252/2006 Sb.



FIND



The Constitutional Court



On behalf of the Czech Republic



The Constitutional Court ruled April 28. February 2006 in Parliament composed of the President of the

Pavel Rychetský Court and judges Stanislav ass-bag, of Franz Duchoně,

Vlasta Formánkové, Vojena Güttlera, Paul Holländera, Ivana Janů,

Vladimir Crust, Dagmar Lastovecké, Jiří Mucha, Jan Jiří Musil,

Nykodýma, Miloslava Excellent and Wagnerové in the matter Of the proposal

Municipal Court in Prague to repeal the provisions of § 716 685 to law No.

40/1964 Coll., the civil code, as amended,



as follows:



I. Long-term inactivity of the Parliament of the Czech Republic of

not taking special legal regulation defining the cases in which the

the lessor is entitled to unilaterally increase the rent, the remuneration for the performance of

provided with the use of the apartment and change other conditions of the lease agreement, it is

unconstitutional and violates article. 4 (4). 3, article. 4 (4). 4 and article. 11 of the Charter of

fundamental rights and freedoms and article. 1 (1). 1 of the additional Protocol No. 1 to the

Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.



II. The proposal to repeal section 696 of paragraph 1. 1 of the civil code is rejected.



III. The proposal to repeal section 685-695, 696, paragraph. 2, § 697-716

the civil code is dismissed.



Justification



And the.



The appellant, in accordance with article. paragraph 95. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter the

"the Constitution") demanded that the Constitutional Court has issued a finding, which cancels the

Special provisions for the rental of the flat section of the fourth, seventh, head of

the eighth Act No. 40/1964 Coll., the civil code, as amended by later

(§ 716 685 to the Civil Code). He stated that the legal matter, the applicant

Ing. Arch. T. z., apartment, Munich, Germany, represented Msc. S. N.,

the lawyer, against defendant R. P., Prague 5 apartment decided to District Court for

The threshold of 5 June by the judgment of 23.4.2004, no. 6 C 392/2003-27 so that rejected

an action for payment of the amount of CZK 3 668. In this

things the plaintiff as the landlord of the House, in which the defendant is nájemkyní flat,

requested a rent in the amount of the usual pursuant to section 671, paragraph. 1 of the code of

Code ("identity. Code "or" OZ "because, according to his claims

the rent was never agreed upon and was only officially 19.3.2003

laid down by law, which, however, was overruled by the findings of the constitutional

of the Court. According to a private expert opinion above normal rent

makes 4 839 Czk, the defendant, however, for the month of July 2003, the applicants

pay only the amount of Czk 1 171, therefore, the plaintiff seeks payment

the difference. After proving the Court of first instance ruled that the proposal

It is not reasonable, and it was based on a finding that the defendant used the apartment to

the basis of the agreement on the use of the apartment closed the day 2.5.1990. Amount $ 1 171

the rentals paid in July 2003, corresponds to the rent for the last time

established by Decree No. 176/1993 Coll. on the rent of the apartment and any remuneration for

the implementation provided with the use of the apartment, in the wording of later regulations.

Referred to findings of the Court of first instance reviewed according to § paragraph 696. 1 OZ and

said that, with regard to the fact that currently does not exist

no law, that would be within the meaning of this provision of the set

the possibility of increasing the rent for use of the apartment, when the General provisions of his/her identity.

code, relating to the lease cannot be applied, is not a requirement of the plaintiff on the

paying the normal rent is reasonable, and should be based on the last

the specified amount of rents according to Decree No. 176/1993 Coll. of the plaintiff against the

judgment filed an appeal, which argued that the decision is contrary to the

the conclusions of the Constitutional Court referred in its decisions No. 231/2000 Coll.

No 528/2002 Coll. and no 84/2003 Coll., as provided by the Court of first instance

protection of the protiústavnímu State, and that the Court of first instance had a thing

submit to the Constitutional Court with a proposal to repeal the provisions of the Act, which

the discrepancy with the Constitution is based, therefore, the provisions of § 696 OZ. According to the applicant's

the contested decision in conflict not only with the ústavněprávními legislation, but

also in violation of the law; Decree No. 176/1993 Coll., namely

not implementing legislation to identity. code, but the regulation

issued on the basis of Act No. 526/1990 Coll., on prices. The provisions of section 696

paragraph. 1 OZ had never been consummated, which also noted a Constitutional Court in

his award. According to the applicant, therefore, cannot be applied, section 696 OZ

If there is no legislation implementing it, and the Court should follow the

§ 671, paragraph. 1 OZ and the amount of the rent for the rental.



The Court of appeal, after a repetition of some of the evidence, concluded that the

must proceed in accordance with § 109 paragraph. 1 (a). (c)) of the

of the order. The evidence is clear that the dispute is not about

the determination of the conditions of the rent as the conclusion of a new lease to the apartment,

When it would be possible in the absence of detailed special rules

the projected provision of section, paragraph 696. 1 based on the usual rent

According to § 671, paragraph. 1 OZ.



The lease was between the legal predecessor of the plaintiff and of the defendant

properly closed, including the rent specified before a valid Decree

rents, which modified also rent control. The plaintiff, as

the legal successor of the previous owner, entered into all the rights and

the obligations of the lessor arising from the concluded lease agreements.

This conclusion does not alter the fact that Decree No. 176/1993 Coll.

as well as other regulatory provisions were repealed by the Constitutional Court. In a given

the dispute is the need to assess the applicant's entitlement to claim unilateral

the increase in rents, duly laid down previously and since this is a legal

the assessment of the case, the Court is not bound in this respect, the applicant's proposal, which

referred to application of the law. For this reason, Court of first instance

right decisions according to § paragraph 696. 1 OZ, but the light to come

the legal conclusion, deduced that if an action is to be, for lack of

legislation to the provisions of § 696 OZ reject.



The applicant further points out that, according to section 493 OZ cannot be a contractual relationship

change without the consent of the parties, if his/her identity. the code provides otherwise.

Under section 696 of paragraph 1. 1 OZ of the method of calculation of the rent, the remuneration for the performance of

provided with the use of the apartment, the way their payment, as well as the cases in

which is the lessor shall be entitled to unilaterally increase the rent, the remuneration for the

the implementation provided with the use of the apartment, and change other conditions of the lease

the Treaty provides for a separate legal regulation. It follows from those provisions,

that identity. the code refers to the relationships between the rental apartment of exceptional contractual

relationships that may experience a change in liabilities on the basis of

unilateral legal act of the creditor (lessor). Referred to

the uniqueness of the lessor's rights on the other hand is balanced by the fact that

the tenant shall enjoy enhanced protection arising from the special arrangements for the rights and

the obligations of the lease of the dwelling (e.g. restrictions on the testimony of the law

for the reasons set out, with only the přivolením Court and in legal cases

also for the replacement). In the opinion of the appellant cannot yet the provisions of §

paragraph 696. 1 OZ interpreted so that in the absence of a specific legal

the prescription of an action is needed to pay the increased rent to reject,

because such a procedure would provide the protection status of the Court of protiústavnímu,

that has been noted in all of the above cited findings of the constitutional

of the Court. It would be a breach of the fundamental constitutional principle embodied in article. 90

The Constitution, under which the courts are called upon in particular to law

specified way to provide protection of rights. According to him, it is necessary to

In addition, based on the principle that in civil relations cannot fundamentally

to refuse the protection of subjective rights, referring to non-existent legal

standards, the Court is obliged to its decision to provide fair protection

the rights of the lessor, which seeks an increase in rent control.



The appellant, in the position of the Court of appeal, by whether the

to solve the dispute with the help of the analogy of the law (§ 853 OZ), where appropriate, analogy

rights, and came also from the plenum of the Constitutional Court's opinion expressed in

decision No. 21/1996 [sic-note the red: correctly SP. zn. PL. TC 21/96,

A collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as "Collection

the decision "), Volume 7, finding no. 13; declared under the No. 63/1997].

While the appellant deduced that in the absence of direct implementation

the legal regulation to the provisions of § paragraph 696. 1 OZ cannot in the present case

by analogy to the General provisions either of his/her identity. code for the rental agreement

(§ 663-684) nor the General provisions on the závazkovém law (part of the eighth title

the first OZ) and the provisions of civil legislation, for other

None of them does not regulate the conditions under which it would have been possible without

the previous agreement unilaterally change the amount of the remuneration of the lease contract.

Accordingly, the Court of first instance the appellant deduced that cannot be

do not according to Act No. 526/1990 Coll., on prices, since this law

does not provide any conditions under which it would be possible to assess the validity of the

unilateral legal act of the landlord to increase

the rent. Such conditions could only specify the competent civil

prescription, while the Court of appeal fully referred to legal analysis, that in

This question stated by the Constitutional Court in finding no 528/2002 Coll. in this direction

the appellant concluded that, even with the help of an analogy cannot solve the dispute.



The applicant therefore proposed that the existing situation was unconstitutional

dealt with by the Constitutional Court cancels a special part of his/her identity. Code (§ 685-

716 OZ), which governs the rights and obligations of the lease of the apartment. And coherence of the

the entire legislation on the lease of the apartment does not allow doing that was designed

only one cancellation provisions, for example. the provisions of § paragraph 696. 1 OZ.

This provision represents the exception laid down for the protection of the rights

the landlord, which is offset by the increased protection of the rights of the tenant in the

termination of the lease. In the opinion of the appellant's current legislation

rental apartment in the absence of implementing legislation to the provisions of § paragraph 696.

1 OZ of Nonequilibrium and favours unilaterally the status of a tenant. It is therefore

contrary to the principle of equal protection of property rights [article 11, paragraph 1, sentence

second Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (the "Charter")], as well as

in contradiction with the principle that the forced restriction of ownership rights is possible in

the public interest and on the basis of the law, and for compensation (article 11, paragraph 4


Of the Charter). At the same time the applicant stresses that the unconstitutional does not consider

the content of the specific provisions of the lease of the apartment, but a gap in the

the legislation, consisting in the fact that even within the time limit laid down by finding no.

231/2000 Coll. and even in the other for more than 3 years has not been

adopted the provisions of § paragraph 696. 1 OZ estimated the legislation.

The applicant is aware of the seriousness of its proposal, however, is not in the

the dispute, competent to address whether and how social impacts could have his

the proposal in the area of social, economic, etc. It provides that, in the

particular case, the cancellation of the whole special legislation on the lease of the apartment

still did not allow the applicant to obtain the defendant's payment after

higher rent than what was previously stated. The inequality of rights and

obligations of tenancy in question related to the apartment, however, was

deleted, because all the rights and obligations resulting from the lease

the contract for the apartment would be necessary to qualify as a general regulation of the rental

the Treaty, as well as the General arrangements of contractual relations and general provisions

of the civil code. Any excesses in the exercise of the rights and obligations of the

the lease would be for the Court to deal with, as is the case for

other lease agreements.



Because of the consistency of the various provisions of his/her identity. code with the Charter is

empowered to make more informed only by the Constitutional Court, municipal court

in Prague, according to the article. paragraph 95. 2 of the Constitution and § 64 paragraph. 3 of Act No. 182/1993

Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended (the "law of the

The Constitutional Court ") this proposal on the abolition of the special provisions of the lease

apartment.



(B).



The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in its comments

signed by its Chairman. Lubomír Zaorálkem first

zrekapitulovala the opinion of the plaintiff and stated that in 1991

in the framework of the reform of the law approved by the extensive amendment of identity.

code published under Act No. 509/1991 Coll., whose aim was, inter alia,

to express the fundamental principles of constitutional entrenchment of civil rights and

freedoms. This amendment has incorporated part of the eighth involving an infected head

the seventh section of the fourth, marked "special provisions for the rental of the apartment".

The draft for its preparation were mainly international contract to

our Republic has acceded and which have been laid down in a way

published. Act No. 509/1991 Coll., has been approved by the required majority

members of the Federal Assembly on 5 December. November 1991. On The House

the Chamber of deputies have information about other laws governing novelizovala

the contested provisions of law No 264/1992 Coll. and Act No.

267/1994 Coll., to them, he adds, that the laws were signed by the competent

constitutional actors and have been duly announced. With regard to the status of the

expressed the opinion that the legislature acted in the belief that

adopted laws are in accordance with the Constitution and our legal order, and that is

the Constitutional Court, in connection with the proposal of the municipal court in Prague

examine the constitutionality of the contested provisions and issued the appropriate decision.



The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic also said to

the inclusion of section 685-716 to his/her identity. code and said that it was a monolithic

block the provisions relating to the return of classical contract law to

our civil code (part of the eight law-§ 488 to 852). In

large sections of the file then it was because of the special importance of the flat in the

the life of each individual and of human society as a whole-reserved

separate room for adjustment of rental relation to this so social

sensitive secondary subject of civil relationship. The provisions of §

685-716 was in terms of the legal-technical included in one

section, and from the perspective of systematic conceived as special provisions for the

those governing the lease in general position. Subsequently recalled,

the rules regulating the rental apartment has only two significant

and at last by law No 267/1994 Coll., on this occasion,

pointed out that this amendment was aimed at reducing the number of contentious

conflicts in the rental relations that marked the shift in generálně

the benefit of the rights of the lessor and that in indirect one-sided form

rent increase was marked in its explanatory memorandum, the migration of payment

the cost of all repairs to the internal furnishings of the lessor on

the tenant.



The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, even if the provisions in question was approved by the

at the time has not yet been established, and therefore their approval

neparticipoval, is aware that the criticism of him does not absolve the rental housing

participate in the responsibility for the State in this area. The Senate and the individual

Senators tried for a constructive approach to solving problems on his

the soil became prevalent belief that the revision of rental housing must not be

been reduced only to amend his/her identity. code, but it is necessary to create

such legal basis, that was the total transformation of the relation of the tenant-

the landlord real and legitimate (i.e. change the legislation should

take place on a broader basis, synchronously with the legislation regarding

for instance. cooperative housing, financial support for the construction and acquisition of

bytes, the sine qua non is the thorough analysis including

broad spectrum social discussion). Therefore, the Board does not find it solutions

so the serious problems in the method of a simple bezkoncepčního interference

individual provisions in which the law. The Senate also pointed out

the fact that over the past five years, three of the Bills include an adjustment for

which it could unilaterally modify the rent from the landlord of the apartment (in the sense of

§ paragraph 696. 1 OZ), as a result of the lack of political will, however, legislative

the path ended in the Chamber of deputies without the Senate got under

the legislative process to the word.



The merit of things postulated the Senate the following opinion: there is no doubt about the

the fact that both the interest of the owner of the rented apartment (landlord), so interested

the lessee shall be subject to the protection of the democratic legislature. In a particular

time to give priority to the interests of one party (regularly

the tenants), but not permanently and unilaterally. The right of a tenant to a specific

so the landlord's obligation to protect corresponds on the other hand, for

provided that there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality (justified)

among the means used and objectives pursued. In other words: a part of the

Each modern room policy is finding a balance between the principle of

the protection of the principle of the protection of the property of the lessee and the lessor, i.e.

finding a balance (fair balance) between the requirement of general interest

the company and the need to protect the fundamental rights of the individual. According to the

the case-law of the European Court of human rights is in addressing the lawmakers

This issue left relatively large space: "States shall

provides the right to receive such laws as they deem necessary to

control the use of property in accordance with the general interest ("general

interest "). Such laws are particularly necessary and usual in the area

housing, which is in modern societies, becomes the central question

social and economic policy. To be such a policy

place, legislation must have a wide space for reflection (guest)

(the "margin of appreciation"), and how to determine whether there is a

public interest to justify the application of the regulative (control)

the measures, as well as for the selection of the detailed rules for the

the implementation of such measures. " (Mellacher and others v. Austria,

Hutten-Czapska identically and vs. Poland). Finally, the Senate refers to the opinion

The Constitutional Court expressed in finding no 84/2003 Coll., on the other hand deals

Senate consideration of the Institute of protection of the tenant, because the provisions designed to

grant lead the de jure to its cancellation. After a reminder of the basic

instruments serving the protection of the tenant as the weaker parties (the regulation of the

rents and the determination of the exhaustively defined exit reasons) the Senate

summed up, it cannot be assumed that the State would retain the housing issues

completely to the market and give up interfering with private residential

relations. Housing is a service of individuals to which the sui generis

the consistent security of the State is obliged to. When any streamlining will be

inevitably be constitutionally protected rights one restriction on

the expense of the other, therefore it is necessary to fundamentally take to meet all of the criteria

characterizing such protection to the tenant that is not considered

unconstitutional, in the form of realization of State policy (if it pursues a legitimate

a goal is realized constitutionally konformními resources, is seen as a

exceptional measures, the limited public intervention).



To the special provisions of his/her identity. code, relating to the lease of the apartment, the Senate

It states that although the entire section on the lease of the apartment largely prefers above all protection

the tenant, among them a number of such, which have a "neutral" character and

they respond only to the different legal situations related to the use of the dwelling (e.g..

common rental apartment), and there are also provisions designed exclusively in

the benefit of the lessor (the renter to pay for small repairs and

the cost of routine maintenance of the apartment, the pronajímatelovo the right of entry to the apartment

etc.). Of the Senate concludes that the provisions of section 716 685 until it is necessary to perceive

as the complex rules governing the rights and obligations of the specific

the subject-the apartment. If the subject is of interest to the company (apartment rental, respectively.

housing), is undoubtedly to be specific and special arrangements to enable

regulate not normally podřaditelné the situation. The Senate concluded that attribute

the peculiarities of the edit in question is fully justified and wrong with

any smooth podřazením under the General provisions of the lease

the Treaty.



(C).



In assessing the Constitutional Court requested the opinion of the other proposal merits tests are applied,

and that of the bodies concerned:



-Ministry of local development,



-Tenants of the Czech Republic,



-The Civil Association of owners of houses, apartments and other real estate in the Czech

of the Republic.



Of their content, the Constitutional Court exempts the following data:



and) Ministry for regional development



The Ministry does not agree with the proposal in principle and said that both the Government and

MEPs in the Chamber of deputies of the initiative submitted by the Chamber of Deputies

several proposals for new laws aimed at the solution of the rent of the flats; with

None of them, however, the Chamber of Deputies voiced their approval. Further


the Ministry reminded that the problem to which the applicant refers, it is

currently addressed the Government's draft law on unilateral increase

rent apartment, whose efficiency is the proposed date of 31 March 2006.



(b)) the Association of tenants of the Czech Republic



Association of tenants of the Czech Republic (hereinafter the "Association) considers the proposal

in principle, unacceptable, as it would its compliance led to unjustified

and deep intervention into the rights and duties of citizens without any adequate

"compensation", the extinction of the entire series of legal institutions, rights and

the obligation of citizens to define, thus clearly an invocation

considerable legal uncertainty. Further pointed to the fact that the non-acceptance of the legal

the adjustments provided for in § paragraph 696. 1 identity. the code may be barely

replaced by the procedure of the Court, does not have to lead to savings of boundaries between separate

the power of the judicial and legislative. The Association considers it curious that

the applicant requests the annulment of the provisions of the lease of the apartment, but at the same time

stresses that these provisions not be deemed unconstitutional, that his

the aim is "provoking" the legislative authorities to address legal relations

relating to the rental of the flat. To fulfill this intention is not a proposal for a

to be eligible, because the provisions of section, paragraph 696. 1 identity. the code is the only

the provisions of that unilateral rent increases (albeit under the conditions,

to edit a specific legal regulation). Also the Association

requires that the legislation was adopted, predicted the provision of section 696

paragraph. 1 identity. the code, however, shall be considered as wholly excluded, to

without a "positive", i.e. legal editing. The Association has requested that the

the proposal was rejected.



(c)) Civic Association, homeowners, apartments and other real estate in the Czech

of the Republic of



The Civic Association of owners of houses, apartments and other real estate in the Czech

Republic (hereinafter the "Association of owners") provided by the Constitutional Court

the detailed opinion, including large attachments. In the opinion of the particular

stressed that the Czech law the right to housing is not logically understood

as a basic human right, as opposed to rights of ownership, and pointed out to the

on the classification of the rental relationship including rent controls, expressed in

the findings of the Constitutional Court. Association of owners considered the proposed repeal

§ 685-716 of his/her identity. code for the measures, which would significantly help to

must be correct, respectively. delete already overcome protiústavního

the Communist reliktu, IE. the consequences of the legal regulation of the so-called. personal

the use of apartments; the existing legislation of the protected tenancy-according to his

opinion-grossly exceeds the normal, common in Europe border rental

rights. In the opinion of the Association of owners characterized the

the most fundamental and most controversial institutions protected tenancy, and that:



-the formation of a relationship rather than on a voluntary basis, or of freedom of contract

the parties,



-děditelnost rental relation to flats belonging to other entities,



-nájemcovo have permission to place that does not belong to him, and in

cases, leaving the apartment,



-the impossibility of their rental apartment in accordance with the free will

the landlord, while tenants is the unrestricted right to

provided,



-the obligation of the former landlord to provide an equivalent replacement apartment

former tenants



and lay down the detailed arguments to them. On the basis of their recap

concludes that the tenants in apartments with regulated rent (on time

an indefinite period) may apply to the entire triad apartment tenant and flats

unlimited use for the often ridiculously low remuneration, and argues that the owner

It has no right, as can the rent my apartment to freely

terminate and your apartment rent free. Therefore, the contested provisions with

taking into account the method of formation of the tenancy shall be deemed so crucial intervention in the

rights owners that, in summary, are no longer in conformity with the constitutional protection

ownership rights.



To own the essence of the problem of the owners Association has indicated that the amount of the so-called.

rent control is not sufficient, nor at the expense of simple reproduction

the rented apartment, let alone to improve, or to obtain a reasonable

yield, and referring to the relevant documents, professional institutions. These

sources agree that the cost of a simple reproduction of moving in

ranging from 2.7 to approximately 4% of the current price per year of reproductive; According to the

Ministry of regional development is currently the average regulated

rent equal to approx. 1.2% from the current price per annum. of reproduction



Association of owners considered the current situation by modifying petrifikovanou

rental apartments in the civil code to be legally, economically and

národohospodářsky bad. States that protected rents in the contested scheme

part of the civil code with the amount of the lease from cancelled provisions on

rent control are applied in about 17% of the housing stock,

the 740 000 flats, of which less than 300 000 bytes is in the homes of private

owners. At the conclusion of the opinion, therefore, formulate or three recommendations:



and If the Constitutional Court) shall proceed in full to the cancellation of the entire legal

editing rental apartment, nothing happens, what could not be resolved in the framework of the

General adjustments of the lease; saves the State at the same time solve the problem of a new

legislation.



(b)), it is clear that some provisions in the lease of flats under the scheme are from

neutral in terms of fundamental human rights, therefore, the Association of owners

considers that eventually was to annul the Constitutional Court only

constitutionally questionable provisions, therefore, the provisions of § 685 paragraph. 1 the last sentence,

§ paragraph 696. 1, section 706, 708, 712, 713 and 715 712a, last sentence.



(c)) if the Constitutional Court wanted to minimize its interference, it would be

possibly the most important and may be only the most problematic

the provision, which is in the present article 685 paragraph. 1 last

sentence, section, paragraph 696. 1 and section 711 of his/her identity. code.



The Civic Association of owners of houses, apartments and other real estate in the Czech

Republic has asked for the granting of the status of a secondary party to the proceedings, and

by analogy it under section 76, paragraph. 3 the law on the Constitutional Court. About this

request nerozhodoval, the Constitutional Court, because the analogous application

that provision does not come into consideration in proceedings for annulment of the Act,

or its parts.



(D).



From the file of the District Court for Prague 5 SP. zn. 6 C 392/2003 the Constitutional Court

He found that it was proceeding in which the plaintiff as a landlord

a specific apartment in Prague 5 demanded to the defendant, as a nájemkyni of this

the flat requirement to pay him the amount corresponding to the difference between the

the amount of the usual rent (according to the expert's report) and the amount paid

for the month of July 2003. In so doing, the applicant argued that the defendant was

rent of personal transformations Act use the apartment and that the amount of rent

been agreed between the parties. After the abolition of secondary legislation

legislation on rent control by the Constitutional Court, the applicant sought

agree on a fair amount of the rent, the defendant on his proposal

didn't carry. Court of first instance dismissed, when he took a

proven, that among the participants there are rental ratio based on agreement

the use of the apartment of the 2.5.1990, the nájemkyně for the use of the apartment pays rent,

which corresponds to the amount last determined in accordance with Decree No. 176/1993 Coll.

repealed by the Constitutional Court finding no. 231/2001 Coll. (sic-note red.:

properly no 231/2000 Sb.) with effect from 31 December 2001, and that the action is not

reasonable. Among the participants was the controversial question of the amount of the rent for the use of

the flat, the Court found that there is currently no

the legislation, which would currently rent for the use of the question above apartment

set. Due to this lack of legislation, when, on the one

the provisions of the civic side. the code refers to the special legislation,

that, however, does not exist, and on the other hand, the use of the General provisions of his/her identity.

code, relating to the lease (section 671 identity code) is not possible, the Court

He came to the conclusion that the provisions of section 969 (has to be correctly 696) of his/her identity. code

It is necessary to apply to the legal relationship with the fact that the amount of the rent

was determined by a decree of the last day before its cancellation. If then

the lease between the parties to continue, the Court concluded that the

the rent provided for by Decree on the date of cancellation is the current amount of

the rent. Although the court sees considerable inequality in relations between

the landlord and the tenant, the rent laid down when last in 2001

does not match the condition, which was in July 2003, at least with regard

to increase the costs of necessary maintenance and management of real estate,

with the opinion of the plaintiff Fowles did not, that the current amount of rent is in

violation of the law No. 526/1990 Coll., on prices, since this regulation is to

the case does not apply. For the reason for compliance action, the Court did not

Prosecutor namítaný contradiction the rent with good manners, because

the existence of a contrary to accepted principles of morality only allows you to deny the legal protection

exercise of the right, not the legal relationship constituting or ever change.



The applicant filed an appeal against the judgment of the prvostupňovému, in which it claimed

the contradiction of the contested judgment with the ústavněprávními legislation and lack of

by law; He pointed out that the judgment is in conflict with the findings of the constitutional

of the Court. The Court of Appeal reviewed the contested decision and management, which

its release was preceded by, and came to the conclusion that it is appropriate to proceed

According to § 109 paragraph. 1 (a). (c)) code of civil procedure. Order of the day

21.2.2005, no. 18 What 383/2004-44 decided to stay the proceedings in the

the decision of the Constitutional Court about his proposal to abolish the Special

the provisions of the civic. the code on the lease of an apartment. In so doing, stated that the unconstitutional

not a diction of these provisions, but a gap in the legislation

consisting in the fact that the law has not been adopted expected legal

edit options for a unilateral legal act of the rent increases

of the lessor.



(E).



1.



The Constitutional Court shall-in accordance with section 68, paragraph. 2 of the law on the constitutional

Court-to deal with the question of whether the law as soon as possible, the unconstitutionality of the

the provision is namítána, was accepted and published in the limits of the Constitution laid down

competence and constitutionally prescribed way. The claimant seeks the

repeal of section 685-716 of his/her identity. code. The provisions, which have not been

part of the original text of his/her identity. code, IE. Act No. 40/1964 Coll.,

which took effect 1.4.1964; She was into it until the beginning of the inkorporována


90. the years 20. century, and as a result of the amendment made by Act No.

509/1991 Coll., which amends, supplements and adjusts the civil code, with

effect from 1.1.1992, in the form of special provisions in the lease of the apartment

in the eighth head of the seventh section of the fourth (Note: with regard to the

This is not the text of the text range in the grounds of the award included).



Whereas that Act No. 509/1991 Coll. was adopted at the time of validity of the

previous adjustments to the legislative process and the Constitutional Division of legislative

competence between the Czechoslovak Federation and Republic, the constitutional

the Court of the condition, whether it was adopted and published within the limits of the Constitution

established competence and constitutionally prescribed way, product reviews. U

laws issued prior to the entry into force of the Constitution namely the constitutional

the Court of review-according to settled case-law-only their content

compliance with the existing constitutional order, and not the constitutionality of the procedure

their creation and compliance with regulatory competence (cf. e.g. find in

things SP. zn. PL-10/99, collection of decisions, volume 16, finding no. 150,

p. 119; promulgated under no. 290/1990 Coll.).



2.



With effect from 1993, some of the provisions in question has

minor adjustments, and on the basis of law No 264/1992 Coll., amending

and the following of the civil code, the law on the State notary public and

proceedings before the public notary office (the notarial regulations), and amended and added some

other laws.



and in the second subparagraph of section 707). 2 the words "notary public" replaced by the word

"the Court",



(b) of section 711, paragraph). 1 was completed with the next letter i), which read:



(c)) "if it is a special purpose or apartment flat in the House of special purpose

and the tenant is not a disabled person. "



(d)) to section 711, paragraph 4 was inserted, which read: "4) in the case of an apartment

a special destination, or a flat in the House of special purpose, you can terminate the

the rent referred to in paragraph 1 only after the prior consent of their

load such an apartment set up, or his successor in title or the consent of the

the competent authority of the Republic, which under the laws of the national councils of the conclusion of the

the Treaty on its rental recommended. ".



Because also the Act No. 264/1992 Coll. was adopted at the time of validity of the

previous adjustments to the legislative process and the Constitutional Division of legislative

competence. The Constitutional Court of the condition, whether it was accepted and published in the

the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and the constitutionally prescribed manner,

product reviews (see above).



3.



With effect from 01 January 1995 was made another change concerned

provisions, and by law No 267/1994 Coll., which amends and supplements the

the civil code.



and paragraph) section 685. 1:



"(1) the rent of the apartment lease contract arises, the landlord leaves

tenants rent the apartment to use, for a specified period or without specifying

the period of use. The rent of an apartment is protected; the landlord can terminate the

only for the reasons set out in the law. ".



(b)) § 686 paragraph. 1:



"(1) the lease shall contain the designation of the apartment, its accessories,

the extent of their use and the method of calculating the rent and remuneration for the performance of

associated with the use of the apartment or their amount. The lease must have

writing. ".



(c) in section 692), after paragraph 2, insert a new paragraph 3 is added:



"(3) the lessee is obliged to call after previous written permit

the landlord or his authorized person to carry out the installation and maintenance

equipment for measurement and control of heat, cold and hot water, as well as

deduction of the measured values. As is obliged to allow access to other

technical equipment, if they are part of the apartment and include landlord. ".



(d)) in § 694 joined at the end of this sentence: "in the event of a breach of this

the obligations of the landlord is entitled to require that the tenant made

adjustments and changes without delay. ".



(e) paragraph in section 706). 1, in the first sentence after the words "the daughter-in-law, who" put

the word "prove" and in the second sentence, after the words "nutrition, if"

the word "prove".



(f)) in section 709, deleted the words "flats permanently designated as".



(g) in paragraph § 710). 3 is deleted the part of the sentence for the semicolon.



(h) of section 711, paragraph). 1 (a). (b)):



"(b)) if the tenant has stopped work for the landlord and

the landlord needs the staff apartment for another tenant, which for him

will work; ".



I) in section 711, paragraph. 1 (a). (h)) at the end of adding the words "or without it

for serious reasons is used only occasionally. "



j) § 711, added a new paragraph 5 is added:



"(5) If the lessor without serious reasons, did not use the cleared the apartment

for the purpose for which the Court for the termination of the lease, the Court may on dwelt upon a proposal from the

the tenant may decide that the landlord is obliged to pay additional

tenants, that apartment, moving costs and other costs associated with the

the necessary modification of the replacement dwelling. The Court may also order the lessor,

that the lessee pay the difference in the amount of the rent of the apartment and of the earlier

the apartment of the replacement for a period of five years, beginning with the month in which the

the tenant moved into a spare apartment, until the time when

the tenant rent a replacement ended flat. The right of the tenant to pay the difference

the rent is nepromlčí in the period of five years. Other claims of the lessee are

This prejudice. ".



k) section 712:



"§ 712



(1) the refunds are spare apartment Housing and replacement accommodation.



(2) the replacement residence is an apartment, which according to the size and equipment ensures

decent accommodation, tenant and members of his household. Finished-if

notice to the landlord of the rental ratio reasons under section 711, paragraph. 1 (a).

and), b), (e), (f))) and (i)), the tenant the right to spare apartment, which is referred to in

local conditions substantially equivalent to the apartment, which has a clear (a reasonable

spare apartment). The Court may, for reasons of particular interest of

decide that the tenant has the right to substitute a smaller flat floor surface

than vyklizovaný apartment. When the lease ended, the ratio of the landlord by notice from the

reasons under section 711, paragraph. 1 (a). (b)) and the tenant stopped work

for the lessor without serious reasons, just when the eviction to provide

shelter; the Court may decide, for reasons worthy of special attention

the tenant has the right to substitute a smaller flat floor surface, lower quality

and less featured, or even an apartment outside the village, than is vyklizovaný flat,

or the right to alternative accommodation.



(3) in cases under section 705 paragraph. 2 first sentence will rozvedenému

her husband, who is obliged to vacate the apartment, provide replacement

accommodation; However, the Court of the reasons worthy of special attention, decides that

a divorced spouse has the right to a replacement flat. In the cases referred to in § 705

paragraph. 1 (a). 2 the second sentence has a divorced spouse the right to spare apartment;

the Court may, if the reasons are therefore worthy of special attention, to decide

that a divorced spouse has the right only to spare accommodation.



(4) the replacement accommodation means a one room apartment or room in the

svobodárně or digs in a furnished or unfurnished apartment of another

the tenant.



(5) if the rental ratio Ended the testimony of the landlord under section 711, paragraph. 1

(a). (c)), d), (g) and (h))), you just need to provide shelter during the evacuation. With respect to

a family with minor children, and ended by serving a notice to the rental ratio

the landlord under section 711, paragraph. 1 (a). (c)), and (d)), the Court may, if they are to

the reasons for this worthy of special attention, to decide that the tenant has the right to

alternative accommodation, or on a spare apartment. Shelter means

provisional until the tenant's must affix the proper accommodation and space to

the storage of its furnishings and other things home and personal

needs.



(6) If the tenant has the right to compensation, this is not a housing tenant

obliged to move out of the apartment and the apartment clean out, as long as it is not

the corresponding housing refund ensure; joint tenants are eligible only

on one replacement housing. ".



l) section 712 was inserted a new section 712a, which reads:



"§ 712a



In the period between the end of the tenancy and the last day of the time limit to

evacuation of the apartment to the landlord and the person whose tenancy is terminated,

rights and obligations within the range of the corresponding provisions of section 687 to 699 and

mutatis mutandis to section to section 702 paragraph 700. 1. ".



m) section, paragraph 713. 1:



"(1) If a business apartment after the death of the tenant or his after the divorce

the marriage of the spouse, or use on a person referred to in section 706, paragraph.

1, are not required to move out of the apartment, as long as they are not provided

an adequate replacement. This also applies in the case where a tenant

Service Apartment leaves permanently the common household. In justified

the cases the Court may decide that a replacement flat on the lower floor

desktop, lower quality and less featured, or even an apartment outside the village, than

vyklizovaný apartment or spare accommodation. ".



n) in the second sentence of section 714: "Tenant cooperative apartment is not required from the

apartment move out if he is not assured a housing recovery under the conditions

laid down in § 712. ".



about) in section 719, paragraph 2 was deleted. Paragraphs 3 and 4, the

renumbered as paragraph 2 and 3.



Law No 267/1994 Coll. was published the amount of 79/1994 collection of laws, which

was circulated the day 30.12.1994. From the electronic library of the

the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, the Constitutional Court found that the proposal

the Bill was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies as a Government proposal of the day

and circulated to members as 26.8.1994 print 1125. The proposal was adopted on 25.

a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies the day 15.12.1994 resolution No. 536, when

163 members of Parliament present, there were 96 for, 32 against, 33 abstentions, 2

did not vote.



The day the law was delivered to the President of 16.12.1994 to sign. The President of the

a law signed June 22.12.1994.



The Constitutional Court therefore within the meaning of section 68, paragraph. 2 of the law on the Constitutional Court

He found that the law No 266/1994 Coll., amending and supplementing the civil

code, was adopted and issued within the limits laid down in the Constitution of the Czech Republic

the legislative competence of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and the constitutionally prescribed

in a way.



4.



After changes of the contested provision is of the following:



PART EIGHT



THE HEAD OF THE SEVENTH



SECTION FOUR:



Special provisions for the rental of the apartment



section 685



(1) the rent of the apartment lease contract arises, the landlord leaves

tenants rent the apartment to use, for a specified period or without specifying

the period of use. The rent of an apartment is protected; the landlord can terminate the

only for the reasons set out in the Act.




(2) a lease contract on the lease of a cooperative apartment can be closed under the conditions

modified in the statutes of a housing cooperative.



(3) the laws of national councils establishes what means the staff apartment, apartment

Special purpose and place in the homes of special purpose, and under what

the conditions of the lease agreement can be concluded about the hiring of the staff apartment, rent

apartment special and on the lease of the dwelling in houses of the special destination.



Section 686



(1) the lease shall contain the designation of the apartment, its accessories,

the extent of their use and the method of calculating the rent and remuneration for the performance of

associated with the use of the apartment or their amount. The lease must have

in written form.



(2) if the period of the lease is not agreed upon, it shall be deemed that the lease contract was

closed for an indefinite period.



The rights and obligations of the lease of the apartment



section 687



(1) the lessor is obliged to give the tenants a flat in a proper condition to

the proper use and ensure full and lessee undisturbed exercise of the rights of the United

with the use of the apartment.



(2) unless otherwise agreed in the lease contract otherwise, minor repairs in the apartment

associated with its use, and the costs associated with routine maintenance shall be borne by

the tenant. The concept of minor repairs and costs related to the normal maintenance of the apartment

modifies specific regulation.



(3) the rights and obligations of the tenant-Member squads-as regards the implementation

minor repairs in the apartment, and as regards the reimbursement of the costs associated with normal

maintenance of the apartment, the governing statutes of the cooperative.



section 688



The tenant of the apartment and the persons who live in a common household with the lessee,

In addition to the right to use the apartment and the right to use the common areas and facilities

the House, as well as to enjoy the performance, the provision of which is with the use of the apartment

associated.



section 689



The tenant is obliged to use the apartment, common areas and facilities of the House properly

and properly enjoy the performance, which is associated with the use of the apartment.



section 690



Tenants are required to exercise their rights to ensure that the House was

created the environment to ensure that the other tenants to exercise their rights.



section 691



If the landlord fails to comply with its obligation to remove the glitches that prevent

the proper use of the apartment, or which is the performance of the nájemcova rights in jeopardy, has

the tenant right after the previous warning of the lessor remove defects in the

to the extent necessary and require him to pay the efficiently incurred.

The right to compensation shall apply in the case of the lessor without undue delay.

The right shall be extinguished if not exercised within six months from the removal of defects.



section 692



(1) the lessee is obliged to notify the lessor without undue delay

the need for those repairs in the apartment, which is the landlord, and allow their

implementation; otherwise, the responsibility for the damage that non-fulfilment of this obligation

originated.



(2) If a tenant Care about the timely implementation of minor repairs and routine

maintenance of the apartment, the landlord has the right to do so after the previous warning

the tenant alone at their own expense and require compensation from him.



(3) the lessee is obliged to after previous written challenge to allow the lessor

or by a person that has made the installation and maintenance of equipment for

measurement and regulation of heat, cold and hot water, as well as a deduction

the measured values. As is obliged to allow access to other

technical equipment, if they are part of the apartment and include the lessor.



section 693



The lessee is obliged to remove defects and damage caused in the House

alone or those who are residing with him. If not, the landlord has the right to

After the previous tenant warning defects and damage to remove and

require the tenant to pay.



§ 694



The lessee shall not perform construction works or other material change in the

the apartment without the consent of the lessor, even at their own expense. In the case of

violation of this obligation, the lessor is entitled to require that

the tenant made alterations and changes without delay.



§ 695



The lessor is entitled to carry out the construction of the apartment and any other relevant

changes in the apartment only with the consent of the lessee. This consent can be denied only

for serious reasons. If the landlord such adjustments on command

the competent authority of the State Government, the tenant shall be obliged to implement them

allow; otherwise, the responsibility for the damage that non-fulfilment of this obligation

originated.



Rent and payment for the implementation provided with the use of the apartment



section 696



(1) the method of calculation of the rent, payments for the implementation provided with the use of

the apartment, the way their payment, as well as cases in which the

the lessor shall be entitled to unilaterally increase the rent, the remuneration for the performance of

provided with the use of the apartment, and change other conditions of the lease agreement,

provides for a special legal regulation.



(2) the remuneration for the implementation provided with the use of the apartment or the backup

together with the rent, if the participants agreed or legal

Regulation provides otherwise.



section 697



If the tenant does not pay rent or cover for the implementation provided with the

the use of the flat within five days after its due date, it is obliged to pay the

the lessor of the late fee.



section 698



(1) the lessee has the right to a reasonable discount on the rent, until

the landlord does not remove his warning in the apartment or in the House defect,

that significantly or for a longer period of their use. The right to the

a reasonable discount on the rent the tenant has even if not

provided the performance related to the use of the apartment, or was provided by the

vadně, and if as a result of the use of the apartment.



(2) the lessee has the same right, if structural modifications in the House

significantly or for a longer period will worsen conditions for the use of the apartment or House.



(3) the tenant has the right to a reasonable discount on the remuneration for the performance,

provided with the use of the apartment, if the lessor is duly and on time

does not provide.



section 699



The right to a discount of rent or of the remuneration for the implementation provided with the

the use of the apartment is to be applied by the lessor without undue delay.

The right shall be extinguished if not exercised within six months from the removal of defects.



Common rental apartment



section 700



(1) Apartment in a joint tenancy may be more persons. Joint tenants have

the same rights and obligations.



(2) the joint tenancy also arises by agreement between the current tenant, other

person and the landlord.



(3) in a cooperative apartment, the joint tenancy only arise between spouses.



§ 701



(1) the common things about the lease of the apartment, can deal with each

of joint tenants. In other matters must be approved by all;

otherwise, the Act is invalid.



(2) the legal acts concerning the joint tenancy of the flat are entitled to

and obliged to all common tenants, jointly and severally.



section 702



(1) if there is a mismatch between the joint tenants the rights and obligations

arising from the joint apartment lease, shall decide, on a proposal from one of the

them to the Court.



(2) the Court may in cases worthy of special attention on a proposal from the

a joint tenant to cancel the right of the joint tenancy of the flat, if it

an unavoidable condition, which prevents the common use of the flat joint

tenants. At the same time determine which of the joint tenants, or which of them

the apartment further.



Common rental apartment husbands



§ 703



(1) If for the duration of the marriage the spouses or one of them will become

the tenants of the apartment, a common hiring apartment husbands.



(2) if only one spouse for the duration of the marriage right on

the conclusion of the contract on the lease of a cooperative apartment, the lease of a common

apartment and spouses spouses common membership in a cooperative; from this membership

both spouses are entitled and obliged to jointly and severally.



(3) the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply if the spouses together permanently

do not live.



Section 704



(1) if one of the spouses before conclusion of the tenant of the apartment

the marriage, both spouses joint tenancy of a flat closure

marriage.



(2) the same shall apply if, prior to the marriage to one of the

the spouses the right to conclude contracts for the hire of a cooperative apartment.



section 705



(1) unless otherwise agreed between the divorced spouses on the lease of the apartment, on a proposal from the Court of

one of them decides that the right is deleted, the joint tenancy of the flat.

At the same time shall determine which spouse will continue to use the apartment as a tenant.



(2) acquired the rights to the conclusion of the contract on the lease of co-operative apartment one

of the spouses prior to the marriage, the right is extinguished

common rental apartment in divorce; the right to use the apartment remains of

the spouses, who has acquired the right to rent the apartment before marriage. In

other cases of joint tenancy a cooperative flat Court

unless the divorced spouses, on a proposal from one of them about the cancellation of

This law, as well as about which one of them will be as a member of the cooperative on

the tenant of the apartment; It also eliminated the common membership of the spouses in the

team.



(3) when deciding on the future of the lease of the apartment, the Court shall take into account, in particular, on the

the interests of minor children and the opinion of the lessor.



The transition of the lease of the apartment



Section 706



(1) If a tenant dies and does not go to the apartment in the joint hiring of spouses,

they become tenants (joint tenants), his children, grandchildren, parents,

siblings, son-in-law and daughter-in-law, who prove that they lived in with him the day of his death

in a common household, and they do not own the apartment. The tenants (the common

tenants) are also the ones who care about common household

the deceased tenant or were dependent on him for food, if they prove,

they lived with him in a common household, at least for a period of three years prior to his

death and do not have their own apartment.



(2) If a tenant dies, a cooperative apartment, and unless it is an apartment in

joint tenancy of the spouses, the death of the tenant, his membership in the

the team and the lease on the apartment of an heir, which fell to the Member.



section 707



(1) if one of the spouses, who were joint tenants of the apartment, becomes

is the only tenant of the surviving spouse.



(2) if the cooperative apartment, extinguished with the death of one spouse, the common

the rent of the apartment. If it was right on a cooperative apartment acquired for the duration of

marriage, the surviving spouse remains a member of the cooperative and to him belongs

Member share; the Court shall take into account in the management of the heritage. If

husband died, who has acquired the right to a cooperative flat before closing

marriage, the death of his membership in the cooperative and hire

a cooperative apartment at that heir, to whom fell the Member share. In the case of

more articles of the lease, the membership of the testator may go to multiple heirs.



(3) if one of the joint tenants, of his right to

the other joint tenant.




section 708



The provisions of § 706 paragraph. paragraph 1 and section 707. 1 also applies in the case where the

the tenant leaves the common household permanently.



section 709



The provisions of § 703 to 708 does not apply to flats, flats for the staff of the Special

of destination and for the apartments in the houses of the special destination.



Termination of the lease of the apartment



§ 710



(1) the rent of the apartment shall be extinguished by written agreement between the lessor and the lessee

or written notice.



(2) in the event that the rent of the apartment has been concluded for a period of time will also

the expiry of this period.



(3) the written notice must be given when the rental period has come to an end, and

at least three months to ended at the end of the calendar month.



section 711



(1) a landlord may terminate the rental apartment with only přivolením of the Court of

for these reasons:



and if the landlord) needs the apartment for herself, her husband, for their children,

grandchildren, son-in-law or daughter-in-law, his parents or siblings;



(b) if the tenant has stopped) to carry out work for the landlord and

the landlord needs the staff apartment for another tenant, which for him

will work;



(c) if the tenant) or those who live with him, despite a written warning

grossly violates good manners in the House;



(d) if the lessee grossly violates) its obligations resulting from the lease

the apartment, in particular, that did not pay the rent or the remuneration for the performance of associated

with the use of the apartment for a period longer than three months;



(e)) where it is necessary for reasons of public interest with the apartment or the House deal

so that the apartment may not be used, or if the apartment or house repairs

whose implementation cannot be flat or House long time further use;



f) in the case of an apartment, which is associated with the construction of the premises intended for

the operation of the business or other entrepreneurial activities and the tenant or

the owner of these commercial space wants to use this flat;



(g) if the lessee) has two or more flats, except that it cannot be

a fair request that used only one apartment;



(h) if the tenant does not use) the apartment without serious reasons or without serious

the reasons used only occasionally;



I) in the case of a special purpose or apartment flat in the House of special purpose, and

the tenant is not a disabled person.



(2) if the Court přivolí to the notice on the lease of the apartment, at the same time, to determine

which the date of rental end ratio; in doing so, account shall be taken of the period of notice

(§ 710). The notice period starts to run up to the first day of the calendar month

following the judgment. At the same time, the Court also decides that the

the tenant is obliged to vacate the apartment no later than 15 days after the expiry of the

the notice period. If the tenant has the right to substitute apartment (replacement

accommodation), the Court will decide that the lessee is obliged to vacate the apartment within 15 days

After securing a replacement flat, and you just need to substitute

accommodation, within 15 days after securing a replacement accommodation.



(3) if there is a přivolení to the testimony of the grounds referred to under points),

(b)), e) and (f)), the Court may, in justified cases, save the lessor

the obligation to replace the tenants relocation costs, which shall designate.



(4) in the case of a special purpose or apartment apartment in the House of special purpose,

You can terminate the lease referred to in paragraph 1 only after the prior consent of

who with such an apartment set up, or his successor in title, or

the consent of the competent authority of the Republic, which, under the laws of the national councils

the conclusion of the contract about his hiring.



(5) If the lessor without serious reasons, did not use the cleared the apartment

for the purpose for which the Court for the termination of the lease, the Court may on dwelt upon a proposal from the

the tenant may decide that the landlord is obliged to pay additional

tenants, that apartment, moving costs and other costs associated with the

the necessary modification of the replacement dwelling. The Court may also order the lessor,

that the lessee pay the difference in the amount of the rent of the apartment and of the earlier

the apartment of the replacement for a period of five years, beginning with the month in which the

the tenant moved into a spare apartment, until the time when

the tenant rent a replacement ended flat. The right of the tenant to pay the difference

the rent is nepromlčí in the period of five years. Other claims of the lessee are

by prejudice.



section 712



(1) the refunds are spare apartment Housing and replacement accommodation.



(2) the replacement residence is an apartment, which according to the size and equipment ensures

decent accommodation, tenant and members of his household. Finished-if

notice to the landlord of the rental ratio reasons under section 711, paragraph. 1 (a).

and), b), (e), (f))) and (i)), the tenant the right to spare apartment, which is referred to in

local conditions substantially equivalent to the apartment, which has a clear (a reasonable

spare apartment). The Court may, for reasons of particular interest of

decide that the tenant has the right to substitute a smaller flat floor surface

than vyklizovaný apartment. When the lease ended, the ratio of the landlord by notice from the

reasons under section 711, paragraph. 1 (a). (b)) and the tenant stopped work

for the lessor without serious reasons, just when the eviction to provide

shelter; the Court may decide, for reasons worthy of special attention

the tenant has the right to substitute a smaller flat floor surface, lower quality

and less featured, or even an apartment outside the village, than is vyklizovaný flat,

or the right to alternative accommodation.



(3) in cases under section 705 paragraph. 2 first sentence will rozvedenému

her husband, who is obliged to vacate the apartment, provide replacement

accommodation; However, the Court of the reasons worthy of special attention, decides that

a divorced spouse has the right to a replacement flat. In the cases referred to in § 705

paragraph. 1 (a). 2 the second sentence has a divorced spouse the right to spare apartment;

the Court may, if the reasons are therefore worthy of special attention, to decide

that a divorced spouse has the right only to spare accommodation.



(4) the replacement accommodation means a one room apartment or room in the

svobodárně or digs in a furnished or unfurnished apartment of another

the tenant.



(5) if the rental ratio Ended the testimony of the landlord under section 711, paragraph. 1

(a). (c)), d), (g) and (h))), you just need to provide shelter during the evacuation. With respect to

a family with minor children, and ended by serving a notice to the rental ratio

the landlord under section 711, paragraph. 1 (a). (c)), and (d)), the Court may, if they are to

the reasons for this worthy of special attention, to decide that the tenant has the right to

alternative accommodation, or on a spare apartment. Shelter means

provisional until the tenant's must affix the proper accommodation and space to

the storage of its furnishings and other things home and personal

needs.



(6) If the tenant has the right to compensation, this is not a housing tenant

obliged to move out of the apartment and the apartment clean out, as long as it is not

the corresponding housing refund ensure; joint tenants are eligible only

one housing compensation.



§ 712a



In the period between the end of the tenancy and the last day of the time limit to

evacuation of the apartment to the landlord and the person whose tenancy is terminated,

rights and obligations within the range of the corresponding provisions of section 687 to 699 and

mutatis mutandis to section to section 702 paragraph 700. 1.



section 713



(1) If a business apartment after the death of the tenant or his after the divorce

the marriage of the spouse, or use on a person referred to in section 706, paragraph.

1, are not required to move out of the apartment, as long as they are not provided

an adequate replacement. This also applies in the case where a tenant

Service Apartment leaves permanently the common household. In justified

the cases the Court may decide that a replacement flat on the lower floor

desktop, lower quality and less featured, or even an apartment outside the village, than

vyklizovaný apartment or spare accommodation.



(2) the provisions of paragraph 1 shall apply mutatis mutandis and on the flats of the Special

destination and the apartments in the houses of the special destination.



section 714



Termination of membership of a person in housing association ceases to exist, its rent of the apartment.

Tenant cooperative apartment is not required to move out of the apartment, if he

housing is not provided compensation for the conditions laid down in § 712. Return

the Member can share the claim only after eviction from the apartment, and

within the statutes of the cooperative.



The adjustment of the rights of tenants in the apartment Exchange



Section 715



With the consent of the landlords tenants can agree on the exchange of the apartment.

Consent and agreement must be in written form. If the landlord refuses without

serious reasons for consent to the exchange of the flat, the Court may, on the proposal of the tenant

the decision to replace the expression of the will of the landlord.



section 716



(1) the right to fulfilment of the agreement on the exchange of the apartment must be applied to the Court to

three months from the date on which the agreement was ratified; otherwise, the right to

cease.



(2) if there are any of the participants in such serious

circumstances, it is not possible to fulfill the agreement on it a fair request,

may withdraw from the agreement; However, it must do so without undue delay.

The obligation to compensate for damage that does not affect.



(F).



The Constitutional Court reviewed the issue of whether the claimant-the municipal court in Prague

is entitled to submit a proposal to repeal the contested provisions of his/her identity. code.

Standing Court to submit a proposal for the repeal of the law,

or its provisions defined in article 1. paragraph 95. 2 of the Constitution, so that if the Court

comes to the conclusion that the law, which is to be used in solving the case, is in

contrary to the constitutional order, refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. In § 64 paragraph.

3 the law on the Constitutional Court States that the proposal to abolish the law or the

its individual provisions is also entitled to the Court in the context of

its decision-making activities referred to in article. paragraph 95. 2 of the Constitution.



In the case under consideration (see the findings of the Constitutional Court

The District Court for Prague 5 SP. zn. 6 C 392/2003) with regard to the subject

the dispute, in which the landlord demanded the imposition of duties against the nájemkyni

to pay him the amount corresponding to the difference between the amount of the usual rent and

not yet borne, comes from the provisions proposed for abolition

only the provisions of § paragraph 696. 1, the other provisions of his/her identity. Code of

the lease of the apartment there are such provisions, which shall be in solving the things

used. Therefore, the Constitutional Court notes that the decision of the activities

Municipal Court in Prague is related only to the proposal to repeal section 696 of paragraph 1. 1

of his/her identity. code, and therefore the proposal to repeal of other provisions of the lease of the apartment

refused (statement III).



(G).



Constitutional objections to the petitioner against the contested provisions of the

based on the belief that the current state of legislation in the lease of the apartment is

unbalanced, because the provisions of the landlord's rights protection


(i.e. section 696 1 OZ predicted adoption of legislation on the calculation of

and the unilateral increase of the rent) absentuje, while the provisions of the

protecting the tenant are effective, which is-according to the opinion of the appellant-

advantage tenant status unilaterally. A second plane of the constitutionally

the legal form of the opposition claim of unconstitutionality of the gaps in the

the legislation, consisting in the fact that it has not yet been adopted, the provisions of §

paragraph 696. 1 OZ estimated the legislation. In doing so, the appellant submits

He realizes that the cancellation of the entire special legislation on the lease of the apartment would

still did not allow the lessor to obtain after tenants

pay higher rents than what was previously stated. Inequality

the rights and obligations of tenancy in question related to the apartment, however, reportedly

was deleted, because all the rights and obligations resulting from the lease

the contract for the apartment would be necessary to qualify as a general regulation of the rental

the Treaty, as well as the General arrangements of contractual relations and general provisions

of the civil code. Any excesses in the exercise of the rights and obligations of the

the lease would be for the Court to deal with, as is the case for

other lease agreements.



The Constitutional Court considers only the appellant formulated objections

partially důvodnými, but in the part, which identifies itself with them,

found another solution than the claimant requires. The Constitutional Court has come to the

the conclusion that the grounds for revocation of section, paragraph 696. 1 identity. the code is made.

The very wording of section, paragraph 696. 1 identity. the code, which only anticipates adoption

the new legislation, it is not unconstitutional, unconstitutional is a long-term failure to act

the legislature, which has resulted in inequality and constitutionally neakceptovatelnou

ultimately, violation of constitutional principles (statement I).



The Constitutional Court considers necessary to assess the real motives

the petitioner, leading to the formulation of a proposal for the abolition of special

the provisions of the lease of the apartment. It is clear that the real motive of the proposal lies in the

the absence of regulation, or constitutionally Conformal. deregulation of rent,

based on its unilateral options increase. When addressing this

a socially sensitive issue, no doubt having its roots in the era of

the totalitarian system, it is necessary to respect the nature of the legal relationship

of the lease, including the lease of the apartment as a relationship bond, conceptually assumes

create maximum space for the application of the autonomy of the will and the Contracting

freedom of the parties. The Constitutional Court admitted in a number of its decisions, the principle of

autonomy of the will and of freedom of contract no constitutional dimension. In the opinion of

The Constitutional Court [see find in things sp.. PL. ÚS 24/99,

the decision, volume 18, find no 73, p. 135; promulgated under no 51/2001

SB.), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/01 (a collection of decisions, volume 24, find no 149,

p. 79; promulgated under no 410/2001 Coll.), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/01 (collection

the decision, Volume 28, find no 135, p. 153; promulgated under no. 499/2002

SB.)] It is a necessary part of the democratic rule of law and the protection of

freedom of Contracting will, which is a derivative of the constitutional protection of the rights of

According to the article title. 11 of the Charter. Freedom of Contracting will, however, did not only

on the right of ownership, even if it is in this context is its constitutional

the strongest anchor. In its finding in case sp.. I. ÚS 113/04

(A collection of decisions, Volume 33, finding no. 63, p. 129),

respect for the autonomous sphere of the individual is a general condition for the functioning of the

the rule of law within the meaning of article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution, or article. 2 (2). 3

Of the Charter. The right of individuals to the autonomy of the will, i.e.,. in the final analysis

the freedom of the individual, meets the requirement, imposed on State power, to

recognized the autonomous acts of will of individuals and its corresponding negotiations.

If such conduct does not interfere with the rights of third persons, the State power

expressions of individuals merely to respect, or aprobovat. Intervention in

individual freedom can state power resort only in cases in which

are justified by the specific public interest, if such action

proportional (fair) with regard to the objectives to be achieved.

The principle of the protection of the autonomy of the will of the bodies of law are widely reflected in

private law, for which is characterized by the principle of equality of the participants

(as for the concept of equality reflected in internal structures of reciprocity

relations governed by private law in comparison with the law of the public for which it is

characterized by the predominance of the bearer of a public sovereign power, not about the

the concept of equality before the law within the meaning of equality, i.e. neakcesorické.

the general equality before the law). In the area of private law, however,

, the objective law puts the autonomy of the will, or the contractual freedom

certain limits (cf. § 2, paragraph 2 and 3 OZ). Not to be overlooked, that just

as regards legislation, the lease of the apartment, the Civil Code contains

the quantity of standards donucujícího (Central), whose common

the denominator is the concept of the so-called. protected tenancy of the flat. These standards, however,

restrict the autonomy of the will, above all, on the other side of the rental relationship, IE.

on the part of the lessor. If we realise that the landlord is typically

the owner of the apartment, it is clear that an increased degree of protection of tenants is reflected in the

restriction of ownership rights of the lessor, specifically in his

the right to dispose of the subject property, and have benefited from it.



The above mentioned protection of the autonomy of the will has an effect on other typical principle

the law of pacta sunt servanda:. It is also an expression of equality of parties

the bond of relationship, which is also reflected by the fact that none of the parties has

option (not right) to change the content of the expression of the will of its own

the commitment of the relationship (see § 493 civic code, which was not designed to

the cancellation). Unilateral interventions have legal relevance only if the

so the law expressly provides. De lege lata to include the possibility of

the unilateral increase in rent, and that definition terms (limits)

where can the landlord change the previously agreed or laid down. For

These rules may indicate "rent control". The absence of a

the proposed regulation leads to the fact that the change of the content of the lease (including the above

rent) is a term of the lease of things the agreement of the parties. If

the absence of such agreement, there is no legal procedure (in the

due to the inactivity of the legislature), through which it would be possible to

changes by unilateral expression of will of the landlord's reach.



The issue of the regulation of rents, the Constitutional Court has repeatedly dealt with, see

in particular, the Constitutional Court in case sp.. PL. ÚS 3/2000 (collection

the decision, volume 18, pp. 287 et seq., declared under no 231/2000 Coll.

in the text of the communication of the published under no. 130/2001 Coll.), finding in the matter of the sp.

Zn. PL. ÚS 8/02 (collection of decisions, Volume 28, finding no. 142, p. 237,

promulgated under no. 528/2002 Coll.) and find things in the Pl-2/03 (collection

the decision, volume 29, finding no. 41 p. 371, promulgated under no. 84/2003

SB.). In finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/2000 the Constitutional Court expressed the opinion that the

the principle of reasonable (fair) balance requires that when

respecting the requirements contained in the article. 11 of the International Covenant on

economic, social and cultural rights was taken into account

the process of destruction of ownership rights, in particular with regard to the owners

rental home discriminated against in relation to the other owners. Price

the regulation does not have to exceed the limits of constitutionality, not clearly reduce the

the price to that given all the proven and necessarily incurred

the cost of eliminating the possibility at least of their return, as in the

this case would actually implikovala denial of purpose and of all functions

ownership. In finding SP. zn. PL-8/02, the Constitutional Court stated that the

protection of property rights does not exclude the rent control as the constitutional

the form of realization of the State policy in the event that moves within the

the established constitutional order and the international commitments of the Czech Republic.

State interference must respect the reasonable (fair) balance

between the requirement in the general interest of society and the need for protection

fundamental rights of the individual. This means that there must be reasonable

(unfounded) the relationship of proportionality between the means and the

the objectives pursued. Rent control is not a compulsory purchase order, you may

However, relate to the content of the title. Ownership of the instrument (article 11 of the

paragraph. 3) is not to be understood as neomezitelné right, but according to the limited

Of the instrument (article 11 (4)) can only be by law and under the conditions

laid down by the Charter (article 4 (2)), and only to the extent to which

without prejudice to the nature of ownership (which cannot become a mere Peel

devoid of content), while this limitation is the prohibition of discrimination

(article 4, paragraph 3, of the Charter). The rule in this area is therefore the determination

rental agreement (article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter) as free (not

any) rent, its regulation is an exception, which should

be limited to the necessary time.



It is necessary to point out the fact that mutual correlation of price regulation

rent and lagging transformation of civil-law relations regulating

housing is reflected in the solution of the basic contradiction of each modern room

policy, namely the search for a balance between the principle of protection for tenants and

the principle of the protection of property rights, and that the greatest violation of this balance

lies in the fact that in the dual stage transformation occurred in the Czech Republic

the fact that the subsidies provided by the tenants of the society-wide resources

through low prices, rents, some have transferred to the

landlord-the private owners, who acquired the houses in zestátněné

restitution. These landlords must pay for the operation, maintenance and

repair and management of their own resources. On too, such

the situation also pointed out, the European Court of human rights, which in the case

Hutten-Czapska against Poland ruled that restriction of ownership rights

owners of apartments with controlled rent is in conflict with the law on the peaceful

the use of assets guaranteed in article. 1 of Appendix No. 1 to the Convention for the protection of

human rights and fundamental freedoms.



The Constitutional Court recalled that the decision in case sp.. PL. ÚS 8/02 was

taken more than three years ago (20.11.2002), while it is clear that the

the situation on the market, with a lot of change. Instead, to

the legislature, in conjunction with the Government to flexibly respond to the findings, in which the


The Constitutional Court strongly criticized the then rigid control of legislation

rent denying ownership of the owners of the apartments and the blind

the transformation of rental relations, to date, failed to fill the

the intention of the predicted structures section 696 of paragraph 1. 1 identity. code. The result of this

activities or inactivity is a de facto freeze on rent control,

thereby further deepens the infringement of ownership rights of the owners of those

bytes covered by the regulation. The subject balance cannot be

to ensure otherwise, than by adopting the anticipated legal editing. Its adopt

raised the legislature unconstitutional situation, which is in stark

contrary to the Charter (see operative part I.), and "posvěcením" (i.e. the inequality.

inadmissible discrimination) between landlords to whom is allowed to

rent flats for the usual rent, and between the landlords, who are

forced to abandoned flats for rent before the adjustments for

rent control. This situation, however, after all, creates inequality

between different groups of tenants, which is also reflected in their

property sector and lacks a reasonable justification. The Constitutional Court is

I know the proposal of the Government of the Czech Republic on the issue of the unilateral act

increase of the apartment rent, but reminds the notorietu that-if this

the proposal will be adopted-will contain rules applicable to futuro.



The Constitutional Court on this point repeatedly points out that it is not permissible

transfer the social burden on one group of people (the lessee) the group the second

(landlords), and adds that it is not even permitted to create different

category of landlords, depending on whether the rent in apartments of one

the group is subject to regulation or not. Flagrant consequences of inaction

the legislature kept the Constitutional Court, which is aware of his position as a

the constitutionality of the protection authority, the need to replace the legal instruments

protection of lessors under the level of the "ordinary" law using the

the principles of constitutional regulation. Therefore, the Constitutional Court takes on fulfillment

the basic function of the general courts, i.e.. ensure proportional protection

subjective rights and law-protected interests, and demands that her General

the courts provided that lessors do not oppose their action

requesting determination of increased rent, with reference to the lack of legal

editing. Rejecting these actions from the summary judgment for the reasons contained in the

The Supreme Court of 31.8.2005, SP. zn. 26 Cdo 867/2004 (later

used in the resolutions appeal for inadmissibility anti-drug-see

resolution SP. zn. 26 80/2005, Cdo, SP. zn. 26 Cdo 819/2005, SP. zn. 26 Cdo

1647/2005, SP. zn. 26 Cdo 1912/2005) considers the Constitutional Court for infringement of the

article. 36 of the Charter. The Supreme Court by his legal opinion

on the following arguments:



With regard to the provisions of § 871, paragraph. 1 identity. the code, which had changed to

the right to personal use on 1.1.1992 right of tenancy, it is necessary to rent an apartment

This statutory-based transformations can be considered as equivalent to the lease

produced after that date, the contract cannot be inferred, therefore, that it lacks

one of the essential elements (concept)-determination of the amount of the rent. From the nature of

things, shows that this element of the rental relationship was preserved from

a previous relationship of personal use (when the remuneration for the use of the apartment was

laid down by law, and therefore logically not be contracted

the participants). This ratio is also konstituovaný lease relationship

the provisions, which according to § 493 of his/her identity. code cannot be changed without the consent of his

the parties, if the Civil Code provides otherwise. The unilateral change of the above

the rent of the flats-as envisaged in the provisions of section, paragraph 696. 1 identity.

code-can establish specific legislation, which, however, in the present

time does not exist. The civil code (or other law) does not yet

the Court in the contract of tenancy relationship hit by changing some of its

content components, including the amount of the rent. This permission is the responsibility to be able to

the legislative and the Executive, in which the general courts are not entitled to the

interfere, or replace it (see article 2, paragraph 1, of the Constitution).



If, after the establishment of the right of personal use, where appropriate, after his

the transformation of the rent, the price of the lease and the payments with the use of

apartment regulated by the legislation of this State,

until accepted by the relevant special legislation, the existence of

projected section 696 of paragraph 1. 1 identity. code. The fact that these legal

the regulations were later abolished as unconstitutional, in that the conclusion

nothing can change (see section 71, paragraph 3, of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the constitutional

the Court, according to which the rights and obligations of the legal relations arising from

the abolition of the law remain unaffected). " (sic-note red.:

§ 71 paragraph correctly. 4 of law No. 182/1993 Coll.).



Another site of that judgment, the Supreme Court says:



"Under the principle of legally significant, the Court does not consider the dovolací of the case or

the assessment of the question of the binding nature of the award of the Constitutional Court No 84/2003 Coll.

which option to pursue normal rent to the lessor expressly

He admits, as with regard to that, in the opinion of the legal theory (and in the

the decision-making practice of the Constitutional Court itself rather than nepochybného)

landed in the grounds of the award that the binding is the operative part of the award and

those parts of the grounds, which include a "carrier" reasons, and taking into account the

the statement cited the award was revoked Government Decree No. 567/2002

Coll., laying down a price moratorium of rents of apartments, and was

rejected the suggestion that the Government of the Czech Republic was forbidden to continue

interventions in the area of prices of rent of the flats by issuing their own legal

legislation, it cannot be considered that the contested decision is inconsistent with the

the statement cited the award or "supporting" the decision-making of the reasons that the

his release. "



The arguments to the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court shall be considered as a purely positivistic

to prudential and totally divorced from efforts to solve problems which, in

the company in the long term create tension. The solution adopted by the Supreme Court

not only did not help the practice of general courts, but he resigned on his

the position of supreme authority, the system of general courts, when clearly odhlédl

from the duration of unconstitutional interference in the position of landlords

(the judgment was issued 31.8.2005). Furthermore, the Constitutional Court expresses the fundamental

disagreement with the assessment, which were formulated by the Supreme Court, the binding

justification the findings, because this guest is concentrated only to find

in the matter of SP. zn. PL. ÚS 2/03 and disregard the ideas from the previous

the findings. These schools of thought structure consists of "supporting" the reasons for the decision,

that led the Constitutional Court to its decision.



To the argument that the General Court is prevented from them within the meaning of article. 90 and

article. 95 of the Constitution, to carry out their basic duties to which they are

called, IE. provide "protection of the rights laid down by law",

The Constitutional Court notes that, in a situation where, with the consent of the Government and

Parliament there are next to each other in the long term, two groups of owners

rental of apartments, one with a market income from letting and the second from the past

administratively determined the rent, which is several times smaller, and the estimated

When the legal relations in both of these groups rely on legislation

contained in the current identity. code, then with the contribution of the principles contained

in the mental structures that make up the supporting reasons for decision in

These findings are in accordance with the beliefs of the Constitutional Court of the general courts

plenty of valid legal regulations, to decide and to provide protection

the basic rights of the participants, who have brought their dispute before them.



Based on these facts, the Constitutional Court, in the role of protector of the cited

the constitutionality, not their function to restrict to a position of "negative"

the legislature and must, in the framework of the individual components of the balance of power

characteristic of the rule of law based on respect for rights and freedoms

of man and the citizen (article 1, paragraph 1, of the Constitution), to create a space for conservation

fundamental rights and freedoms. It is, therefore, that the general courts, despite the

the absence of predicted specific adjustments, must decide on the increase

rent, depending on local conditions, so that the

avoid discrimination mentioned above. Whereas, in the

such cases will go about finding and application of a simple law, which

The Constitutional Court, as repeatedly in its case-law highlights

It is not for staying with it, to offer a specific decision-making procedure and

replacing so the Mission of general courts. Only States that it is necessary to

avoid arbitrariness; the decision must be based on rational

arguments and thorough of all circumstances of the case, the use of

the natural principles and practices of civil life, the conclusions of the legal doctrines and

settled judicial practice constitutionally Conformal.



The attention it deserves and the second plane navrhovatelových of the opposition based

on the allegation of unconstitutional legislation, consisting in the gap that

you have not yet taken the anticipated legislation. As a result of

idle legislature may produce unconstitutional status, and it

then, if the legislature is obliged to take a specific legal adjustment

they do not do so, and it will hit the law-the Constitution of a protected interest. In doing so,

an obligation for the legislator may result both directly from the constitutional

level (e.g., in ensuring the realization of the fundamental rights and freedoms or in the

their protection), as well as the level of the "ordinary" laws, in which this

the obligation to put myself expressis verbis. It is known that in the activities of the

constitutional courts has been developed especially for the protection against inactivity

the German Federal Constitutional Court. Also in the Czech Republic is the constitutional

justice issues touched [cf. spaces find in things sp.. Pl. ÚS

48/95 (collection of decisions, volume 5, finding no. 21; declared under no.

121/1996 Coll.), find in things sp.. PL. ÚS 36/01 (a collection of decisions,

Volume 26, finding no 80; promulgated under no. 403/2002 Coll.); in the grounds of

then referred to the award by the Constitutional Court deems such unconstitutional

the omission of the legislature, which has resulted in a constitutionally neakceptovatelnou

inequality]. You can therefore conclude that, under certain conditions, are the consequences of

spacing (under legislation) unconstitutional, especially when

the legislature decides that a particular area, this intention in the Act

by, however, anticipated the regulation. The same conclusion also applies in


When Parliament declared the adjustment has taken, but she was

canceled because they did not meet the constitutional criteria, and the legislature has not taken

constitutionally, as compensation to him conformable to the Constitutional Court, provided the

sufficient time (18 months). In addition, remained idle even after the expiry of this

the period and the necessary legislation has not taken today (even after more than 4

years).



The relationship between the legislative and judicial power arises from the separation of powers in the

the State, as is reflected in the Constitution. Physical access to the interpretation of us

necessarily leads to the conclusion that this Division is not itself the purpose, but the tracks

the purpose of the higher. From the very beginning of its establishment was the constitutional legislator

the child of t, which is primarily a service to the citizen and

the company. Each power has a tendency toward machismo, bytnění and corruption;

absolute power to the rampant corruption. If any of the ingredients

to be able to convert the constitutional framework of their definition, their powers, or

on the contrary, to fulfil their tasks, and thereby prevent the proper functioning of the other (in the

case of the judiciary), must take the control mechanism

brakes and balancing, which is built into the system of the Division. The main task of

the judiciary defines the Constitution as follows: "the courts are called upon in particular to

laid down by law, to provide protection to the rights of way. " (article.

90) and "Basic rights and freedoms are under the protection of the judicial power." (article.

4.) from the same constitutional framework of democratic State shows

the position of the Constitutional Court: "the Constitutional Court is the judicial body protection

constitutionality. " (article 83). Something to the argument the Supreme Court

the analysis in the light of those rules, we come to the conclusion that the Supreme Court

other general courts make mistakes, if they refuse to provide the protection of the rights of the

natural and legal persons, which turned to them requests for

Justice, if their claims denied only with formalistickým

the reasoning and citing the inaction of the legislature (the absence of

the relevant legislation), and that after the Constitutional Court, as the guardian

the constitutionality and control their decisions opened the way. The constitutional

the Court has repeatedly said the status of the unequal position of one group

owners of rental apartments and houses in a discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The Parliament of the Czech Republic's long-term failure to act then to be incompatible with the

the requirements of the rule of law. The Constitutional Court has become the will of the constitutional

the legislator responsible for compliance with the constitutional order in the Czech

Republic, and therefore does not intend to resign from this obligation, to carry out

the duty of the PCF and the general courts and refuses to rely only on pressure

The European Court of human rights, and therefore decided, as in the statement I.

stated.



In relation to their own proposal after control of the Constitutional Court

notes that there are reasons to cancel the provisions of § paragraph 696. 1

of his/her identity. code, since this provision is not in itself contrary to article.

11. 1 the second sentence of the Charter or with the article. 11. 4 of the Charter, and therefore

proposal for a municipal court in Prague under section 70, paragraph. 2 Act No. 182/1993

Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, rejected (statement

II.).



The President of the Constitutional Court:



JUDr. Rychetský in r.



Different opinions under section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,

as amended, took to parts of a decision of the

the judges of the plenum Stanislav Package, Vlasta Formankova, Vladimir Crust, Dagmar

Lastovecká, Jiří Nykodým and Elisabeth Wagner, and part of its justification

judge Jan Musil.