30/1998 Coll.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic
The Constitutional Court ruled June 17. December 1997 on the proposal of the President of the plenary
Republic on the abolition of the law No. 243/1997 Coll., amending the law of the Czech
the National Council no 246/1992 Coll., on the protection of animals against cruelty, as amended by
amended,
as follows:
On the date of publication of this finding in the collection of laws, law No. 243/1997 Coll.,
amending the law of the Czech National Council No. 246/1992 Coll., on the protection of
animals against cruelty, as amended, is hereby repealed.
Justification
(I).
Day 3. October 1997, the Constitutional Court received a proposal from the President of the Republic on the
repeal of the law No. 243/1997 Coll., amending the law of the CZECH NATIONAL COUNCIL No. 246/1992
Coll., on the protection of animals against cruelty, as amended, and
due to its adoption in a manner contrary to article. 50 of the Constitution of the Czech
Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution").
Violation of article. 50 of the Constitution, President of the Republic sees in the following
circumstances: the Act was 13. June 1997 pursuant to section 98, paragraph. 1
Act No. 90/1995 Coll., on rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, the Chairman of the
The Chamber of Deputies sent to the President of the Republic and delivered the same day
The Office of the President of the Republic. 28 June. in June 1997 he was the President of the
of the Republic returned to the Chamber of Deputies, served her was in the nearest
the following working day, that is. on Monday 30 June. June 1997. According to the
the belief of the President beginning 15denní the deadline for the repayment of
the Act started to run on the day following the date of the referral to the law, and in
accordance with the practice, which has evolved from the effectiveness of the Constitution. In a given
If this means that the deadline to return the law No. 243/1997.
Start run on 14 July. June 1997.
In its resolution of 5 June 2003. September 1997 no 244/1997 Coll., the Chamber of Deputies
declared its decision not to vote again on the law No. 243/1997.
adopted on 12 April. June 1997 and returned by the President of the Republic, and it
Whereas, in its belief that the condition was not
provided for in article. paragraph 50. 1 of the Constitution.
The law amending the law the CZECH NATIONAL COUNCIL No. 246/1992 Coll., on the protection of animals against
cruelty, as amended, was published in the collection of laws
under the no 243/1997 Coll., when he was signed by the President of the Chamber of Deputies and
the Chairman of the Government.
The proposal of the President of the Republic points to the fact that, in the Czech legal
the order is generally recognized legal principle, according to which, if the last
the day of the deadline on Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, the last day of the period
the next following working day. Due to the fact that the return of the law
It is a constitutional act of the President of the Republic, in which no one can
in their stead, as well as due to the severity of this legal and political
the Act, according to the President of the Republic cannot be convinced 15denní the time limit according to the article.
paragraph 50. 1 of the Constitution.
As the President of the Republic is convinced of the timeliness of the application of its
the constitutional powers of the Parliament and law since the return of Parliament
did not proceed according to the provisions of article. paragraph 50. 2 of the Constitution, proposes the abolition of
the contested law due to failure to comply with the Constitution prescribed procedures.
The proposal for a President of the Republic were accompanied by:
-a copy of the relevant pages of the so-called. referátníku Office of the President
the Republic (No L 134/97; 5414/97), which certifies the service of law
of 12 June. June 1997, amending the law of the CZECH NATIONAL COUNCIL No. 246/1992 Coll., on the
the protection of animals against cruelty, as amended, the President of the
of the Republic for signature on 13. June 1997,
-a copy of the letter of 28 October 1999. June 1997 No. 5414/97, which was
President of the Republic returned to the Chamber of Deputies, the law designating the
the date of its delivery of 30. June 1997,
-a copy of the letter of the President of the Chamber of Deputies President of the Republic of
3. July 1997 no 2654/97 SP, in which is found the overrun
15denní time limits, so to return the law cannot be taken into account, and
the law again to President presented for signature,
-a copy of the letter to the President of the Republic to the President of the Chamber of deputies of the
on 7 December 2004. July 1997, no. 5920/97, in which it is expressed, unvarying
the opinion of the law in question to return the Chamber of Deputies, as well as
the belief that this was done in the time limit laid down by the Constitution, therefore it is in the
Letter to the President of the Chamber of Deputies asked for resubmission
the returned bill the Chamber of Deputies.
II.
According to the provisions of § 42 paragraph. 3 and section 69 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the constitutional
the Court, the present proposal was sent to the representation of the Chamber of Deputies.
At the same time according to § 42 paragraph. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., Constitutional Court
as the documentary evidence requested by the Chamber of Deputies the submission of documents,
already the President of the Chamber of Deputies, the law went back and verified
a photocopy of the record of this instrument in the Chamber of Deputies
the relevant book.
The Constitutional Court received a representation of the Chamber of Deputies the day 13. November
1997. It is reported that in the case of the return of law No. 243/1997.
the President of the Republic, the Chamber of Deputies the day 5. September 1997 adopted by the
the resolution, adopted the law will not vote again, because it was not
returned within 15 days after it was sent to the President of the Republic.
The opinion of the Chamber of Deputies is justified by the fact that when it comes to the way
counting the time limits referred to in the article. paragraph 50. 1 of the Constitution, the Constitution itself does not contain
Special provisions on the calculation of time limits. Since the period referred to in the article. 50
paragraph. 1 of the Constitution is not in the Constitution itself or in any other Act closer
interpreted, it cannot be interpreted according to the opinion contained in the representation of the
otherwise than literally. It further draws attention to the fact that, for the return of
the law must be considered rather than the Act of signing the decision on return,
but the real return, i.e., the moment when the decision was conveyed
the addressee, i.e.. the moment of delivery. Although the distinction between the
the decision to return the Bill to the reconsideration of the
the House and the notification of this decision, however, it occurs to
the conclusion that for both these acts of one period. The delivery of this
time involved with the return of which is dovozováno, that the time limit of 15 days
must be complied with, regardless of whether it is a day of work or
another.
In refusing the analogue use of other legislation on
delivery, as there is a different adjustment for different service and is not
the obvious, that the provisions should be applied. He refuses to continue the existence of the
generally recognized legal principle concerning the counting of time
procedural time limits, since the special adjustment applies only to time limits
laid down in the individual laws and, therefore, it cannot be applied in the
interpretation of the time limits laid down in the Constitution.
Understanding of the time limits contained in the article. paragraph 50. 1 of the Constitution in the procedural sense, the
This, according to the opinion contained in the expression, losing any sense of.
The reason for this conclusion is the requirement of legal certainty and the neprodlužování
the legislative process.
Comments on the impossibility of the President of the Republic refuses delivery
the returned bill the Chamber of deputies in the working day, the working
off or a holiday, because the warning Office of the President
the Office of the Chamber of deputies of the Republic is ready to ensure the adoption of the
the decision of the President of the Republic, even in those days.
On the basis of the above arguments are made in the representation of the belief
the Chamber of deputies in connection with returning the received
the law the President of the Republic in accordance with the Constitution. It is also connected
a copy of the letter to the President of the Republic of 28 June. June 1997 No. 5414/97,
which returned the law No. 243/1997 Coll., on which is marked the date of its
the delivery of the Chamber of Deputies on 30. in June 1997, and the statement of the head of the
The Office of the Chamber of Deputies on how to deliver the laws between the
The offices of the Chamber of Deputies and the Office of the President of the Republic. According to the
This is a letter to the President of the Republic, taking over which the law returns from
the party offices of the Chamber of deputies confirmed. referátníku
Office of the President of the Republic, who signed the law takes over, with
indicating the date of receipt. Acceptance of the letter of 28 October 1999. June 1997 is therefore
the existence of 30 June. June 1997 signature. referátníku, which is
stored in the Office of the President of the Republic, therefore its certified copy
cannot be submitted to the Chamber of Deputies.
On hearing of the day 17. December 1997 the President of the Chamber of Deputies
adds their written observations to the effect that, in the beginning of the period
contained in the article. paragraph 50. 1 of the Constitution should be considered as the day of assignment of the law
President of the Republic, and not the following day. In the present case would then
the end of the deadline fell on a Friday, March 27. in June 1997, with the result that
its failure to comply with the President of the Republic was undoubted.
In reply, President of the Republic responsible for Office workers
President to act on his behalf before the Constitutional Court was pronounced
objection to create constitutional conventions, according to which the beginning of the
counts on the day following the date of referral to the President of the Republic Act.
The existence of such practices by the Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies was not
recognized.
III.
The design of the President of the Republic and its attachments, representation of the Parliament and of the
its annexes, of the parliamentary Newsletter No. 10/96-97, as well as
těsnopiseckého the record of discussion of the law No. 243/1997 Coll. in the Chamber
the House was found to be the following:
Amendment to the Act the CZECH NATIONAL COUNCIL No. 246/1992 Coll., on the protection of animals against
cruelty, as amended, was approved by the
the Chamber of Deputies on 22. in May 1997, and by the Senate on 12 June 2006. June 1997.
The law was the day 13. June 1997 referred to the President of the Republic. The President of the
of the Republic decided to 28 June. June 1997 for reimbursement of the Act, which is amended
the CZECH NATIONAL COUNCIL Act No 246/1992 Coll., as amended, of the
House to renegotiate, and returned the law was of the
the House delivered on 30. June 1997.
By letter of 3 June 2004. July 1997 no 2654/97 SP Chairman of
the Chamber of Deputies notes exceeded the time limit, 15denní in the result according to its
the conviction cannot be to return the law to take into account, therefore again
the law shall submit to the President of the Republic for signature. The President of the Republic in the
reply of 7 June. July 1997, no. 5920/97 insists on its decision,
return the law in question as well as the Chamber of Deputies, on the belief that
This was done in the time limit laid down in the Constitution. The letter further States that
in situation, when 15. the day of the deadline fell on a working day, that is. on
Saturday 28. in June 1997, the President of the Republic assumed that in this and
similar cases in the implementation of the constitutional powers of the limited
time limits will do so, as is common in all of the standard
legal systems. It also points to the fact that as our,
and most of the foreign Department of directly governs the process and their deadlines
while always progresses, so that if the last day of the period for the day
working day (Saturday, Sunday, holiday), ending the period closest to the
the following working day. For these reasons, the President of the Republic in the
the letter asks the President of the Chamber of Deputies for resubmission
the returned bill the Chamber of Deputies.
On the proposal of the Constitutional Law Committee of the Chamber of Deputies the day 5. September
1997 154 votes for, 2 against, 22 zdrževších, decided that the
First, will vote if the President of the Republic complied with the time limit for the
return to the law or not, and then will vote on the law.
The same day, the Chamber of Deputies decided by a vote of 97 for, 77 against
and 9 zdrževších, that will again vote on the law, which
amended law of the CZECH NATIONAL COUNCIL No. 246/1992 Coll., as amended, adopted
on 12 June 2006. June 1997 and returned by the President of the Republic, whereas the
that was the condition laid down in article 4(1). paragraph 50. 1 of the Constitution. Referred to
the resolution was published under no. 244/1997.
The law amending the law of the CZECH NATIONAL COUNCIL No. 246/1992 Coll., as amended
legislation was then on 30. September 1997 declared the amount 82 collection of laws
under the no 243/1997.
IV.
According to the provisions of section 68, paragraph. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court
the procedure for the abolition of laws and other legal regulations shall examine the content of the
Act or other legal regulation in terms of their compliance with the
constitutional acts, international treaties under article. 10 of the Constitution,
where appropriate, laws, other legislation, and to determine whether the
have been received and issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and constitutionally
in the prescribed manner.
The subject of the assessment of the President of the Republic in the case of the proposal on the abolition
Law No. 243/1997 Coll., is the last of the above views, IE. the assessment of the
compliance with the constitutionally prescribed method of adoption of the law.
Part of this procedure is to the right of the President of the Republic to return adopted by the
the law, with the exception of the Constitutional Act of Parliament on the ground within 15 days
the date on which it was referred to (article 50, paragraph 1, of the Constitution). If the President of the
Republic of that right, constitutionally prescribed procedure for the adoption of
the Act continues the discussion again in the Chamber of Deputies (article.
paragraph 50. 2 of the Constitution).
If the law was President of the Republic to be returned after the time limit set in the
article. paragraph 50. 1 of the Constitution, becomes a valid without further discussion in
The Chamber of deputies by announcing in the journal of laws (article 52 of the Constitution, section 5
Act No. 545/1995 Coll., on the collection of laws of the Czech Republic). However, if the
He was returned in the specified time limit, the other by the neprojednání
the House of a violation of the constitutionally prescribed method of adoption of the law.
IV/a
The opinion of the Chamber of Deputies reporting non-compliance with the Constitution
the prescribed time limits for the exercise of the veto by the President of the Republic of suspenzivního
It is based on the following arguments:
The first is a denial of the existence of the General rules for counting the time in
Czech law, as well as the refusal of the analogy between the constitutional law options
and other sectors of Czech law (and even the rights of the public, specifically
administrative rights).
The absence of constitutional modifications, as well as the counting of the time referred to the absence of a General
legal rules then according to the Chamber of Deputies, justifies the
the literal interpretation of the constitutional deadlines. This interpretation is further supported by
the requirement of legal certainty and the neprodlužování of the legislative process.
The third argument is the declared readiness of the Office of the
the Chamber of Deputies take on demand (on the basis of the advice of) the President of the Republic
returned by the law and in the working day.
The fourth argument is the interpretation of the article. paragraph 50. 1 of the Constitution, according to which a
the return of the Act must be considered rather than the Act of signing the decision on
the return, but the actual return, i.e., the moment when the decision was
brought to the addressee, i.e.. the moment of delivery.
Finally, the last argument, the fifth, is finding, according to which a
the beginning of the time limits contained in the article. paragraph 50. 1 of the Constitution should be considered as the day
referral to the President of the Republic Act, and not the following day. In
the case would then end the deadline fell on a Friday, March 27. June
in 1997, as a consequence of its failure to comply with the President of the Republic was
no doubt.
The proposal of the President of the Republic, by contrast, stands on the opinion of the presence of
General legal principles in the Czech legal order whose example
they are also generally applicable rules for counting the legal time limits. The President of the
the Republic is based on in its arguments on the assumption that in this and
similar cases in the implementation of the constitutional powers of the limited
time limits will do so, as is common in all of the standard
legal systems. Points out in this connection to the fact that both
our, and most of the foreign Department of directly governs the process and their
the time limits.
IV/b
In advanced democracies the issue of counting time in constitutional law
the problem does not. The rule is a condition where the right rules for the Constitution
counting the time it does not regulate, and for this purpose there are in the law and in the
constitutionally-political practice, accepted procedures.
In the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany (Basic Law), calculation of time limits
specifically it does not regulate. The decision of the Federal President are
The basic law limited period in two cases: when deciding on
the appointment of the Federal Chancellor or the dissolution of the Bundestag (article.
63) and when deciding the dissolution of the Bundestag after voicing
censure (article 68). In German law, even constitutional law, the
the general principle, according to which the calculation of time limits shall be subject to the provisions of the
the civil code (BGB), unless there are special provisions.
The basic law does not contain special provisions [see Schenke, Kommentar
zum Grundgesetz Bonner (Bonner Kommentar), bearb. in h. j. Abraham.
and, 9 Bde., Hamburg 1950ff., Loseblatt, März 1997 Stand, Art. 63, S.
52, Art. 68. S. 87].
In addition, it is the issue of time limits to operations carried out in relation to the
The Federal Assembly is regulated in the law on the rules of procedure of the Bundestag.
According to section 124 of the Act, these time limits shall begin to run on the date of
following the closing date, and if the last day of the period of the Act
carried out in relation to the Federal Assembly is a Saturday, Sunday or
the law recognized holiday, comes closest to following in his place
working day.
An example of a Constitution that regulates certain aspects of the counting of time directly,
is the Constitution of the United States of America. It's just a case of the President's
suspenzivního veto, when ústavodárce explicitly edited by its passage of and
the end of: "If the President does not return the Bill within ten days (Sundays
not counting) from the day on which it was presented, it becomes law without his
signature. " (article 1, section 7. The Constitution of the United States of America).
IV/c
In the case under consideration is subject to the decision of the Constitutional Court in the
fact, not the only dispute over the passage of time limits in constitutional law, but, and
in particular, the dispute about the understanding of the law in a democratic society.
The Constitution of the Czech Republic actually does not contain special counting
time, or modify the assessment of the beginning and end of time limits, and that the
Unlike the other area of law.
According to section 122, paragraph. 1 of the civil code: "a period expressed in days
begins on the day following the event, which is crucial for its
the beginning. " Furthermore, section, paragraph 122. 3 of the Civil Code provides: "If the
the last day of the time on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, the last day of the
the period closest to the following working day. " The systematic interpretation
the civil code is that the said provisions shall apply
on both types of substantive civil limits, i.e.. limitation and prescription
(limitation is regulated in title eighth of the civil code, as referred to
the provisions, however, is contained in the title of the ninth dealing with the definition of
some of the concepts, therefore only on prescription, but also on the
concerning preclusion).
According to section 57, paragraph. 1 of the code of civil procedure applies: "In the time limit, the
the day shall not be counted when the fact that specifies the beginning of the period; It
does not apply, if the time limit specified by the hour. " The provisions of section 57, paragraph. 2
the civil procedure code then specifies the following: "If the end
deadline for Saturday, Sunday, or public holiday, the last day of the period closest to the
the following working day. "
According to section 60, paragraph. 1 of the code of criminal procedure: "within the time limit specified by the days
not a day, when it became the event that specifies the beginning of the period. " For
determining the end of the period is in section 60, paragraph. 3 of the code of criminal procedure contained in this
Edit: "If the end of the period falls on a working day, or
holiday, the last day of the period closest to the next
working day. "
According to § 27. 2 of the administrative code applies: "the day is not counted into the period,
When the fact that specifies the beginning of the period ", and" If the
the end of the working day, the last day of the period is the closest
next working day ".
The fact that the Constitution does not contain special provisions on the counting of time,
is natural from the perspective of comparative and factual.
It was already mentioned that the Constitution of democratic countries regularly do not contain
Special provisions concerning the counting of the time, so in this respect, the Constitution of the Czech
the Republic is no exception.
A modern democratic Constitution is written in the social contract, which
people representing the constitutional power (pouvoir constituant) establishes in
one political (State), establishes the relationship of individuals to the whole, and
system power (State) institutions. Document institucionalizující
the system of fundamental values, generally accepted and forming mechanism
and the process of formation of the legitimate power of the decision cannot be
outside the public accepted the context values, spravedlnostních
ideas, as well as ideas about the meaning, purpose and way of functioning of the
democratic institutions. In other words, cannot work out
the minimum value and the institutional consensus. For the area of the rights of
It follows from this conclusion that the source of law in General, as well as a source of law
constitutional, and even in the system of the written law, are also the basic legal
principles and practices.
This proposition is confirmed not only by theoretical analysis, but above all the history of the 20th century.
century associated with the existence of totalitarian States. Mechanical identification
rights with legal texts has become a tool of totalitarian manipulation.
Made in particular of the judiciary and the enforcement tool unthinking submissive
totalitarian power.
Another absolutely unsustainable use of the law is its torque application
based on his interpretation of the language only.
Language interpretation represents only the initial approach to applied
the legal standard. It is only the starting point for clarification and clarifying its
meaning and purpose (which also serves a number of other procedures, such as logical and
systematic interpretation, interpretation (e) ratione legis, etc.). Mechanical application
abstracting, or neuvědomující, and it's either intentionally or as a result of
illiteracy, the sense and purpose of the law is the law of theft tool
and absurdity.
Acceptance and other sources of law, in addition to the written law (in particular,
General legal principles), evokes the question of their possibility.
In other words, evokes the question of whether their formulation of things will
or whether you can provide in their formulation to a certain extent
objektivizovatelné procedures.
A democratic system is facing possible discretion when formulating "an unwritten
the rights "in two ways. Share in our environment so deeply
deep-seated skepticism about the possibility to make individual decisions and responsible
present them to the public on the basis of compelling arguments to the
assessment. The first guarantee against the discretionary power is therefore a cultural and moral
the context of accountability. The other is a system of democratic institutions
shaping the Division of power. In other words, the first is the guarantee of an autonomous,
the second guarantees standardisation heteronomní.
To the characters defining the community people are vymezitelný circuit
shared values, as well as ideas about rationality (rationality)
the behavior of the. The community, which does not have this character, you can maintain only
power (power).
A typical example of vymezitelnosti and unwritten laws, rules
human behavior is common law. For the creation of a legal customs is
must comply with the general belief about the need for a general rule of conduct
(opinio necessitatis) and its maintenance over a long period of time (usus
longaevus, respectively. longa consuetudo). Both of these terms are definičními
aspects and the definition of general rules for legal (aspect
differentiating the generic principle and legal usage is, in particular, their degree of
universality).
In the system of written law has the character of a general legal rule
a separate source of law only preater legem (or, if a written law
otherwise).
Even in the Czech law as follows and is commonly applied to a number of General
legal principles, which are not expressly contained in the legal
the legislation. An example is the legal principle, according to which ignorance of the law
no excuse, or the principle of non-retroactive, and it not only for
the criminal law. Another example are the interpretative rules and
on the other, and ad maius, minore and maiore ad minus, reductio ad absurdum
etc. Another, modern constitutional unwritten rule, the solution is
the collision of fundamental rights and freedoms the principle of proportionality. Between these
generally accepted legal principles without any doubt belong in
the area of the rights of the constitutional rules of the time, as they are in the European
legal thinking clearly and meaningfully defined since the days of Rome.
This constitutional legislators paid, or legislators do not preclude in any way,
If it deems appropriate, defined the counting of time explicitly in a different way.
An example of this procedure, the Czech legislator in the constitutional rights
is section 72, paragraph. 2 of the law on the Constitutional Court, according to which the period begins already
the date applicable to the passage of, and not on the day following, as
the usual. In this context, it should be pointed out on the diversity of the diction of the article. 50
paragraph. 1 of the Constitution, when period begins "date", which is for the passage of
the decisive, and section 72, paragraph. 2 of the law on the Constitutional Court, according to which the period
"the day begins", which is decisive for the passage of her.
The purpose of the legal Institute of the period is the reduction of entropy (uncertainty) in the
the application of the rights or powers, time limitations the State of uncertainty in the
legal relations (which plays an important role, in particular in terms of
the taking of evidence in cases of disputes), accelerating the decision-making process with the aim of
the real achievement of the proposed objectives. These reasons have led to the introduction of time limits
already thousands of years ago.
On the other hand, if the application of a particular law or jurisdiction
time-limited, it is necessary to take into account certain facts
(barriers) on the side of the body of rights or powers, which, not
of his fault, their performance. In other words, create the design
in real terms, allowing for a right or power within the given time limit,
apply. For this purpose the legal thinking, again, already in Roman times,
create a mental construction, construction period fiction (the passage of time),
or displacement of its completion.
This general legal rules (in this case, the legal fiction), which are
its the nature of the legal response to the practical problems in the European legal
the culture of paying for millennia. As already mentioned, is available
ústavodárce, or the legislature to proceed differently, in this case, however,
is obliged to expressly provide for such a procedure. As in the case of
counting the time limits pursuant to article. paragraph 50. 1 of the Constitution did not, could not be the beginning and the
their interpret otherwise than in accordance with the generally applicable principles.
In favor of that conclusion is all the more reason, or interpretive
access, which, in this context, the Constitutional Court shall be considered as a key. In
the situation, when the bodies of the Institute among the aplikujícími there is a dispute about the
the interpretation of a particular provision should be to solve this dispute in favor of options
the application of constitutional powers, of which the provisions applies, or
in terms of meaning and purpose of the constitutional of the Institute. This in
the matter is considered, the separation of powers between constitutional authorities in a legislative
process.
In the opinions of the things under consideration is the question of the legal nature of the
the time limit in question. A 15-day period pursuant to article. paragraph 50. 1 of the Constitution is
the deadline for delivery, rather than the timelimit to "decision", which
the President of the Republic, in its proposal for the repeal of the law No. 243/1997.
nor does not claim. This statement does not change the fact that, in the
the things, since the end of the period fell on a working day
(Saturday, 28 June 1997), was the last day of the next
working day (i.e. Monday, June 30, 1997).
Finally, no argument for the Chamber of Deputies when it declares
their readiness to take over the Office of the President of the Republic upon request
returned by the law and in the working day. If the law on the rules of procedure
The Chamber of Deputies, where appropriate, other legislation does not contain provisions
defining the scope of action of the Chamber of Deputies and in the days of the work
calm, declaring its readiness to take over is, after previous advice
Office of the President of the Republic, the law also in working day
legally irrelevant.
Of all of the above reasons, the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that the President of the
Republic Act No. 243/1997 Coll., amending the law of the CZECH NATIONAL COUNCIL No. 246/1992
Coll., on the protection of animals against cruelty, as amended,
the Chamber of Deputies returned to reconsideration within the time limit laid down
article. paragraph 50. 1 of the Constitution. The fact that the Act was promulgated in the collection of
without laws that his acceptance of the Chamber of Deputies again
voted in the Chamber of Deputies, the procedure for violation of the article. paragraph 50. 2
The Constitution, the Constitutional Court Act No. 243/1997 Coll., amending Act
The CZECH NATIONAL COUNCIL No. 246/1992 Coll., on the protection of animals against cruelty, as amended by
amended, set aside.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
The rights to bring a different opinion to justify a finding in the Protocol on the
negotiations and on its connection to the decision, stating his name under section
14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, judge took advantage of JUDr.
Ivana Janů.
