 October 2006 is invalid.”
- The report from the chairman of election commission no. 113 in the city district Brno – Královo Pole, Mr. Ladislav Bobčík, of 9 November 2006.
- Regional Court in Brno Resolution of 10 November 2006, file no. 30 Ca 203/2006.
- “Proposal to declare invalid voting and invalid elections,” dated 30 October 2006, delivered to the Regional Court on 31 October 2006, signed by the secondary party M. D.
- The summons from the Regional Court to the secondary party of 1 November 2006 to identify a party to the proceeding and state what the secondary party seeks.
- “Supplement to the Proposal for Court Review in Accordance with the Court Summons,” dated 3 November 2006, delivered by the applicant to the Regional Court on 6 November 2006, with the proposal: “Voting in election district no. 113 for the Statutory City of Brno, city district Brno – Královo Pole for elections to the representative bodies of the municipalities on 21 and 22 October 2006 is invalid.”
- The report from the chairman of election commission no. 113 in the city district Brno – Královo Pole, Mr. Ladislav Bobčík, of 9 November 2006.
- Regional Court in Brno Resolution of 10 November 2006, file no. 30 Ca 203/2006.
32.
The Constitutional Court also admitted as evidence election
documentation from election district no. 113 in the city district Brno –
Královo Pole. That includes, among other things, a transcript of the
voting results in election district no. 113, a record of the conduct and
results of voting in election district no. 113, and an extract from the
voter lists for election district 113. The election documentation from
district no. 113 also includes a sheaf of counted valid ballot papers
for elections of the representative body of the city district Brno –
Královo Pole, a sheaf of counted valid ballot papers for elections to
the representative body of Brno, a sheaf of used envelopes with an
official stamp, a sheaf of 93 used envelopes without an official stamp,
with ballot papers enclosed, and the supporting counting materials.
33.
From the 93 envelopes without an official stamp, which therefore
contained votes marked as invalid, the Constitutional Court determined
the following data:
A) Number of votes also invalid for other reasons 4
B) Number of votes for entire political parties
1 Folklore and Society 0
2 Moravians 0
3 Together for Brno 0
4 Czech Social Democratic Party 17
5 Democratic Socialist Party 0
6 Equal Opportunity Party 0
7 National Unity 1
8 Czech Crown (the Monarchist Party of the Czech Lands, Moravia and Silesa) 0
9 Civic Democratic Party 31
10 Czech National Socialist Party 0
11 Communist Party of the Czech Lands and Moravia 5
12 Green Party 9
13 Christian and Democratic Union – Czechoslovak People’s Party 3
14 Brno 2006 – Team of Jiří Zlatuška 8
15 Conservative Party 0
16 Independent Democrats (chairman V. Železný) 0
B) Number of votes for entire political parties
1 Folklore and Society 0
2 Moravians 0
3 Together for Brno 0
4 Czech Social Democratic Party 17
5 Democratic Socialist Party 0
6 Equal Opportunity Party 0
7 National Unity 1
8 Czech Crown (the Monarchist Party of the Czech Lands, Moravia and Silesa) 0
9 Civic Democratic Party 31
10 Czech National Socialist Party 0
11 Communist Party of the Czech Lands and Moravia 5
12 Green Party 9
13 Christian and Democratic Union – Czechoslovak People’s Party 3
14 Brno 2006 – Team of Jiří Zlatuška 8
15 Conservative Party 0
16 Independent Democrats (chairman V. Železný) 0
C) Number of votes for individual candidates (without adding the votes listed under B)
Candidate Order Candidate
list no. Last name, first name Titles
1 Folklore and Society 1 Privarčák Jan Ing. 1
1 Folklore and Society 2 Dzurja Vladimír Ing. 1
1 Folklore and Society 3 Lejsek Miroslav Dr. Bc 1
1 Folklore and Society 8 Káňa Lubomír Ing 1
1 Folklore and Society 10 Černý Vladimír Ing. 1
1 Folklore and Society 15 Šimšová Hana Ing. 1
1 Folklore and Society 22 Nápravník Stanislav Ing. 1
2 Moravians 2 Bičan Petr 1
2 Moravians 4 Hála Pavel MUDr. 1
2 Moravians 7 Konečný Ladislav Ing. 1
2 Moravians 19 Keprt Robert Mgr. 1
2 Moravians 20 Kulčák Ludvík prof. Ing. 1
2 Moravians 21 Korvas František PhDr. 1
2 Moravians 24 Matonoha Pavel doc. MUDr. CSc. 2
2 Moravians 26 Novotný Vladimír 1
2 Moravians 36 Peprníková Dana1 1
2 Moravians 39 Černocký Marek Ing. 1
3 Together for Brno 4 Kolář Miroslav Ing. 1
3 Together for Brno 6 Havlík Jan 1
3 Together for Brno 8 Žáková Leona Mgr. 2
3 Together for Brno 10 Kocmánek Jan Ing. 1
3 Together for Brno 13 Hodická Kateřina Mgr. et Mgr. 1
3 Together for Brno 21 Audy Marcel Mgr. 1
3 Together for Brno 28 Netušil David Mgr. 1
3 Together for Brno 31 Havelka Leo MUDr. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 1 Onderka Roman 4
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 2 Žďárský Vlastimil MVDr. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 3 Oliva Jiří JUDr. 3
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 4 Macek Ladislav 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 5 Novotný Jiří 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 6 Humpolíček Miloslav Bc. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 7 Dušová Naděžda 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 8 Pospíšil Oliver Ing. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 9 Tůmová Zdeňka Mgr. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 10 Burda Josef Ing. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 11 Sázavský Pavel 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 12 Haluza Josef Mgr. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 13 Jakubec Aleš 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 14 Kinzel Ivan 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 15 Brouček Zdeněk Ing. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 16 Kačírková Petra PhDr. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 17 Vrána Martin 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 18 Schmid Radim Mgr. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 19 Lefner Jiří Ing. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 20 Slepička Tomáš 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 21 Kohout Milan Ing. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 22 Wildmannová Mirka Ing. Ph.D. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 23 Pešová Marie PaedDr. CSc. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 24 Kojecký Radovan Ing. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 25 Mašek Ivan doc. Ing. CSc. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 26 Sláma Zdeněk 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 27 Fertigová Ivona 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 28 Čermák Martin Mgr. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 29 Buchtela Jiří 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 30 Sklenák Roman Mgr. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 31 Zdubová Marie 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 32 Šafařík Petr 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 33 Greňo Pavel 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 34 Novotný Jaromír Mgr. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 35 Šrůtek Jan Ing. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 36 Komárková Dalila JUDr. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 37 Kouřilová Jarmila 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 38 Pospíchal Lubor 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 39 Souralová Marie 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 40 Pospíšil Karel Mgr. Bc. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 41 Laška Vlastimil 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 42 Haklová Iveta 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 43 Adamec Petr 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 44 Toman Bedřich 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 45 Lepka Karel RNDr. Ph.D. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 46 Stoklásek Václav 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 47 Vaníček Hugo Ing. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 48 Kolajová Božena 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 49 Imrišová Ivana Ing. 3
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 50 Semrád Petr Bc. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 51 Ambrož Robin 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 52 Hrstková Olga Bc. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 53 Šalplachtová Martina 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 54 Kloc Antonín 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 1 Hledík Karel 4
9 Civic Democratic Party 2 Blažek Pavel JUDr. Ph.D. 3
9 Civic Democratic Party 3 Hošek Miroslav Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 4 Janištin Jiří Mgr. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 5 Venclík Leo Ing. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 6 Kerndl Robert JUDr. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 7 Prchal Martin Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 8 Michalík Stanislav Ing. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 9 Kvapil Aleš Mgr. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 10 Pelán René 5
9 Civic Democratic Party 11 Chládek Michal Bc. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 12 Vavrouch Radomír 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 13 Vaňková Markéta JUDr. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 14 Bohuňovská Jana 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 15 Paulczyňski Petr Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 16 Jankůj Pavel Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 17 Šťástka Libor Mgr. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 18 Hladík Jiří Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 19 Fabiánek Roman PaedDr. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 20 Kala Oldřich Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 21 Hos Jiří 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 22 Pohanková Šárka Mgr. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 23 Mokrý Zdeněk Mgr. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 24 Vašina Roman Ing. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 25 Zorník Jiří 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 26 Svoboda Ivan Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 27 Kočí Jan 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 28 Krásný Vladan 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 29 Vižďa František doc. RNDr. Ph.D. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 30 Zemanová Jana Mgr. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 31 Charvát Jiří Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 32 Malinová Michaela Mgr. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 33 Harnach Gustav 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 34 Paděrová Marie Bc. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 35 Šik Evžen 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 36 Pazderová Andrea Ing. 3
9 Civic Democratic Party 37 Fousová Ludmila 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 38 Černý Roman Bc. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 39 Filípek František 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 40 Karásek Jan Ing. 3
9 Civic Democratic Party 41 Kupčíková Milana Mgr. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 42 Dočekal Petr Ing. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 43 Chalupa Lubomír Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 44 Jursa Miroslav Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 45 Machala Tomáš 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 46 Dostál Radoslav JUDr. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 47 Žemlička Petr 1
10 Czech National Socialist Party 10 Kropáček Jiří 1
10 Czech National Socialist Party 20 Endlicher Martin 1
10 Czech National Socialist Party 25 Concepcion Santos Veronika 1
10 Czech National Socialist Party 27 Kučera Ondřej 1
10 Czech National Socialist Party 39 Musilová Irena 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 1 Březa Pavel Ing. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 2 Sýkorová Helena JUDr. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 4 Borecký Daniel RNDr. CSc. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 7 Klein Vítězslav Ing. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 8 Dávid Tibor 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 9 Blahutová Hana Ing. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 19 Pazdera David 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 20 Franek Aleš PhDr. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 21 Tomsa Vladimír 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 22 Kopřiva Zdeněk Ing. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 23 Škultéty Alexander Ing. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 29 Horáková Kateřina 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 31 Votroubková Zuzana 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 33 Všetečka Petr JUDr. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 34 Stavjařová Gabriela 2
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 36 Matyáš Zdeněk Ing. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 45 Morávek Přemysl 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 49 Dvořák Karel PhDr. 1
12 Green Party 1 Drápalová Jana Ing. 5
12 Green Party 2 Ander Martin Mgr. Ph.D. 3
12 Green Party 3 Dubská Kateřina PhDr. 2
12 Green Party 4 Vlašín Mojmír RNDr. 4
12 Green Party 5 Flamiková Jasna Mgr. 2
12 Green Party 6 Bartůšek David Ing. 3
12 Green Party 7 Slavíková Eva Mgr. 1
12 Green Party 8 Hollan Jan RNDr. 2
12 Green Party 9 Jelínková Věra MUDr. 1
12 Green Party 10 Rokos Miroslav RNDr. 1
12 Green Party 11 Pálková Jana 2
12 Green Party 12 Marša Igor Ing. 1
12 Green Party 13 Matoušková Petra Ing. arch. 3
12 Green Party 14 Svitavský Marek 1
12 Green Party 15 Galle Zuzana Ing. 1
12 Green Party 16 Klíč Miroslav RNDr. 1
12 Green Party 17 Pavoničová Marie RNDr. 1
12 Green Party 18 Pospíšil Lubomil doc.RNDr.CSc. 2
12 Green Party 19 Fajnorová Ivana 1
12 Green Party 20 Havlín Miloslav 1
12 Green Party 21 Gaillyová Yvonna RNDr. 2
12 Green Party 22 Ondřík Ivan Bc. 1
12 Green Party 23 Blatná Milada Bc. 2
12 Green Party 24 Vašíček Jiří 1
12 Green Party 25 Pellantová Jitka RNDr. 2
12 Green Party 26 Chrastil Sylvestr doc.Mgr.Dr. 1
12 Green Party 27 Matějíčková Jarmila 1
12 Green Party 28 Jiaxis Anastásios 1
12 Green Party 29 Herbrychová Andrea Mgr. 2
12 Green Party 30 Otruba Ivar Prof. Ing. 1
12 Green Party 31 Fialová Hladíková Hana 1
12 Green Party 32 Buček Antonín doc. Ing. CSc. 1
12 Green Party 33 Matějková Jiřin Mgr. 1
12 Green Party 34 Máchal Aleš 1
12 Green Party 35 Holcnerová Hana 1
12 Green Party 36 Dvořák Vilém 1
12 Green Party 37 Scavino Barbara 1
12 Green Party 38 Patrik Miroslav RNDr. 1
12 Green Party 39 Bártová Stanislava1 1
12 Green Party 40 Libus Jan 1
12 Green Party 41 Zabloudilová Věra 1
12 Green Party 42 Zlámal Aleš RNDr. 2
12 Green Party 43 Kubová Dana 1
12 Green Party 44 Švamberk Jaroslav JUDr. Ing. 1
12 Green Party 45 Stávková Kateřina 1
12 Green Party 46 Veselý David Ing. 1
12 Green Party 47 Slámová Galina Mgr. 1
12 Green Party 48 Baltus Jan 1
12 Green Party 49 Ceklová Marta 1
12 Green Party 50 Robeš Martin 1
12 Green Party 52 Pazdírek Jan PhDr. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 1 Javorová Barbora RNDr. 4
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 2 Rychnovský Daniel MUDr. 4
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 3 Holík Jan Ing. 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 4 Suchý Jaroslav Mgr. 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 5 Beran Vít Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 6 Veselý Josef Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 7 Macek David Mgr. MA 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 8 Crha Antonín 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 9 Stehlíková Marie 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 10 Hořava Pavel Bc. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 11 Mihola Jiří Mgr. 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 12 Hruška Petr PhDr. MBA 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 13 Dvořák Miroslav Ing. CSc. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 14 Břicháček Vlastimil 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 15 Vích Zdeněk Ing. CSc. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 16 Kőnig Jan 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 17 Kratochvil Karel 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 18 Janko Petr Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 19 Sládková Elena Ing. arch. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 20 Dobeš Augustin 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 21 Navrátil Jiří Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 22 Svobodová Kateřina 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 23 Nekuda Rostislav PhDr. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 24 Doležalová Monika Mgr. 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 25 Slavík Jiří Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 26 Hladký Petr 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 27 Ševčík Jan Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 28 Šťasta Petr 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 29 Prchal Jiří 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 30 Kolář Petr Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 31 Kuklínek Jiří Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 32 Kobza Vít 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 33 Gardáš Oldřich 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 34 Ryšavý Šimon 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 35 Válek Vlastimil Prof.MUDr.CSc. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 36 Stehlíková Marie Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 37 Kyselák Martin Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 38 Weinberger Vojtěch MUDr. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 39 Vašková Pavla 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 40 Dvořáček Jiří Mgr. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 41 Sadecký Jan Ing. MBA 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 42 Suchý Jaroslav 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 43 Hrabě František Prof.Ing. CSc. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 44 Liptáková Klára Ing. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 45 Grublová Milana MUDr. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 46 Bořecký Josef 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 47 Dumbrovská Michaela JUDr. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 48 Kostelka Božetěch 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 49 Doležal Petr Ing. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 50 Caha Jan Mgr. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 51 Koláčný Ivan RNDr. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 52 Hošek Ivo Ing. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 53 Sedláčková Ludmila 1
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 1 Zlatuška Jiří prof. RNDr. CSc. 6
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 2 Belcredi Jiřina PhDr. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 3 Spousta Jiří doc. RNDr. Ph.D 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 4 Hamerský Milan Mgr. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 5 Zogatová Lenka 4
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 6 Vaněk Jiří PhDr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 7 Grepl Jan Ing. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 8 Buchta Jaroslav Ing. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 9 Němec Jiří doc. PhDr. Ph.D. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 10 Honzík Jan M. prof. Ing. CSc. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 11 Dub Petr prof. RNDr.CSc. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 12 Brázdová Zuzana prof.MUDr.DrSc. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 13 Kolář Jozef doc. RNDr. CSc. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 14 Nemkyová Radmila Mgr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 15 Ventruba Pavel prof.MUDr.DrSc. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 16 Ján Martin Mgr. 4
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 17 Mizerová Alena PhDr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 18 Schmidt Eduard prof.RNDr.CSc. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 19 Pištěláková Zdenka MUDr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 20 Sekot Aleš Doc. Dr. CSc. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 21 Putnová Jana 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 22 Simeonov Simeon doc. Ing. CSc. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 23 Šaléová Vendula Mgr. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 24 Potůček Milan 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 25 Štarha Jiří MUDr. Ph.D. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 26 Belzová Jana Mgr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 27 Fux Karel 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 28 Varmužová Hana Mgr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 29 Rosecký Čeněk Mgr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 30 Jančářová Drahomíra MUDr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 31 Švejda Miroslav 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 32 Václavíčková Michaela MUDr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 33 Jelínek Ota Mgr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 34 Sochorová Věra MUDr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 35 Honek Milan Ing. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 36 Jelínková Šárka 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 37 Klement Miloš Ing. arch. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 38 Jákl Petr Ing. Ph.D. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 39 Líbalová Iveta 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 40 Kosec Miroslav Ing. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 41 Turečková Lenka Mgr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 42 Nevím Vladimír 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 43 Němečková Jana 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 44 Divácký Roman 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 45 Svobodová Lenka Ing. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 46 Tihelková Monika 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 47 Janíčková Blanka 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 48 Rous Roman Ing. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 49 Drápelová Zuzana Bc. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 50 Pekárek Radim Mgr. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 51 Zapletal Tomáš 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 52 Valošek Petr 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 53 Zajíček Roman 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 54 Póč Zdeněk 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 55 Klusáček Dalibor Mgr. 1
16 INDEP. DEM. S (chair.V.Železný) 2 Rettegy Radoš 1
16 INDEP. DEM. S (chair.V.Železný) 3 Unzeitig Vít doc. MUDr. CSc. 1
The other candidates did not receive any votes.
Candidate Order Candidate
list no. Last name, first name Titles
1 Folklore and Society 1 Privarčák Jan Ing. 1
1 Folklore and Society 2 Dzurja Vladimír Ing. 1
1 Folklore and Society 3 Lejsek Miroslav Dr. Bc 1
1 Folklore and Society 8 Káňa Lubomír Ing 1
1 Folklore and Society 10 Černý Vladimír Ing. 1
1 Folklore and Society 15 Šimšová Hana Ing. 1
1 Folklore and Society 22 Nápravník Stanislav Ing. 1
2 Moravians 2 Bičan Petr 1
2 Moravians 4 Hála Pavel MUDr. 1
2 Moravians 7 Konečný Ladislav Ing. 1
2 Moravians 19 Keprt Robert Mgr. 1
2 Moravians 20 Kulčák Ludvík prof. Ing. 1
2 Moravians 21 Korvas František PhDr. 1
2 Moravians 24 Matonoha Pavel doc. MUDr. CSc. 2
2 Moravians 26 Novotný Vladimír 1
2 Moravians 36 Peprníková Dana1 1
2 Moravians 39 Černocký Marek Ing. 1
3 Together for Brno 4 Kolář Miroslav Ing. 1
3 Together for Brno 6 Havlík Jan 1
3 Together for Brno 8 Žáková Leona Mgr. 2
3 Together for Brno 10 Kocmánek Jan Ing. 1
3 Together for Brno 13 Hodická Kateřina Mgr. et Mgr. 1
3 Together for Brno 21 Audy Marcel Mgr. 1
3 Together for Brno 28 Netušil David Mgr. 1
3 Together for Brno 31 Havelka Leo MUDr. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 1 Onderka Roman 4
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 2 Žďárský Vlastimil MVDr. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 3 Oliva Jiří JUDr. 3
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 4 Macek Ladislav 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 5 Novotný Jiří 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 6 Humpolíček Miloslav Bc. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 7 Dušová Naděžda 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 8 Pospíšil Oliver Ing. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 9 Tůmová Zdeňka Mgr. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 10 Burda Josef Ing. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 11 Sázavský Pavel 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 12 Haluza Josef Mgr. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 13 Jakubec Aleš 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 14 Kinzel Ivan 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 15 Brouček Zdeněk Ing. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 16 Kačírková Petra PhDr. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 17 Vrána Martin 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 18 Schmid Radim Mgr. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 19 Lefner Jiří Ing. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 20 Slepička Tomáš 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 21 Kohout Milan Ing. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 22 Wildmannová Mirka Ing. Ph.D. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 23 Pešová Marie PaedDr. CSc. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 24 Kojecký Radovan Ing. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 25 Mašek Ivan doc. Ing. CSc. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 26 Sláma Zdeněk 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 27 Fertigová Ivona 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 28 Čermák Martin Mgr. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 29 Buchtela Jiří 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 30 Sklenák Roman Mgr. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 31 Zdubová Marie 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 32 Šafařík Petr 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 33 Greňo Pavel 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 34 Novotný Jaromír Mgr. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 35 Šrůtek Jan Ing. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 36 Komárková Dalila JUDr. 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 37 Kouřilová Jarmila 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 38 Pospíchal Lubor 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 39 Souralová Marie 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 40 Pospíšil Karel Mgr. Bc. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 41 Laška Vlastimil 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 42 Haklová Iveta 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 43 Adamec Petr 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 44 Toman Bedřich 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 45 Lepka Karel RNDr. Ph.D. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 46 Stoklásek Václav 2
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 47 Vaníček Hugo Ing. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 48 Kolajová Božena 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 49 Imrišová Ivana Ing. 3
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 50 Semrád Petr Bc. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 51 Ambrož Robin 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 52 Hrstková Olga Bc. 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 53 Šalplachtová Martina 1
4 Czech Social Dem. Party 54 Kloc Antonín 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 1 Hledík Karel 4
9 Civic Democratic Party 2 Blažek Pavel JUDr. Ph.D. 3
9 Civic Democratic Party 3 Hošek Miroslav Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 4 Janištin Jiří Mgr. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 5 Venclík Leo Ing. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 6 Kerndl Robert JUDr. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 7 Prchal Martin Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 8 Michalík Stanislav Ing. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 9 Kvapil Aleš Mgr. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 10 Pelán René 5
9 Civic Democratic Party 11 Chládek Michal Bc. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 12 Vavrouch Radomír 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 13 Vaňková Markéta JUDr. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 14 Bohuňovská Jana 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 15 Paulczyňski Petr Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 16 Jankůj Pavel Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 17 Šťástka Libor Mgr. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 18 Hladík Jiří Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 19 Fabiánek Roman PaedDr. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 20 Kala Oldřich Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 21 Hos Jiří 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 22 Pohanková Šárka Mgr. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 23 Mokrý Zdeněk Mgr. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 24 Vašina Roman Ing. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 25 Zorník Jiří 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 26 Svoboda Ivan Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 27 Kočí Jan 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 28 Krásný Vladan 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 29 Vižďa František doc. RNDr. Ph.D. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 30 Zemanová Jana Mgr. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 31 Charvát Jiří Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 32 Malinová Michaela Mgr. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 33 Harnach Gustav 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 34 Paděrová Marie Bc. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 35 Šik Evžen 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 36 Pazderová Andrea Ing. 3
9 Civic Democratic Party 37 Fousová Ludmila 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 38 Černý Roman Bc. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 39 Filípek František 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 40 Karásek Jan Ing. 3
9 Civic Democratic Party 41 Kupčíková Milana Mgr. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 42 Dočekal Petr Ing. 2
9 Civic Democratic Party 43 Chalupa Lubomír Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 44 Jursa Miroslav Ing. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 45 Machala Tomáš 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 46 Dostál Radoslav JUDr. 1
9 Civic Democratic Party 47 Žemlička Petr 1
10 Czech National Socialist Party 10 Kropáček Jiří 1
10 Czech National Socialist Party 20 Endlicher Martin 1
10 Czech National Socialist Party 25 Concepcion Santos Veronika 1
10 Czech National Socialist Party 27 Kučera Ondřej 1
10 Czech National Socialist Party 39 Musilová Irena 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 1 Březa Pavel Ing. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 2 Sýkorová Helena JUDr. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 4 Borecký Daniel RNDr. CSc. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 7 Klein Vítězslav Ing. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 8 Dávid Tibor 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 9 Blahutová Hana Ing. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 19 Pazdera David 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 20 Franek Aleš PhDr. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 21 Tomsa Vladimír 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 22 Kopřiva Zdeněk Ing. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 23 Škultéty Alexander Ing. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 29 Horáková Kateřina 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 31 Votroubková Zuzana 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 33 Všetečka Petr JUDr. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 34 Stavjařová Gabriela 2
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 36 Matyáš Zdeněk Ing. 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 45 Morávek Přemysl 1
11 Comm. Party - Cz & Moravia 49 Dvořák Karel PhDr. 1
12 Green Party 1 Drápalová Jana Ing. 5
12 Green Party 2 Ander Martin Mgr. Ph.D. 3
12 Green Party 3 Dubská Kateřina PhDr. 2
12 Green Party 4 Vlašín Mojmír RNDr. 4
12 Green Party 5 Flamiková Jasna Mgr. 2
12 Green Party 6 Bartůšek David Ing. 3
12 Green Party 7 Slavíková Eva Mgr. 1
12 Green Party 8 Hollan Jan RNDr. 2
12 Green Party 9 Jelínková Věra MUDr. 1
12 Green Party 10 Rokos Miroslav RNDr. 1
12 Green Party 11 Pálková Jana 2
12 Green Party 12 Marša Igor Ing. 1
12 Green Party 13 Matoušková Petra Ing. arch. 3
12 Green Party 14 Svitavský Marek 1
12 Green Party 15 Galle Zuzana Ing. 1
12 Green Party 16 Klíč Miroslav RNDr. 1
12 Green Party 17 Pavoničová Marie RNDr. 1
12 Green Party 18 Pospíšil Lubomil doc.RNDr.CSc. 2
12 Green Party 19 Fajnorová Ivana 1
12 Green Party 20 Havlín Miloslav 1
12 Green Party 21 Gaillyová Yvonna RNDr. 2
12 Green Party 22 Ondřík Ivan Bc. 1
12 Green Party 23 Blatná Milada Bc. 2
12 Green Party 24 Vašíček Jiří 1
12 Green Party 25 Pellantová Jitka RNDr. 2
12 Green Party 26 Chrastil Sylvestr doc.Mgr.Dr. 1
12 Green Party 27 Matějíčková Jarmila 1
12 Green Party 28 Jiaxis Anastásios 1
12 Green Party 29 Herbrychová Andrea Mgr. 2
12 Green Party 30 Otruba Ivar Prof. Ing. 1
12 Green Party 31 Fialová Hladíková Hana 1
12 Green Party 32 Buček Antonín doc. Ing. CSc. 1
12 Green Party 33 Matějková Jiřin Mgr. 1
12 Green Party 34 Máchal Aleš 1
12 Green Party 35 Holcnerová Hana 1
12 Green Party 36 Dvořák Vilém 1
12 Green Party 37 Scavino Barbara 1
12 Green Party 38 Patrik Miroslav RNDr. 1
12 Green Party 39 Bártová Stanislava1 1
12 Green Party 40 Libus Jan 1
12 Green Party 41 Zabloudilová Věra 1
12 Green Party 42 Zlámal Aleš RNDr. 2
12 Green Party 43 Kubová Dana 1
12 Green Party 44 Švamberk Jaroslav JUDr. Ing. 1
12 Green Party 45 Stávková Kateřina 1
12 Green Party 46 Veselý David Ing. 1
12 Green Party 47 Slámová Galina Mgr. 1
12 Green Party 48 Baltus Jan 1
12 Green Party 49 Ceklová Marta 1
12 Green Party 50 Robeš Martin 1
12 Green Party 52 Pazdírek Jan PhDr. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 1 Javorová Barbora RNDr. 4
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 2 Rychnovský Daniel MUDr. 4
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 3 Holík Jan Ing. 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 4 Suchý Jaroslav Mgr. 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 5 Beran Vít Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 6 Veselý Josef Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 7 Macek David Mgr. MA 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 8 Crha Antonín 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 9 Stehlíková Marie 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 10 Hořava Pavel Bc. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 11 Mihola Jiří Mgr. 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 12 Hruška Petr PhDr. MBA 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 13 Dvořák Miroslav Ing. CSc. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 14 Břicháček Vlastimil 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 15 Vích Zdeněk Ing. CSc. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 16 Kőnig Jan 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 17 Kratochvil Karel 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 18 Janko Petr Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 19 Sládková Elena Ing. arch. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 20 Dobeš Augustin 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 21 Navrátil Jiří Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 22 Svobodová Kateřina 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 23 Nekuda Rostislav PhDr. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 24 Doležalová Monika Mgr. 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 25 Slavík Jiří Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 26 Hladký Petr 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 27 Ševčík Jan Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 28 Šťasta Petr 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 29 Prchal Jiří 3
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 30 Kolář Petr Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 31 Kuklínek Jiří Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 32 Kobza Vít 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 33 Gardáš Oldřich 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 34 Ryšavý Šimon 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 35 Válek Vlastimil Prof.MUDr.CSc. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 36 Stehlíková Marie Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 37 Kyselák Martin Ing. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 38 Weinberger Vojtěch MUDr. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 39 Vašková Pavla 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 40 Dvořáček Jiří Mgr. 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 41 Sadecký Jan Ing. MBA 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 42 Suchý Jaroslav 2
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 43 Hrabě František Prof.Ing. CSc. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 44 Liptáková Klára Ing. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 45 Grublová Milana MUDr. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 46 Bořecký Josef 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 47 Dumbrovská Michaela JUDr. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 48 Kostelka Božetěch 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 49 Doležal Petr Ing. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 50 Caha Jan Mgr. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 51 Koláčný Ivan RNDr. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 52 Hošek Ivo Ing. 1
13 CDU - Cz. People’s Party 53 Sedláčková Ludmila 1
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 1 Zlatuška Jiří prof. RNDr. CSc. 6
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 2 Belcredi Jiřina PhDr. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 3 Spousta Jiří doc. RNDr. Ph.D 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 4 Hamerský Milan Mgr. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 5 Zogatová Lenka 4
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 6 Vaněk Jiří PhDr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 7 Grepl Jan Ing. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 8 Buchta Jaroslav Ing. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 9 Němec Jiří doc. PhDr. Ph.D. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 10 Honzík Jan M. prof. Ing. CSc. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 11 Dub Petr prof. RNDr.CSc. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 12 Brázdová Zuzana prof.MUDr.DrSc. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 13 Kolář Jozef doc. RNDr. CSc. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 14 Nemkyová Radmila Mgr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 15 Ventruba Pavel prof.MUDr.DrSc. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 16 Ján Martin Mgr. 4
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 17 Mizerová Alena PhDr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 18 Schmidt Eduard prof.RNDr.CSc. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 19 Pištěláková Zdenka MUDr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 20 Sekot Aleš Doc. Dr. CSc. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 21 Putnová Jana 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 22 Simeonov Simeon doc. Ing. CSc. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 23 Šaléová Vendula Mgr. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 24 Potůček Milan 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 25 Štarha Jiří MUDr. Ph.D. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 26 Belzová Jana Mgr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 27 Fux Karel 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 28 Varmužová Hana Mgr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 29 Rosecký Čeněk Mgr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 30 Jančářová Drahomíra MUDr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 31 Švejda Miroslav 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 32 Václavíčková Michaela MUDr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 33 Jelínek Ota Mgr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 34 Sochorová Věra MUDr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 35 Honek Milan Ing. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 36 Jelínková Šárka 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 37 Klement Miloš Ing. arch. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 38 Jákl Petr Ing. Ph.D. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 39 Líbalová Iveta 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 40 Kosec Miroslav Ing. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 41 Turečková Lenka Mgr. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 42 Nevím Vladimír 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 43 Němečková Jana 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 44 Divácký Roman 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 45 Svobodová Lenka Ing. 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 46 Tihelková Monika 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 47 Janíčková Blanka 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 48 Rous Roman Ing. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 49 Drápelová Zuzana Bc. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 50 Pekárek Radim Mgr. 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 51 Zapletal Tomáš 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 52 Valošek Petr 3
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 53 Zajíček Roman 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 54 Póč Zdeněk 2
14 BRNO2006-Team of J.Zlatuška 55 Klusáček Dalibor Mgr. 1
16 INDEP. DEM. S (chair.V.Železný) 2 Rettegy Radoš 1
16 INDEP. DEM. S (chair.V.Železný) 3 Unzeitig Vít doc. MUDr. CSc. 1
The other candidates did not receive any votes.
34.
On the basis of the foregoing determinations, the Constitutional Court
also requested from the Czech Statistical Office a model calculation of
the hypothetical voting results in the elections to the representative
body of Brno, adding the votes that had been delivered in envelopes
without official stamps and marked as invalid in election district no.
113 in the city district Brno – Královo Pole.
35.
The Czech Statistical Office delivered to the Constitutional Court a
report in which it gave a negative answer to the Constitutional Court’s
question whether including the votes delivered in the 93 envelopes
without official stamps could have affected
1) the distribution of mandates among the individual political parties, or
2) individual candidates,
3) the order of awarding mandates, or
4) the order of substitutes.
1) the distribution of mandates among the individual political parties, or
2) individual candidates,
3) the order of awarding mandates, or
4) the order of substitutes.
36.
The Constitutional Court’s file includes a complete processing of the
model results of elections to the representative body of Brno after
adding in the votes from the 83 envelopes without official stamps from
election district no. 113, city district Brno - Královo Pole. By
comparing the announced results of elections to the representative body
of Brno and the model result after adding in the 93 invalid votes from
envelopes without official stamps from election district no. 113, city
district Brno – Královo Pole, the Constitutional Court determined that
the distribution of mandates among the individual political parties,
individual candidates, the order of awarding mandates and the order of
substitutes is the same in both cases.
VI.
Active Standing of the Petitioner, Parties and Secondary Parties to the Proceeding
37.
First, the Constitutional Court points out that although the matter
being discussed concerns elections and the election judiciary, the
petitioner’s complaint is a constitutional complaint under Art. 87 par. 1
let. d) of the Constitution (§ 72 et seq. of the Act on the
Constitutional Court), not an appeal intended for review of election
results under Art. 87 par. 1 let. e) of the Constitution (§ 85 et seq.
of the Act on the Constitutional Court), which applies only to the
election of a deputy or senator. The purpose of a constitutional
complaint is protection from intervention by a public body into the
constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms of
individuals or legal entities. These kinds of proceedings are different
from each other both in the substance of the issue reviewed by the
Constitutional Court and in procedural conditions such as the deadline
for filing a petition, the petitioner’s active standing, definition of
the circle of parties to the proceedings and secondary parties to the
proceedings, etc.
38. On the
other hand, in the presently adjudicated constitutional complaint the
different purposes of both kinds of proceedings are not a barrier to the
use of the Constitutional Court’s general legal conclusions, which it
expressed in its earlier case law purely on the subject of elections.
39.
Under § 72 par. 1 let. a) of the Act on the Constitutional Court, a
constitutional complaint can be filed by anyone who claims that a
legally effective decision in a proceeding in which he was a party, a
measure or other intervention taken by a public authority violated his
constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right or freedom.
40.
In the proceedings before the Regional Court in Brno, the petitioner
was not formally treated as a party to the proceedings, who are, under §
90 par. 2 of Act no. 150/2005 Coll., the Administrative Court Procedure
Code, as amended by later regulations, the applicant, the relevant
election authority, and the person whose election to office was
contested. In proceedings under § 90 par. 1 of the Administrative Court
Procedure Code to declare voting invalid the mandate of a particular
elected representative (petititoner) is not directly cast in doubt. The
Constitutional Court has already concluded in its previous case law that
such a fact nonetheless can not be a reason for the Constitutional
Court not to consider the petitioner to have active standing in
proceedings on a constitutional complaint, because the contested
decision strongly affects his rights, if it concerns the question of
election or non-election of the representative body of Brno. According
to the Constitutional Court’s findings, the petitioner was in the 8th
slot on the candidate list of the Czech Social Democratic Party for
elections to the representative body of Brno which took place on 20-21
October 2006, for which party the petitioner was elected to the
representative body of Brno (cf. the public available results of
elections to municipal representative bodies of 20 October - 21 October
2006, available, e.g. at www.volby.cz; attached to the file is a
notarized confirmation of election as a member of the representative
body of Brno, issued by the Brno City Hall to the petitioner on 6
November 2006). It is evident from the foregoing that the petitioner has
active standing to file a constitutional complaint against the
contested resolution of the Regional Court in Brno to the extent that
the court declared voting invalid in election district no. 313, city
district Brno – Královo Pole, district Brno – City, in elections to the
representative body of Brno.
41.
In the same verdict the Regional Court in Brno also declared invalid
the voting in election district no. 313, city district Brno – Královo
Pole, district Brno – City, in elections to the representative body of
city district Brno – Královo Pole. According to the Constitutional
Court’s findings (cf. the election results and lists of candidates to
the representative body of the city district Brno – Královo Pole,
available, e.g. at www.volby.cz) the petitioner was not on any of
the candidate lists of political parties who took part in elections in
that election district. Therefore, it is also not evident, and the
petitioner does not further develop his arguments in this regard, which
of his constitutionally guaranteed rights was affected by the decision
of the Regional Court in Brno declaring voting invalid in election
district no. 313, city district Brno – Královo Pole, district Brno –
City, in elections to the representative body of city district Brno –
Královo Pole. Based on the cited analysis, the Constitutional Court
states that insofar as the constitutional complaint is aimed, as the
proposed verdict indicates, against the resolution of the Regional Court
in Brno of 10 November 2006, file no. 30 Ca 2003/2006, including the
part of the verdict which concerns elections to the representative body
of the city district Brno – Královo Pole, the petitioner does not have
active standing. Therefore, that part of the constitutional complaint
had to be denied under § 43 par. 1 let. c) of the Act on the
Constitutional Court, because the petition was filed by an evidently
unauthorized person.
42.
Under § 76 par. 1 of the Act on the Constitutional Court, a party to the
proceedings is the public authority against whose intervention the
petition is directed; in the presently adjudicated matter that is the
Regional Court in Brno, whose jurisdiction is established by § 61 of the
Act on Elections to Municipal Representative Bodies.
43.
The Act on the Constitutional Court, § 76 par. 2 identifies as
secondary parties to a proceeding on a constitutional complaint the
other parties to the previous proceedings, from which the contested
decision arose..
44. The
provision of § 90 par. 2 of the Administrative Court Procedure Code
identifies as a party to proceedings to declare voting or elections
invalid (or declare the election of a candidate invalid), in addition to
the petitioner and the person whose election to office is contested,
the “relevant election authority.”
45.
The list of election authorities in the process of elections to
municipal representative bodies is specified in § 6 of the Act on
Elections to Municipal Representative Bodies. Under that Act, election
authorities are, among others:
e) the authorized municipal office, in the capital city of Prague that is Prague City Hall; in the cities Brno, Ostrava and Plzeň it is the city halls of those cities (the “authorized municipal office”),
f) the municipal office in municipalities where the municipal council has established at least 2 departments of the municipal office, and in municipalities in which the municipal office is authorized, in the capital city of Prague the office of the city district in which the city district council has established at least 2 departments, and in the cities Brno, Ostrava and Plzeň the city district office or city section (the “municipal office in municipalities where at least 2 departments have been established”),
i) the election district election commission.
e) the authorized municipal office, in the capital city of Prague that is Prague City Hall; in the cities Brno, Ostrava and Plzeň it is the city halls of those cities (the “authorized municipal office”),
f) the municipal office in municipalities where the municipal council has established at least 2 departments of the municipal office, and in municipalities in which the municipal office is authorized, in the capital city of Prague the office of the city district in which the city district council has established at least 2 departments, and in the cities Brno, Ostrava and Plzeň the city district office or city section (the “municipal office in municipalities where at least 2 departments have been established”),
i) the election district election commission.
46.
Although the resolution of the Regional Court in Brno identifies the
District Election commission in election district no. 113 in the city
district Brno – Královo Pole, district Brno – City, as a party to the
proceedings (the “opponent”), apparently in view of its inclusion in the
list in 6 let. i) of the Act on Elections to Municipal Representative
Bodies, the Constitutional Court does not consider the District Election
commission in election district no. 113 in the city district Brno –
Královo Pole, district Brno – City, to be a secondary party to the
proceedings, because it is clearly not the “relevant election authority”
meant in § 90 par. 2 of the Administrative Court Procedure Code. This
interpretation is supported by the relatively narrowly defined time of
existence of district election commissions, whose activity ceases on the
fifteenth day after election results are announced, or the fifteenth
day after the results of repeat voting are published (cf. § 52 par. 1,
par. 2 of the Act on Elections to Municipal Representative Bodies), and
the statutorily defined one-time purpose, which is ensuring order in the
election room, arranging and overseeing the conduct of voting, counting
votes and prepare a report on the conduct and results of voting and
delivering election documentation to the safekeeping of the district
office. The activity of district election commissions thus corresponds
to its lay membership, which represents an elements of democratic
control over basic election acts. Moreover, it is clear from the name of
this body that it functions within the limits of en election district,
i.e. always only in one of the units which form the election area of a
municipality whose entire representative body is, however, affected by a
declaration of invalid voting, even if only in one election district.
47.
In view of the statutory division of authority in the preparation,
organization, and inspection of elections (§ 6 - § 19 of the Act on
Elections to Municipal Representative Bodies), the Constitutional Court
considers the competent (permanent) election authorities in elections to
the representative bodies of the city district Brno – Královo Pole and
the representative body of Brno to be the Office of the City District
Brno – Královo Pole and Brno City Hall, whom it therefore treats as
secondary parties to the constitutional complaint proceeding.
48.
Under § 76 par. 2 of the Act on the Constitutional Court, M. D., whose
proposal under § 60 par. 2 of the Act on Elections to Municipal
Representative Bodies initiated the proceedings before the Regional
Court in Brno, is also a secondary party.
VII.
Definition of the Adjudicated Issue
Definition of the Adjudicated Issue
49.
In the constitutional complaint, the petitioner presents two basic
groups of objections. On the one hand it criticizes the Regional Court
in Brno for procedural error in determining the circle of parties to the
proceedings; on the other hand it has fundamental material objections
to the verdict and the reasoning with which the Regional Court in Brno
supported its conclusion on the invalidity of “voting in elections to
the representative body of the city and the city district which took
place on 20 October – 21 October 2006 in election district no. 113 in
the city district Brno – Královo Pole, district Brno – City.”
50.
In defining the adjudicated issue, the Constitutional Court weighed
several determinative aspects of the case. The nature of a
constitutional complaint as an instrument for protecting an individual’s
fundamental rights and freedoms from interference by the public
authorities and the overall concept of the constitutional judiciary in
the Czech Republic entrusts to the Constitutional Court, as regards the
contested decisions, only a cassation, or annulling, authority. The
remedy of a constitutionally defective situation is generally within the
competence of the body whose decision was annulled by a Constitutional
Court judgment. However, returning the matter to the election court for a
new decision prolongs the overall period when legal uncertainty exists,
and always postpones the final decision. Even in cases where the
Constitutional Court rules on the basis of an individual constitutional
complaint, it can not overlook the full context, if it is the process of
elections as a fundamental element of representative democracy. Thus,
the procedure and decision taken by the Constitutional Court must
respect not only the petitioner’s interest in protection of his
subjective fundamental rights, but also the wider interest in the
protection of other elements of a democratic, law-based state.
51.
In contrast to this, an appeal in matters of election of a deputy or
senator (§ 85 et seq. of the Act on the Constitutional Court) purposely
places the Constitutional Court in the position of a court of the second
instance in the election judiciary, and consists of ensuring the
protection of fundamental provisions of the constitutional order, which
give rise to the principle that the people are the source of all state
power, and, among other things, in that role participate in forming it
through free and democratic elections.
52.
Although the Act on the Constitutional Court does not provide a
deadline for decision on a constitutional complaint, the Constitutional
Court could not overlook the specific circumstances of the election
situation that arose through the decision of the Regional Court in Brno.
In view of the fact that repeat elections were called in election
district no. 113 in the city district Brno – Královo Pole for 16
December 2006 (Notice of the Ministry of the Interior Calling for Repeat
Voting in Elections to Municipal Representative Bodies no. 521/2006
Coll.), the Constitutional Court considered it essential to rule on the
constitutional complaint in the period before these elections were held,
in accordance with the petitioner’s proposal for priority handling of
the matter under § 39 of the Act on the Constitutional Court. The
essential fact remains that what is at stake here is not only the
petitioner’s fundamental rights, but the confidence of the voters in the
effectiveness of all phases of the election process, including judicial
review of elections and the trustworthiness of election results, i.e. a
certain objective element of review by the Constitutional Court. If the
Constitutional Court were to decide on the merits of the constitutional
complaint only after the results of the repeat elections in election
district no. 113 in the city district Brno – Královo Pole were
announced, it would necessarily introduce chaos into the matter, and
doubts about the meaning of such a decision for the petitioner and its
effects.
53. However,
because the Act on the Constitutional Court does not give a
constitutional complaint suspensory effect (§ 79 par. 1 of the Act on
the Constitutional Court), as the petitioner did not ask for a
suspension of executability of the contested decision, and repeat
elections can take place even before the sixty-day deadline to submit a
constitutional complaint expires (§ 72 par. 3 of the Act on the
Constitutional Court), a situation can arise where the attempt to speed
up the decision-making process places demands on the flexibility of the
parties to the proceedings during procedural communication with the
Constitutional Court with relatively short deadlines. However, the
unusual demands placed on the Constitutional Court for a speedy decision
understandably do not, and can not, under any circumstances affect the
quality and persuasiveness of the decision, especially in a question as
serious as elections to the representative bodies of self-governing
municipalities.
54. Out of
the number of procedural and substantive objects that the petitioner
submitted to the Constitutional Court in the constitutional complaint,
the key one appears to be evaluated in what manner (based on what
deliberations) the Regional Court in Brno concluded that voting was
invalid in election district no. 313, city district Brno – Královo Pole,
whereby it cast in doubt the petitioner’s mandate and his
constitutionally guaranteed right arising from Art. 21 par. 4 of the
Charter. Addressing this question significantly exceeds the petitioner’s
individual interests, and is important for a number of other legal
relationships of the relevant representative body, in contract to other
objects, consisting of procedural and formal errors by the court,
concerning, e.g. the petitioner’s right to a fair trial.
55.
As a rule, the Constitutional Court, in its decision making, after
determining that a contested provision is unconstitutional on the basis
of one objection, does not then in the reasoning of its decision
consider the other objections. In the presently adjudicated matter, the
Constitutional Court concluded that the constitutional complaint is
justified in the part where the petitioner demonstrated his active
standing.
VIII.
Evaluation of the Issue
Evaluation of the Issue
56.
It is evident in this matter that although a constitutional complaint
is primarily intended to protect an individual’s subjective
constitutionally guaranteed rights, it is appropriate to recapitulate
some of the Constitutional Court’s previous conclusions in matters of
election review that affect the adjudicated issue and to which the
petitioner also partly refers.
57.
In its judgment file no. Pl. US 30/95 the Constitutional Court stated
its opinion that “elections to municipal representative bodies involve
not only the rights of voters and political parties, but also the rights
of candidates for membership in the representative bodies and the
rights of elected candidates, which arise from the right to seek elected
office under equal conditions and, if elected, to perform these offices
without impediments.”
58.
The Constitutional Court considered a certain intensity of violation of
the law fur declaring a candidate’s election invalid in judgment file
no. I. US 526/98, where it stated that “generally, the issue should not
be exclusively whether the Election Act was violated objectively or
subjectively, but the circumstances of the particular case and the
intensity of violation of the law must be taken into account. Thus, we
can not generally say that every violation of the law (if it is claimed)
leads to elections being invalid, or that violation of the Election Act
may not ever be penalized by declaring elections invalid.”
59.
In judgment file no. Pl. US 73/04 the Constitutional Court emphasized
that “in procedural regulation of the election judiciary and the process
in such proceedings there is thus a rebuttable presumption that
election results correspond to the intent of the voters. It is the
obligation of the person who claims that there has been error in the
elections to submit evidence to rebut that presumption. Our election
judiciary does not recognize absolute defects in the election process
(so-called absolute confusion in election proceedings), i.e. such
violation of a constitutional election regulation as would result in
automatic annulment of elections, the election of a candidate, or
voting. In this regard, all possible defects and errors must be
considered relative, and their significance must be weighed by their
effect on the results of elections to a representative body as such or
the results of election of a particular candidate, or the results of
voting, according to the proportionality principle. The proceedings are
thus based on the constitutional principle of protecting a decision that
emerge from the will of the majority manifested through free
decision-making while respecting the rights of the minority (Art. 6 of
the Constitution), as the Constitutional Court has said in a different
context in judgment file no. Pl. US 5/02 (in The Constitutional Court Of
the Czech Republic: Collection of Decisions. Volume no. 28. judgment
no. 117. p. 25. – no. 476/2002). The framework for verifying elections
is in the alternative based on an assumption of an objective causal
relationship between the flaw in elections and the composition of the
representative body, or at least a possible causal connection (the
principle of potential causation in the election judiciary). … From that
we must conclude that the judicial branch may change the decision of
the voters, as a sovereign, only in exceptional cases, where the flaws
in the election process caused, or demonstrably could have caused, the
voters to decide differently and a different candidate to be elected.
However, the essential thing is that annulment of elections can not be
taken as punishment for violation of election regulations, but as a
means to ensure the legitimacy of the elected body.”
60.
Finally, in judgment file no. II. US 53/06 the Constitutional Court
confirmed that “Article 21 par. 4 of the Charter does not apply only to
the approach to a public office in the sense of the creation of the
office, but also includes the right to perform it without interference,
including the right to protection from illegal removal from office.
Participation in public affairs, which is the point of the entire
Article 21, is not exhausted merely by attaining an office, but
logically continues during the entire period of holding that office.
Thus, if this Charter article seeks to enable citizens to administer
public matters, the person performing an office must also be endowed
with protection from state arbitrariness that could prevent him from
performing the public office. The very right to access to public office
would have no meaning if it did not include protection in the course of
performing the office.”
61.
The basic legal regulation governing the preparation, conduct and
judicial review of elections to municipal representative bodies is Act
no. 491/2001 Coll., on Elections to Municipal Representative Bodies, as
amended by later regulations. The key provision governing judicial
review of the validity of voting and validity of elections is § 60:
§ 60
(1) Every person registered to vote in the election district where a member of a municipal body was elected, as well as every political party whose candidate list was registered for elections to that representative body (the “petitioner”) may seek court protection by filing a proposal to declare voting invalid, declare elections election, or declare the election of a candidate invalid. The proposal must be filed no later than 10 days after the results of elections to municipal representative bodies are announced by the State Election Commission.
(2) A petitioner may file a proposal to declare voting invalid if he believes that the provisions of this Act were violated in a manner that could affect the voting results.
(3) A petitioner may file a proposal to declare elections invalid if he believes that the provisions of this Act were violated in a manner that could affect the election results.
(4) A petitioner may file a proposal to declare the election of a candidate invalid if he believes that the provisions of this Act were violated in a manner that could affect the results of election of that candidate.
§ 60
(1) Every person registered to vote in the election district where a member of a municipal body was elected, as well as every political party whose candidate list was registered for elections to that representative body (the “petitioner”) may seek court protection by filing a proposal to declare voting invalid, declare elections election, or declare the election of a candidate invalid. The proposal must be filed no later than 10 days after the results of elections to municipal representative bodies are announced by the State Election Commission.
(2) A petitioner may file a proposal to declare voting invalid if he believes that the provisions of this Act were violated in a manner that could affect the voting results.
(3) A petitioner may file a proposal to declare elections invalid if he believes that the provisions of this Act were violated in a manner that could affect the election results.
(4) A petitioner may file a proposal to declare the election of a candidate invalid if he believes that the provisions of this Act were violated in a manner that could affect the results of election of that candidate.
62. The consequences of a decision finding voting or an election invalid are specified in § 54 par. 1, let. a), par. 2:
§ 54
Supplemental elections, repeat elections, and repeat voting
(1) A municipal representative body shall not be elected if
a) a court finds a proposal to declare voting or elections invalid to be justified (§ 60),
b) elections were not held due to reasons § 23 par. 8,
c) the district election commission did not deliver a record of the conduct and results of voting under § 43 par. 2.
(2) If a municipal representative body was not elected, as described in paragraph 1 let. a), the Minister of the Interior will announce repeat elections or repeat voting within 30 days after being given notice of the court resolution.
§ 54
Supplemental elections, repeat elections, and repeat voting
(1) A municipal representative body shall not be elected if
a) a court finds a proposal to declare voting or elections invalid to be justified (§ 60),
b) elections were not held due to reasons § 23 par. 8,
c) the district election commission did not deliver a record of the conduct and results of voting under § 43 par. 2.
(2) If a municipal representative body was not elected, as described in paragraph 1 let. a), the Minister of the Interior will announce repeat elections or repeat voting within 30 days after being given notice of the court resolution.
63.
The general procedural regulation for proceedings to declare voting
invalid is Act no. 150/2002 Coll., the Administrative Court Procedure
Code, as amended by later regulations, specifically § 90:
§ 90
Invalidity of elections and voting
(1) Under conditions specified by special statutes, a citizen, political party or independent candidate or association of independent candidates and an association of political parties or political movements and independent candidates may file a proposal seeking a court decision declaring invalid elections invalid, voting, or election of a candidate.
(2) The parties to the proceeding are the petitioner, the relevant election body, and the person whose election is contested.
(3) The court shall decide by resolution, within twenty days after receiving the proposal. A hearing need not be ordered.
§ 90
Invalidity of elections and voting
(1) Under conditions specified by special statutes, a citizen, political party or independent candidate or association of independent candidates and an association of political parties or political movements and independent candidates may file a proposal seeking a court decision declaring invalid elections invalid, voting, or election of a candidate.
(2) The parties to the proceeding are the petitioner, the relevant election body, and the person whose election is contested.
(3) The court shall decide by resolution, within twenty days after receiving the proposal. A hearing need not be ordered.
64.
As the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of the statutory framework
of election review indicates, the election judiciary is based on the
principle of protecting a mandate, and not every determined and proved
violation of law necessarily leads to such serious consequences as the
non- establishment of an elected representative body. However, if an
election court declares invalid voting or invalid elections on the basis
of a qualified, i.e. sufficiently intensive violation of law, such a
conclusion always necessarily means the non-election of a representative
body (§ 54 par. 1 let. a) of the Act on Elections to Municipal
Representative Bodies).
65.
Insofar as the Regional Court in Brno argues that it found only voting
invalid, not the elections, and simultaneously distances its decision
making from the effects of § 54 par. 1 of the Act on Elections to
Municipal Representative Bodies (the position statement from the
Regional Court in Brno, p. 1 bottom, can be interpreted to that effect),
the Constitutional Court points out that such an interpretation is an
impermissibly formalistic interpretation that does not take into account
the further consequences which arise regardless of whether the election
court took them into account in its deliberations. The purpose of
elections, consisting of the choice (election) of members of a
representative body, can not be ignored in the decision making of an
election court.
66. Space
for the deliberations of an election court opens in the evaluation of
whether voting or the wider electoral process were or were not valid, in
view of the nature and intensity of the violation of law; however, it
can not in the next step evaluate whether its verdict declaring voting
invalid does or does not have the consequence of non-election of a
representative body. That consequence arises by law, because if the
entire process of elections was not completed, or if it was re-opened,
we can not predict the result of it.
67.
Therefore, it is the obligation of an election court to review to what
extent the violation of the law had or could have had an effect on the
voting results, which must be understood not as a mechanical addition of
the votes cast in one election district, but in relation to the purpose
and aim of such voting, the decision to elect particular candidates and
determine the order of substitutes. The “result” of voting in one
election district, the number of votes cast, has no value in and of
itself, but only when it is taken into account in determining the
elected candidates (or determining the order of substitutes). A voter
also does not enter the voting room with the primary aim of formally
influencing the numerical totals of votes in his district, but with the
intent of using his vote to express his will to elect particular
candidates to the representative body through the system of organization
of elections, of which the election districts are a component.
68.
The decision by the Regional Court in Brno of 30 November 2006, file
no. 30 Ca 203/2006, indicates that “the proposal is justified,” because,
to summarize, the election documentation, in accordance with the data
written down n the record on the conduct and results of voting in the
election district contains 93 envelopes with ballot papers, and these
envelopes do not bear an official stamp. A total of 93 voters out of 363
(i.e. 25.6%) did not receive official envelopes, and their votes became
invalid under § 41 par. 2 let. d) of the Act on Elections to Municipal
Representative Bodies. This happened as a result of violation of the
law, and it is evident that this affected “the results of voting, i.e.
the resulting number of votes for individual political parties and
individual candidates.”
69.
The Regional Court in Brno thus contented itself with stating that there
was a violation of the law that manifested itself in the numbers of
votes for individual political parties and individual candidates.
However, it did not add any deliberations about whether that violation
of the law actually had, or could have had an effect on the election of
the representative body, and if so, what, although it caused such a
serious consequence by its decision. In this regard, the verdict
declaring voting invalid (causing the election of the representative
body to be invalid) thus completely lacks logical justification. The
Regional Court in Brno thus completely abandoned the principle of
protecting an acquired mandate because it did not take its arguments far
enough to answer the question of whether the violation of the law did
or did not have an effect on a particular mandate or mandates.
70.
The Constitutional Court points out that it is not correct to conclude
that if there is found to be a certain number of invalid votes, for
whatever reason, there is then automatically an unfavorable consequence,
that is that the voting is invalid and the representative body is not
elected. Thus, if it is proved that a certain number of votes are
invalid, even if through error by the election authority, that does not
necessarily always mean that voting in the election district must be
repeated.
71. Because the
Regional Court in Brno in a quite fundamental way did not observe a
constitutional interpretation of the provisions of the election statute
and did not protect the election result from democratic elections, it
exceeded the limits provided to the state power, including the judicial
branch, by Article 2 par. 3 of the Constitution (“State authority is to
serve all citizens and may be asserted only in cases, within the bounds,
and in the manner provided for by law.”) a Article 2 par. 2 of the
Charter (“State authority may be asserted only in cases, within the
bounds, and in the manner provided for by law.”).
72.
The Constitutional Court’s task was to evaluate whether the violation
of law, as a result of which 93 votes were not counted, affected or
could have affected the voting result in the election district, and
whether the voting result thus affected in the district (could affect
or) affected the election of the representative bodies (the petitioner).
Thus, it was, in view of the election aspect of the adjudicated
constitutional complaint, to perform an election review in the framework
of the proposal submitted in the prior proceeding to the election
court. The central reason for this extraordinary procedure, which is
otherwise used in proceedings under § 85 et seq. of the Act on the
Constitutional Court, after finding that the Regional Court
fundamentally failed to live up to its role in the election judiciary,
was the need to give a convincing decision in the matter before repeat
elections were held, because delay could bring the matter into the
abovementioned negative state of legal uncertainty into the matter in a
very wide context.
73.
According to the Constitutional Court’s findings, the election
documentation in election district no. 113 in the city district Brno –
Královo Pole, contains 93 envelopes with ballot papers for elections to
the representative body of Brno and the representative body of the city
district Brno – Královo Pole. In accordance with the record of the
conduct and results of voting in the election district, these envelopes
do not contain an official stamp, so they are not official envelopes.
The evidence presented shows no doubt about the number of unofficial
envelopes issued by the district election commission and that they are
the same as the unofficial envelopes that subsequently contained invalid
votes.
74. The
Constitutional Court reached its answer to the issue by comparing the
official announced results of voting to the representative body of Brno
on 20-21 October 2006 with a model result of the same elections after
adding in the hypothetically valid votes from the enveloeps without an
official stamp (see point V. of this judgment). Based on a report from
the Czech Statistical Office, the Constitutional Court thus concluded
that the modeled addition of the hypothetically valid votes form the 93
envelopes without an official stamp from election district no. 113, city
district Brno – Královo Pole to the officially announced election
results has no effect on
- the allocation of mandates between individual political parties and individual candidates
- the order in which the mandate was awarded to candidates, or the order of substitutes.
- the allocation of mandates between individual political parties and individual candidates
- the order in which the mandate was awarded to candidates, or the order of substitutes.
75.
From that, the Constitutional Court concludes that the violation of law
in § 31 par. 1 and § 33 par. 3 of the Act on Elections to Municipal
Representative Bodies, found by the Regional Court in Brno, changed the
number of valid votes cast in election district no. 313 in the city
district Brno – Královo Pole. However, that violation of the law did not
reach an intensity that could justify declaring the voting invalid (§
60 par. 2 of the Act on Elections to Municipal Representative Bodies)
and thus mean the non-election of the representative body (§ 54 par. 1
let. a of the Act on Elections to Municipal Representative Bodies).
76.
If the law is violated during voting in elections, but the actual
result of the elections quite demonstrably expresses the will of the
voters to elect particular candidates, just as if the violation had not
happened, there is no reason to cast doubt upon the arising mandates or
to hold repeat voting. Therefore, in this regard there is also no reason
to doubt the full legitimacy of the Brno representative body. A
contrary conclusion in the adjudicated matter would be extremely
disproportional in relation to the nature of the violation of law and
the interest in protecting an election result arising from democratic
elections, and would also be impermissibly intervention by the judicial
branch into the election process.
77.
In view of the fact that this conclusion of violation of the
petitioner’s right to equal access to election and other public offices
and staying in them under Art. 21 par. 4 of the Charter in and of itself
fully suffices for annulling the contested decision in the specified
scope, the Constitutional Court, in view of the need for a timely
decision in the matter, did not consider the petitioner’s other
objections. Thus, the Constitutional Court partly found for the
petitioner (§ 82 par. 1 of the Act on the Constitutional Court), stated
which constitutionally guaranteed right or freedom and which provisoins
of constitutional statutes were violated (§ 82 par. 2 let. a) of the Act
on the Constitutional Court) and annulled the contested decision by a
public authority in the defined scope, i.e. in the part concerning
elections to the representative body of Brno [§ 82 par. 3 let. a) of the
Act on the Constitutional Court].
78.
As regards, the rest, in view of the lack of active standing of the
petitioner, whose fundamental rights could not have been affected by the
elections to the representative body of the city district Brno –
Královo Pole being cast in doubt (point VI. of the judgment), the
Constitutional Court denied the constitutional complaint under § 43 par.
1 let. c) of the Act on the Constitutional Court, because the petition
was filed by a clearly unauthorized person.
79.
The Constitutional Court points out that in proceedings on a
constitutional complaint it does not have the statutory possibility of
applying § 91 par. 3 of the Act on the Constitutional Court, under
which, when a judgment is announced concerning a remedy in matter of
election of a deputy or senator, the decisions of other bodies that are
contrary to the announced judgment cease to be valid.
80.
At the same time, however, the Constitutional Court emphasizes that
annulling the specified part of the contested decision has an undoubted
influence on the effects of decisions by public authorities which are
connected to the contested decision, in the part annulled by the
Constitutional Court. Under Art. 89 par. 2 of the Constitution the
executable decisions of the Constitutional Court are binding on all
entities and persons.
81. At
the present time there is another proceedings before the Constitutional
Court on a proposal that also concerns voting in elections to the
representative body of Brno and the representative body of the city
district Brno – Královo Pole on 20-21 October 2006, which evidently will
not be decided before the announced date for repeat voting. Therefore,
the Constitutional Court also points out the possible state of legal
uncertainty that could appear, if the repeat voting takes place before
this second decision by the Constitutional Court. It is up to the
judgment of the minister of the interior whether an dhow to re-evaluate
his decision to announce repeat voting in election district no. 113 in
the city district Brno - Královo Pole (Notification no. 521/2006 Coll.)
in relation to voting in elections to the representative body of the
city district Brno – Královo Pole, which remains unaffected by this
judgment.
Instruction: Decisions of the Constitutional Court can not be appealed.
Brno, 12 December 2006
Instruction: Decisions of the Constitutional Court can not be appealed.