29/1996 Coll.
FIND
The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic
On behalf of the Czech Republic
The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic decided to March 13. December 1995 in plenary
Ing design. W. m., a group of members of Parliament
The Czech Republic and a. j. on the repeal of certain provisions of law No.
229/1991 Coll., on the adjustment of the ownership of land and other agricultural
assets, as amended, law no 183/1993 Coll., which
are changing and supplementing Act No. 229/1991 Coll., on the adjustment of ownership
to the land and other agricultural property as amended by law No 42/1992 Coll.,
Act No. 93/1992 Coll. and Czech National Council Act No. 39/1993 Coll., and
the Czech National Council Act No. 243/1992 to regulate certain
issues relating to Act No. 229/1991 Coll., on the adjustment of ownership
relationship to the land and other agricultural property as amended by Act No. 93/1992
SB.
as follows:
On the day of the announcement of the award in the collection of laws are hereby repealed:
and the provisions of section 4, paragraph 4). 1 of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll., on the adjustment of ownership
relationship to the land and other agricultural property as amended
the rules, part of the first sentence after the comma in the words "who has permanent residence in the
its territory, "
(b) the provisions of § 4, paragraph 4). 2 the same Act, in the words of "and have a permanent residence
on its territory ",
(c)) the provisions of § 6 (1). 2 the same Act, in the words "who have a permanent
stay on the territory of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and ",
(d) the provision of section 7 (1)). 2 the same Act, in the words of "permanently living on the
the territory of the Czech Republic ",
(e)), the second sentence of § 8 paragraph. 1 of the same Act, sounding "draft must be applied
until 31 December 2006. December 1992 or within six months of the decision
the land authority refusing the property, otherwise the right to disappear "
(f) the provisions of section 13 (3)). 1 of the same law,
(g)) the provisions of section 13 (3). 2 the same Act, in the words of "applied within the time limit
referred to in paragraph 1 "and in the words" after the date of expiry of the period referred to in
paragraph 1 ",
(h) the provisions of § 22 of the paragraph). 6 of the same Act, in the words "from the effectiveness of this
the law "
even) section 22(2). 8 of the same Act, in the words "within the period to the end of
1993 ",
(j) the provisions of § 26 paragraph). 2 the same Act, in the words "from the effectiveness of this
the law "
to the provisions of article). (II) Act No. 182/1993 Coll., which amends and supplements the
Act No. 229/1991 Coll., on the adjustment of the ownership of land and other
agricultural property as amended by law No 42/1992 Coll., Act No. 93/1992
Coll. and Czech National Council Act No. 39/1993 Coll.
l) the provisions of § 2 (2). the Czech National Council Act No. 243/1992 Coll.,
to regulate certain issues relating to Act No. 229/1991
Coll., on the adjustment of the ownership of land and other agricultural property,
as amended by Act No. 93/1992 Coll., in the words of "permanently living on the territory of the
The Czech Republic ",
m) in the provisions of section 2 (2). 2 the same Act, in the words of "and permanently live in
The Czech Republic ",
n) the provisions of § 11 of the same law.
Justification
I AND
19 July. 12. in 1994, the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic received the constitutional complaint
the complainant, Ing. W. m. against the decision of the land Office of District
Office Plzeň-North of 28 June. 4. the 1994 no j. POOH-3457/92. The constitutional complaint
was associated with a proposal to cancel:
and the provisions of section 4, paragraph 4). 1 and 2 and article 13 (3). 1 of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll., on the
modify the ownership of land and other agricultural property, in
as amended, part of the first sentence after the comma in the words "that
has permanent residence on its territory ", and the provisions of section 4, paragraph 4. 2 of the same Act
in the words of "and have a permanent residence on its territory", and
(b) the provisions of section 13 (3)). 1 of the same Act, if it provides a precise deadline for the
filing of claims.
The complainant seeks to date 1. 2. the 1995 repeal of the listed parts
the provisions of section 4, paragraph 4. 1 and 2 of the Act, as sentiment. in his opinion, are
they violated the provisions of article. 1 and 10, of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as
"The Constitution"), article. 1, article. 3 (3). 1, article. 4 (4). 2 and 3, article. 11. 2 and
article. 14 paragraph. 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (the "Charter") and
Finally, the article. 1 (1). 1 of the additional protocol to the Convention on the protection of
human rights and fundamental freedoms. Its proposal for a closer does,
points out, however, consistently on the Constitutional Court of 12 December. 7. in 1994,
that was declared under no 164/1994 Coll., and on its grounds.
Whereas that period has already expired for the exercise of these rights
pursuant to section 13 (3). 1 and 2 of the cit Act, it would be according to the complainant,
the removal of the obstacles inherent in the cancellation conditions of permanent residence on the
the territory of the Czech Republic, where it would "at the same time avoid the cancellation
specified time limits for claims arising from this
the law and the establishment of the new force, which will be the
claims to apply. "
The test case page is the following. 28 June. 12.1992, i.e., in the
the statutory time limit, the complainant raised Ing. W. M. and J. M.,
personal data is detected, a resident of Sydney, Australia, and g. l., roz. M.,
personal data is detected, a resident of the us, under section 9 (2). 1. the Act entitled
the closer the specified property.
Land Office Plzeň-North District Office came to the conclusion that the
one of the plaintiffs are not satisfied the conditions of section 4 of the Act, i.e. the feeling.. that
they are not citizens of the Czech Republic and do not reside on its territory.
Therefore, no further evidence has not been done. With regard to the abovementioned
the conditions pursuant to section 4 of the Act. by decision No j. POOH-3457/92 of 28 December.
4. the 1994 determined that the said persons, including the complainant, are not the owners of the
the real estate in question and it is not for them for them to provide refunds.
At the same time, the complainant was advised of the possibility of review of the decision of the
the regional court. This option, however, did not use. The decision of the
Therefore, give the day 3. 6. the 1994 law. 19 July. 12.1994 received
The Constitutional Court a complaint associated with the proposal to repeal referred
the provisions of the Act..
The complaint was filed to the postal transport on 15. 12.1994. Her
part of the presentation of the Charter, which proves that at the time of application
the claim was the complainant on the basis of the decision of the Ministry of Interior of the Czech
No. j. GSP/3-53/1239/90-786 of 26 March. 7. the 1990 citizen of Czech
of the Republic. II. the Senate's Constitutional Court reached taking into account the provisions of the
section 75, paragraph. 1 (a). and Act No 182)/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, to
the conclusion that the applicant meets the conditions of, the provisions of section 74 of the Act No.
182/1993 Coll., the proceedings and the proposal to repeal the relevant provisions of the
the plenum of the Constitutional Court to forward the decision referred to in article 12(2). paragraph 87. 1 (a).
and in part) of the Constitution relating to the proposal to abolish the conditions of permanent
stay at the provisions of section 4, paragraph 4. 1 and 2 of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll., as amended by
amended. Your complimentary order of 15 March. June 1995
He moved to the decision of the plenum of the Constitutional Court and the remaining part of the proposal
requesting the repeal of the provisions of section 13 (3). 1 of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll., on the
the text of the law No 39/1993 Coll. on 15. June 1995 the judge rapporteur refused to
part of the proposal requesting the repeal of the provisions of section 13 (3). 1 of law No.
229/1991 Coll., as amended.
I. (B)
At the time of the hearing in the matter of Pl-8/95, the Constitutional Court received 2 July.
June 1995 proposal for a group of 69 members of the repeal of the above
the provisions of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll., as amended, the law
The Czech National Council No. 243/1992 to regulate certain issues
relating to Act No. 229/1991 Coll., on the adjustment of the ownership of
land and other agricultural property as amended by Act No. 93/1992 Coll., and
Act No. 183/1993 Coll., amending and supplementing Act No. 229/1991
Coll., on the adjustment of the ownership of land and other agricultural property,
as amended by law No 42/1992 Coll., Act No. 93/1992 Coll. and act of the Czech
the National Council No. 39/1993 Coll.
Your proposal for group members that justifies the nature, character and
the legal effects of the contested parts of the provisions of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll., on the
as amended, are completely the same as the repealed provisions
Law No. 87/1991 Coll. on out-of-court rehabilitation, as amended by
amended. According to their beliefs would not only be illogical,
But even in contradiction with the Constitution and the Charter, if two laws that address the same
the issue was governed by completely different legal entitlements of individuals,
only depending on whether they have or do not have permanent residence in the
the territory of the Czech Republic. For the same reason, the group members suggests
the cancellation of the above provisions of the Act of the Czech National Council No. 243/1992
Coll. of the restrictive possibility of redress of grievances for those who live permanently on the territory of the
Of the Czech Republic.
According to a group of MPs is also necessary to repeal the provisions of section 13 (3). 1,
the last sentence of § 8 paragraph. 1 and the relevant part of the provisions of section 13 (3). 2, §
22 paragraph 1(b). 6 and 8, and section 26, paragraph. 2 and article. (II) Act No. 182/1993 Coll. and section 11
the Czech National Council Act No. 243/1992 Sb. these provisions provided for by
the now expired the deadline for the filing of claims under the Act No. 229/1991 Coll. and
the Czech National Council Act No. 243/1992 Coll. That its draft group
Members not closer does. Points out that the only way it will be
authorised persons enabled to claim the law laid down in the manner and
that these provisions are in contradiction with the same provisions of the Constitution,
Of the Charter and the additional protocol to the European Convention, as reported
justification for the finding of the Constitutional Court No 164/1994 Coll. As pl. ÚS proposal
16/95 must meet the conditions set out in section 64 of the Act No. 182/1993 Coll. and was
the permissible under section 66 of the same Act, the Constitutional Court and the
asked under section 69 of the same Act, the Parliament of the Czech Republic to
the statutory time limit for the proposal in writing.
20 December. June 1995 the Constitutional Court reversed appellant in case Pl.
TC 8/95 Ing. W. M. with the submission, in which it takes back its proposal on the
the review of the constitutionality of the above provisions of the Act No. 229/1991
Coll., as amended. However, the withdrawal of the Constitutional Court
its resolution of 12 June. July 1995 conceded. Following up on this
the judge-rapporteur in the case of Pl. TC 16/95 by order no j. pl. ÚS
16/95-27 of 26 April 1999. 7. the 1995 proposal for a group of MPs refused in part
requesting the repeal of the provisions of section 4, paragraph 4. 1 of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll., on the
as amended, part of the first sentence after the comma in the words "that
has permanent residence on its territory ", and the provisions of section 4, paragraph 4. 2 of the same Act
in the words of "and have a permanent residence on its territory". A group of members in the
This part of the proposal has been preserved within the meaning of the provisions of § 35 paragraph. 2 of law No.
182/1993 Coll., the right to participate in the negotiations as intervener.
AND (C).
At the time of the already initiated proceedings in Pl. TC 16/95 challenged the constitutional
the Constitutional Court a complaint the complainant and j., which was associated with the proposal
on the review of the constitutionality of the provisions of section 7 (1). 2 of the Act No. 229/1991
Coll., as amended, and section 2, paragraph 1. 1 and 2 of the law of the Czech
the National Council No. 243/1992 Coll., Also in this case, the judge-rapporteur
in this part of the proposal that refused the complainant retains the right to
to participate in the proceedings in the United case Pl. TC 8/95 as intervener.
AND (D).
With regard to the fact that the complainant's proposal of Ing. W. M. on the repeal of the provisions
Act No. 229/1991 Coll. relating to permanent residence to solution
the same questions as a group of MPs, even if the proposal was more narrowly formulated,
the Constitutional Court decided to combine things SP. zn. PL. ÚS 8/95 and SP. zn. PL.
TC 16/95 to the joint management within the meaning of section 112, paragraph. 1. in line with the.
connection with the provision of section 63 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll.
II. AND
When it comes to considering the matter, it was necessary to resolve the question of whether there are proposals on the
the cancellation of the above provisions is factually justified and whether it is possible to come out
from the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court in case the cancellation of similar provisions
Law No. 87/1991 Coll. (PL. ÚS 3/94). whether this view will need to be
change the procedure according to the provisions of section 13 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., or whether
It is a different problem.
Pursuant to section 69 of the Act No. 182/1993 Coll., posted by the President of the Chamber of Deputies
day 3. 5.1995, its opinion on the draft Ing. W. m. stating that
Act No. 229/1991 Coll. was approved by the constitutionally prescribed way.
The content is then considered by the Chamber of Deputies, the law respecting
the fact that it is not possible to correct all the wrongs, to which in
vesting period. The determination of the conditions of residence and the State
citizenship by the legislature fully corresponds to the international
usages. In the opinion is completely ignored any mention of adoption
Discovery pl. ÚS 3/94 to Act No. 87/1991 Coll. and its consequences.
Also the President of the Chamber of Deputies PhDr. Milan Uhde posted 13 May. 7.
1995 opinion on the proposal for a group of 69 members, which also concerns
the provisions of section 4, paragraph 4. 1 and 2 of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll., as amended
In addition, the legislation, however, requires the abolition of a number of other provisions of the same
the law on article. (II) Act No. 182/1993 Coll. and the above provisions
the Czech National Council Act No. 243/1992 Coll. in its opinion stated that
the constitutionality of the provisions of the law, which is the subject of the proceedings, were
approved by the required majority of the members of legislative bodies, have been
signed by the competent constitutional actors and have been duly announced.
In terms of subject matter, States that Act No. 229/1991 Coll. is the basic
the law governing the restitution of agricultural assets that
adopted by the Federal Assembly. The purpose of the Edit was in the context of
the economic imperative to reform initiated in the first place quickly
modify the ownership to the land so that the owners could in full
the extent of their ownership, and that at the same time possible
privatization of State land. As regards the conditions of citizenship and
permanent residence, were based on the same principle as in Act No.
87/1991 Coll., Act No. 229/1991 Coll., amended and supplemented,
they react to the situation, which was created after the law began to be implemented in the
practice and other related laws have been adopted. The content of the law of the Czech
the National Council No. 243/1992 Coll. is the removal of some of the other
property-related injustices that have occurred in the territory of the Czech Republic using the
some of the legislation, which is completely in accordance with the mandate
contained in section 7 (2). 2 of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll., as amended by Act No.
93/1992 Sb.
The President of the Chamber of deputies in its opinion it considers redundant
Repeat the argument, which was contained in the observations of the
the Chamber of deputies to other proposals (for the last time to the design of Ing. W. M. in case pl. ÚS
8/95), and in particular with regard to the finding of the Constitutional Court pl. ÚS 3/94
published under no. 164/1994 Sb. "However, we believe that the consistency of the
This legal solution to the constitutional guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms is
must be assessed in particular with regard to the period in which they were referred to the laws of the
accepted, "says the President of the Chamber of Deputies. Comment on opinion
that legislatures have acted in the belief that adopted laws are in
accordance with the Constitution and our legal system and is the Constitutional Court, in order to
assess the constitutionality of these laws and issued the appropriate decision.
II. (B)
(the constitutionality of the conditions of stay)
With regard to the constitutionality of the conditions of stay. sustainable living on the territory of the
The Czech Republic, the following proposals were submitted. The Complainant Ing. W.
M. proposes the repeal of these provisions:
and the provisions of section 4, paragraph 4). 1 of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll., as amended
the rules, part of the first sentence after the comma in the words "who has permanent residence in the
its territory ",
(b) the provisions of § 4, paragraph 4). 2 the same Act, in the words of "and have a permanent residence
on its territory ".
A group of 69 members of Parliament proposed in this section of your proposal for the abolition of
the following provisions:
(c)) the provisions of § 6 (1). 2 the same Act, in the words "who have a permanent
stay on the territory of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic ",
(d) the provision of section 7 (1)). 2 the same Act, in the words of "permanently living on the
the territory of the Czech Republic ",
(e) the provisions of § 2 (2)). the Czech National Council Act No. 243/1992 Coll. in
the words "permanently living on the territory of the Czech Republic",
(f)) the provision of section 2 (2). 2 the same Act, in the words of "and permanently live in
The Czech Republic ".
The subject of ongoing proceedings, therefore, was in this part of the proposals
assessment:
-whether it is constitutional, a narrowing of the categories of persons covered by the option
mitigation of certain property injustices against the owners of the agricultural and
forest assets in the scope of § 1 (1). 1 of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll.,
-whether between agricultural and forest property of restituovaným according to the law No.
229/1991 Coll. and other property of the restituovaným pursuant to Act No. 87/1991.
There is no difference, which would preserve the conditions of permanent residence.
sustainable living on the territory of the Czech Republic to justify,
-and whether it is therefore possible to hold the legal opinion, which was in detail
landed in the grounds already mentioned finding Pl. TC 3/94 (No. 164/1994
SB.).
In the matter of the assessment of whether it is constitutional, a narrowing of the categories of persons to which the
subject to the possibility of mitigation of certain property injustices against
the owners of the agricultural and forestry assets in the scope of § 1 (1). 1 of the law
No. 229/1991 Coll., has delivered the opinion of the Constitutional Court, which is based on the
his legal opinion, which was unloaded in detail in recital already
the said award Pl. TC 3/94 (No. 164/1994 Coll.). In now under examination
the case already because it was only about the assessment, whether between the agricultural and forest
the property of the restituovaným according to the Act No. 229/1991 Coll. and other assets
restituovaným pursuant to Act No. 87/1991 Coll. is not the difference, which would
the conservation conditions of permanent residence. sustainable living on the territory of the Czech
Republic argued. Such a difference but the Constitutional Court did not find and
He remained on its original opinion for the following reasons:
1. Different arrangements for restitution of agricultural and forest property, on the one
side and on the other hand other assets arose only as a result of
the gradual adoption of law No. 87/1991 Coll. and no. 229/1991 Coll. as well as
Constitutional Court pl. ÚS 3/94 (No. 164/1994 Coll.) concerned only the
other assets because the repeal similar provisions regarding the
agricultural and forestry assets and was proposed by the Constitutional Court could not
do ultra petitum.
In this decision, therefore, the basically only the unification of editing
a specific Institute throughout the legal system so that, in accordance with the
standards of higher legal force. The fragmentation of the concept of unjustifiable steady
"real estate", which would be one of the consequences of maintaining the existing
the distinction of agricultural or forest and other real property, the
was inconsistent with the requirement of removing kazuističnosti right.
Maintaining the best abstract concepts form the basis of the rule of law and
It belongs to the fundamentals of the rule of law every free society.
2. The Constitutional Court therefore finds that the content of the concept of "some property
the wrongs "as used in the preamble of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll. points to the definition of
the content and scope of the napravovaných injustices, rather than directly to the definition of
their bodies. It stems from the fact that the preamble speaks of "some
wrongs ", but not about the injustices against" some owners "
agricultural and forestry assets.
3. Article. 11. 2 of the Charter does not distinguish between citizens of the Czech
Republic (until 31 December 2006. 12.1992 citizens of the CSFR) with permanent residency on the territory of the
Czech Republic (until 31 December 2006. 12. the 1992 in the territory of CZECHOSLOVAKIA) and outside that territory, as
the Constitutional Court has already stated in the award No 164/1994 Coll., Article. 4 (4). 2
The instrument enables to restrict the fundamental right or freedom only by law
and under the conditions laid down by the Charter, and according to the article. 4 (4). 4 of the Charter of
such intervention must be investigated, the nature and the meaning of them. These
the requirements of the Charter were not in the case of the determination of the conditions of residence
or permanent living on the territory of the Czech Republic (CZECHOSLOVAK FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC until 31 December 2006. 12.1992)
complied with and therefore to limit fundamental rights improperly.
The legislature is in the determination of the constitutionally guaranteed basic
bound by the constitutional rights and freedoms, the Charter and international law
the contracts referred to in article. 10 of the Constitution, and restrictions may provide only there, where he
It said the rules allow greater legal force.
4. As well as the Constitutional Court confirmed its opinion on custody provisions
article. 11. 2 article. 14 of the Charter, which guarantees freedom of residence and the
the movement as a fundamental human right. Act No. 229/1991 Coll., as amended by
amended, however, in the contested provisions of the implementation of this
the rights associated with the loss of the possibility to acquire ownership of certain things.
However, the provisions of this article. 14 paragraph. 3 of the Charter does not allow. On the basis of
cannot be a citizen of the Czech Republic forcing permanent residence on its territory, and
subject to the possibility of the acquisition of certain goods pursuant to article. 11. 2
The instrument into his ownership. At the same time that there has been a violation of the provisions of the
article. 3 (3). 3 of the Charter, according to which "no one" may be caused by injury
for the application of its fundamental rights and freedoms.
The Constitutional Court therefore confirmed its view that the authorization in the amount of
hit and came to the conclusion that the proposal to repeal those provisions
Act No. 229/1991 Coll., as amended, and the Act of the Czech
the National Council No. 243/1992 Coll. on the conditions of permanent residence,
respectively. sustainable living on the territory of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic,
respectively. The Czech Republic is reasonable, especially if it points to a contradiction with the
article. 1 of the Constitution, article. 1, article. 4 (4). 2 and 3, article. 11. 2, article. 14 paragraph. 2
Of the Charter and article. 3 (3). 3 of the Charter. In the next at this point refers
on the reasons of the award Pl. TC 3/94, published under no. 164/1994 Coll.
The Constitutional Court because of the mentioned reasons there is considered a draft group
members of the cancellation provisions of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll., as amended by
amended, and the Act of the Czech National Council No. 243/1992 Sb.
relating to the conditions of permanent residence. sustainable living on the territory of the
The Czech and Slovak Federative Republic (from 1. 1.1993 in the Czech Republic)
reasoned.
As well as the Constitutional Court does not see the difference in terms of the purpose of the proposal in
used the concepts of "permanent resident" and "permanent" live. Points out here on my
opinion on this question in the award No 164/1994 Coll. (collection of findings and
resolution, of St. 1, Prague 1994, p. 283). These concepts, as well as concepts
"residence", "delay", etc. use our legislation in the
different meaning, depending on whether it is the regulations of the public or
private law. The term "permanently living (CII)" used in article 7 (2).
2 of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll. and section 2 (2). 1 and 2 of the Act of the Czech National Council
No. 243/1992 Coll., therefore only specifies the nature of such a stay. Because
The Constitutional Court of the reasons outlined above, the condition of permanent residence shall be deemed
to be unconstitutional, it must be for the same reasons as unconstitutional the mark condition
"sustainable living" on the territory of the Czech Republic (until the end of 1992, in the territory of
CSFR). While noted that the explanatory note No 1 in the Czech
the National Council No. 243/1992 Coll. as the prescription of law No.
135/1982 Coll., on registration of residence of citizens (right to information and registration
stay of citizens). The explanatory notes below the line, however, cannot be considered as binding
part of the legislation (cf. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 16/93, a collection of findings
and the resolution of sv. 1, page 201) and cannot therefore alter the private
the concept of the stay including animus domicilandi for his public service,
the political and the registration form. However, in this case it is not
the decisive. This explanatory note just shows the intention of the Czech legislature
(unlike not clearly expressed intention of the Federal
the legislature) to edit this question, conceptually as well as Act No. 229/1991
In section 4, paragraph 4. 1 and 2.
II. (C)
(the constitutionality of the deadlines associated with the condition of stay)
In the second part of its proposal, a group of members of the Chamber of Deputies
proposed abolition of the following provisions which lay down the time limits for
the application of the entitlements of the examined legislation:
-§ 8 paragraph. 1 the second sentence of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll., as amended
regulations, sounding: "the proposal must be applied until 31 December 2004. December 1992, or
within six months from the decision of the land Office of refusing
real estate, otherwise the right to disappear "
-the provisions of section 13 (3). 1 of the same law,
-the provisions of section 13 (3). 2 the same Act, in the words of "applied within the time limit
referred to in paragraph 1 "and in the words" after the date of expiry of the period referred to in
paragraph 1 ",
-the provisions of section 22, paragraph. 6 of the same Act, in the words "from the effectiveness of this
the law "
-the provisions of section 22, paragraph. 8 of the same Act, in the words "within the period to the end of
1993 ",
-the provisions of section 26(3). 2 the same Act, in the words "from the effectiveness of this
the law "
-the provisions of article. (II) Act No. 182/1993 Coll., which provides for a two-month
preclusive time limit for the filing of claims which this law
arise,
-and, finally, the cancellation of the provisions of section 11 of the Act of the Czech National Council No.
243/1992 Coll., which sets out the prescription period for the filing of claims,
arising from this Act.
It is to be noted that the law of the Czech National Council No. 39/1993 Coll.
were the provisions of section 13 (3). 1 these deadlines shifted, respectively. the newly
established. Specifically, the period to exercise challenges to release real estate
under section 6 of the Act shifted sentiment. 31. 12. on 31 December 1992. 1.1993 and completely
the new deadline has been set for the application of the compensation for the dead and alive
inventory under section 20 to 31. 3.1993. A group of Deputies calls for abolition
These and other deadlines in a similar way as in the case of the award for
similar to the provisions of Act No. 87/1991.
The Constitutional Court examined these issues and in relation to the application for revocation of the above
given the time limits also confirms its legal opinion, which expressed in
Discovery pl. ÚS 3/94 (No. 164/1994 Coll.). If the existence of rights associated
with the deadline, so in the event of a finding that the law was limited-institutional
in a way, it is necessary to remove the obstacle that would prevent his
the constitutional application, whether the person entitled, that was unconstitutionally
reduced to its rights, or to the owner, which happens on the basis of the
successfully claimed the right to release the property. The Constitutional Court also
He remained on its original opinion regarding the disproportionate shortness
the time limits in relation to citizens living abroad. You had the following
the ability to execute measures to unfairly odňatý agricultural
things could get back, either returning to their homeland, or attacks
unconstitutional provisions of the laws which give them the restitution of property
such employment. The Constitutional Court also recalled its opinion on
having sufficient respect for the equal rights of citizens in connection with the
by modifying the time limits and your opinion on the concept of retroactive and legal certainty
(A collection of findings and decisions, vol. 1, Prague 1994, pp. 286 to 288).
As regards the difference between the time limits laid down by the time Division (dies a quo)
and time limits set date (dies ad quem), the only difference should be
found in the fact that the time limits laid down by the time Division (dies a quo)
again in the same length of open for people who become vykonatelností
the finding, by persons authorised, whereas in the case of time limits set by the date
(dies ad quem) will not be applying for restitution claims limited
If the General time limits shall not apply.
Here, the Constitutional Court expects that the legislature itself shall state the legal adjustment to the
such a State, to make it clear that claims may apply only to those
the persons which it repealed provisions of the laws of the
It does not allow, and at the same time provides a new period where they are as a result of
the finding of the Constitutional Court completely omitted, and is determined in such
length, appropriate to the repealed regulations and the current situation of the newly
authorised persons. The Constitutional Court of the means by which such time limit itself
established and edited by our constitutional provisions, which it is bound,
It does not have.
The President of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic:
JUDr. Kessler v.r.
The law on the introduction of a different opinion to the letter e) to) and n) statement
the award in the Protocol on the acts and on its connection to the decision with
transcription of his name in accordance with section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the constitutional
the Court, judges of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. Ivana Janů,
JUDr. Vlastimil Sevcik and JUDr. Pavel Param V.
Different views
1. Different opinion of the judges. Ivana Janů and JUDr. Paul
Varvařovského
The undersigned judges disagree with the majority opinion of those points
the award, which shall be deleted, the deadline for the exercise of the rights (paragraphs e, f, g, h, i,
j, k, n statement), and that for these reasons:
The Mission of the Constitutional Court of the CZECH REPUBLIC lies in the control of constitutionality. In this framework, the
This Court can only interfere with the unconstitutional provisions, or parts thereof,
but it is not his job to reparovat consequences that occurred by an
to cancel the unconstitutional conditions for entitlement. You can certainly understand
the reasons that led to the appellant, in addition to the cancellation conditions
permanent residence on the territory of the Republic, the fight over whether or not the cancellation provisions,
which lays down the time limits for the exercise of the rights. The fact that this proposal was
the majority opinion of the plenum accepted the Constitutional Court, to
the role that the constitutional justice system are not eligible for and even lie well enough
cannot. If the preamble of the Constitution and article 1 declared the Czech
the Republic as a democratic legal State, then this policy mainly
requires that the Court be able to respect the Constitutional status of the legislative.
You can delete the unconstitutionality, or contribute to its elimination, only
the specific resources that are made to the Constitutional Court. Cancellation
the time limits also violates the principles of the rule of law and the fact that a significant
in a way that extends into the legal guarantees of natural and legal persons.
The opinion that the statement of neústavnosti the conditions for permanent residence would be
statement of purely academic or just an empty gesture, the undersigned judges of the
do not share. Such a "plain" statement is not for the legislative power on nothing less
the impetus to positive treatment, than the statement accompanied by simultaneously clearing
the time limits, in the present case, moreover, the deadlines have already expired. If the proposing
Group members through the mouth of his representative stated that this is a proposal for a
Yet the largest number of members, and in addition, if you are in this group
a large number of represented members of the governing coalition, then the more you can
assume that there is nothing to prevent a change in the time limits and their run time
There has been work in the usual manner-thus constitutionally on the soil of the
the Chamber of Deputies.
The period cannot in itself be unconstitutional. However, as such
appear with regard to the specific circumstances, for example. If a certain
a group of authorised persons clearly discriminates, or in other extreme
cases. In the case under examination, passed the main deadlines for the application of the
the claim from the 24. 6. by 31 December 1991. 1.31, respectively. 3.1993. The length of this period is the
to be assessed with regard to the public interest, which in this case
It was speeding up the privatization of agricultural and other land. Measurement of interest
restituentů (or owners who could not use his land)
and the legitimate interest of the company on the accelerated privatisation,
doesn't, so that would be a violation of the principle of equality, respectively.
unjustified discrimination against specific groups of beneficiaries. In this
direction seems to justify the findings as regards the unreasonably short deadline
in relation to citizens living abroad, as unconvincing and self-serving.
The majority opinion of the Constitutional Court plenum, moreover, overlooked the differences in
the way of setting time limits for the exercise of the right. Some deadlines are determined by the
the end of (the dies ad quem). Cancellation of the contested provision occurs
the situation, when the claims are either time-totally unlimited. on them
use the General time limits for civil claims. Other deadlines
are determined at the beginning of the period, and the length of the (dies a quo). The abolition of the beginning
the length of the remains, however, the State creates legal uncertainty, when
This time limit begins to run for the person as a result of the cancellation conditions
permanent residence they become persons authorized. The Constitutional Court cannot
its decision ignored or practical consequences that its decision
will bring. Cancellation time limits within the meaning of the proposal creates a situation in which
any interpretations and conclusions in the grounds of the award cannot prevent attempts
all sorts of questions about interpretation, to whom and at what length of time
open up.
In conclusion, the justification for the finding of the Constitutional Court expressed the expectation "that the
the legislature itself shall state the legal adjustment to such a State that it was completely
clear that claims can only apply to those persons, which it repealed
the provisions of the laws did not allow and which at the same time lays down the
a new period where they are as a result of the finding of the Constitutional Court completely
omitted, and is determined in such a length that will be appropriate
the distortion adjustment and the current situation of newly eligible persons "(the last
paragraph justification of the award). This appeal to the legislature is drafted-
in General-akceptovatelným expression of the relation of the Constitutional Court of the CZECH REPUBLIC
and the Parliament of the CZECH REPUBLIC, which is based on the principles of the democratic rule of law
enshrined in the preamble and in article. 1 of the Constitution. Exactly the same way could
be the legislature to regulate the new time limits, even if it would
their cancellation. Such a procedure would clearly prevent
any speculative reflection about who and what is the length of the time limits for
Open claims. Due to the fact that the Constitutional Court
is enforceable in the date of publication of the collection of laws, as well as taking into account
to the rules of the legislative process for the Parliament of the CZECH REPUBLIC, completely
no doubt arises after the enforceability of the award period in which indicated
questions will not be regulated. Subsequent editing, if the Parliament
taken, can be raised and the adverse effects of retroactive.
For these reasons, the proposal should be a group of members of the Chamber of Deputies
The Parliament of the CZECH REPUBLIC in the part in which it seeks the annulment of the deadlines, rejected.
2. Different opinion of the judge. Nomsa Ševčík
Different opinion compared to the majority opinion of the plenum of the Constitutional Court, I
delivered on the points e, f, g, h, i, j, k, and n scope of the award, and that of the
for these reasons:
Justification the relevant part of the finding of the Constitutional Court with reference to the conformity
assessed based on the legal opinion, the fabric has issued previously in the
the award of 12 June. July 1994 (PL. ÚS 3/94; No 164/1994 Coll.;
decision No 38 Collections of findings and resolution. 1, Prague, c. h. Beck,
1994) and on the reasons for the decision of the previous finding, explicitly
references; against this award took a different opinion on that
I'm also reasonably explained: a collection of findings and resolution
The Constitutional Court of the CZECH REPUBLIC. 1, pp. 289-291, Prague, c. h. Beck, 1994.
Whereas that reduction in both cases is the fabric actually identical,
and that when discussing the draft ing. W. m. didn't work out clear nothing would be
with my belief (a different legal opinion), setrvávám on
the reservations expressed previously and I refer to the reasons for which I
with these reservations, including supplements, as in this case arise from the
different opinions of the judges. Ivana Janů and JUDr. Paul
Varvařovského, or which, in the previous case (PL. ÚS 3/94)
served from a different opinion of the judge. Vladimír Čermák.
Plenum of the Constitutional Court, in its majority opinion in this case it was-
among other things,-concluded that "If the existence of the rights associated with the deadline, in the
the case of a finding that the law was limited-institutional way, it is necessary to
remove the obstacle that would prevent (those which bodies) in his
the application of the Constitution "; Here is just a little in other words expressed the idea of
the previous finding, namely, that (in certain cases) should be "reparovat
the consequences of the legalization of neústavnosti "; to the objections expressed by the already
the previous different opinion (in: cit. Collection of p. 291) seems to me to
the place of supply, that in principle are all components of the power in the State (when the
respect for the generally accepted theory about its Division) equal, and that, though (on the
the difference from the classical doctrines) in contemporary society can allow a certain
their trapping, cannot and must not even this fact interfere with the desired
the balance between them; put in other words, mutual border (and one of them
under powers) between the power of the legislative, Executive and judiciary is
still what nejúzkostlivěji care, and especially if-as has already been said
in a different way to the previous opinion-"reparation of the consequences of
neústavnosti in the law "must necessarily be based on the" political will ",
However, in the manifestations of the power of the Court do not have the space.
For the same reason and in respect to the equality of all the folders already able to
in the State, it seems to me even the formulation of "the roll call on the legislature to", as is apparent from the
reasons, problematic, since the finding gives the impression as if the constitutional
the position of the Constitutional Court was the power of a legislative parent.
For these reasons-similarly as in the case of Pl. TC 3/94-I have therefore
that part of the proposal should be considered, the group members rejected.
