On The Proposal That The Repeal Amendment To The Animal Welfare Act

Original Language Title: On The Proposal To Repeal The Amendment To The Animal Welfare Act

Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=46392&nr=30~2F1998~20Sb.&ft=txt

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animals against cruelty, as amended, is hereby repealed.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.