Recently, the discussion about whether the Special Court judges were positively discriminated again

Recently, the discussion about whether the Special Court judges were positively discriminated against in relation to their other "nešpeciálnym" keith johnstone impro pdf colleagues. If you think about ordinary citizen, an ordinary keith johnstone impro pdf person a million and puts a completely legitimate keith johnstone impro pdf question whether he is not also discriminated against when his colleague has a higher salary while doing maybe even less. Such questions, we will always ask. This is natural, keith johnstone impro pdf because no one is satisfied with less than anyone else and believes that doing much the same way and perhaps even more. However, let us try to separate feelings from facts and speculations from facts. Yes: "The different treatment of persons in analogous or relevantly similar position is discriminatory." (Case of Evans. The United Kingdom, application no. 6339/05, 73) But what is discrimination? Emoluments we could be considered discrimination if the salary could manifest itself in the possibility or impossibility to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights, or the impact on other constitutionally guaranteed rights. And they all have the same judges. Judges' salaries are determined by the legal norm, which is unconstitutional nature is not applying or making any provisions of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court tried to argue that it is a "bribe" by the state. But it does always goes where it does not do judge free. And even if He does not work for free ... so other selfish reasons? Indeed, it is quite common that a worker who bears a higher level of risk will be rewarded differently than his colleague who may not be subject to the pressure of the media, interest groups, etc.. The Constitutional keith johnstone impro pdf Court also argued that wage differences are unfair and therefore in breach of the principle of proportionality. But has not been able to determine the level beyond which became unconstitutional. Without determining this limit is very low, applicability of adjudication, because it is not possible to determine potential damages, which the majority of the judges involved. Likewise, it is not possible to say whether it was indeed a disproportionality between the aim pursued (anti-corruption) keith johnstone impro pdf and the means (encouraging judges higher rewards). keith johnstone impro pdf Indeed if someone wants to watch proportionality, must undoubtedly also answer the question the disproportionate rate. Nobody yet has not challenged surcharge as such, but only its height. And if its height is excessive, what is the proper amount? For interest also consider that the judge did not quarrel salaries of prosecutors of the Special Prosecutor's Office, which were also changed and increased. It is clear, and it is not affected by the ruling in the Constitutional Court, the judges of the Special Court had a different status, address other cases than their colleagues. This argument paradoxically served to justify keith johnstone impro pdf the annulment of the Special Court. Similarly, this same argument used judges to have argued that it again did not do much to deserve higher keith johnstone impro pdf salaries. keith johnstone impro pdf But say, where is the boundary, or at least strive for its determination keith johnstone impro pdf or mention, no, it has seven judges will not be enough. Six had a commitment to a different view, but it was not enough. On the finding of the Constitutional Court sp. spots. PL. U.S. 17/08-238 and parts thereof relating to the salaries of special judges particularly bothers me that it is not constitutionally sustainable, is poor and does not talk about possible breaches of constitutional principles. Therefore, I believe that will not stand in the face of legal theory, keith johnstone impro pdf even if the practice can sometimes be unfair.