528/2002 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court ruled on 20 April. November 2002 in plenary on the draft group
Senators Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic to repeal section 10 of Act No.
526/1990 Coll., on prices, and on the abolition of the Ministry of finance no assessment.
06/2002, laying down a maximum rent of the apartment, the maximum price
the services provided with the use of the apartment and rules for substantive usměrňované
the rent of the apartment and the amended Bill of the Ministry of Finance No. 01/2002 and on the draft
Ombudsman JUDr. Otakar Motejl, on the cancellation of items # 5
and no. 6 in part I, section A and item. No. 9 in part II. assessment of the Ministry of
Finance No. 01/2002, establishing a list of goods with regulated
prices,
as follows:
The proposal to repeal section 10 of Act No. 526/1990 Coll., on prices, it is rejected.
Updating no 06/2002, laying down a maximum rent of apartment,
the maximum prices of the services provided with the use of the apartment and the rules for
usměrňované rent in an apartment, in substance, and the amended Bill MF no 01/2002,
repealed.
Proceedings on the application for annulment of the provisions of item 5 and item 6 of part No.
I. section A and item 9 of part II. assessment MF no 01/2002
the list of goods with regulated prices, is hereby terminated.
Justification
I AND
On 4 April 2006. in March 2002, the Constitutional Court received the Ombudsman's proposal
to cancel the provisions of items 5 (apartment Rental), item 6 (Service
provided with the use of the apartment), part I, section A and item. No. 9 (Rent
the apartment, in addition to the lease by item No. 5 of part I and part II, no. 10. This
assessment) part II. assessment MF no 01/2002 establishing the list of products with
regulated prices (hereinafter referred to as "Bill No. 01/2002"). This assessment was
issued on 28. November 2001, published in the journal on the price of 5.
December 2001 and became effective on 1 May 2004. January 1, 2002.
Its proposal, the Ombudsman was motivated by Bill No. 01/2002
issued on the basis of article 10 of Act No. 526/1990 Coll., on prices. This provision
in his opinion, empowers the authorities to classify goods price decision for
which price control is applied in the form of an officially defined prices pursuant to section
5 and the streamlining of the prices according to § 6 of the law on prices, to a list of goods
to the regulated prices and publish this list in a journal.
The scope of the Ministry of finance in the area of price control is given by section 2 of the
Act No. 266/1991 Coll., on the scope of the authorities of the Czech Republic in the area of
prices, as amended, pursuant to which the Ministry of finance
issues the legislation for regulation and negotiation of prices, determine
the disproportionate amount of economic benefit and unauthorized securities
the benefit in connection with any violation of the price law, price
Register, providing price information, checking prices.
The Ombudsman suggested in part I, section and assessment. No. 01/2002
(the list of goods, which apply an officially defined prices) cancel
Item No 5, where, at paragraph 1 lays down that from 1. January 2002 to 30.
June 2002 is the maximum monthly rent in an apartment, including an apartment in
the family home, which was 31. December 2001 rent regulated
the maximum price under Decree No. 176/1993 Coll., on rent from a dwelling and
payment for the implementation provided with the use of the apartment, as amended
Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "Decree of rents") the rent applicable to 31.
December 2001, with adjustments, where appropriate pursuant to point 5 to 7. In point 2 items
# 5 is, with effect from 1. July 2002 established a new method of calculating the
officially established maximum prices.
In addition to cancel also suggested in part I, section and assessment. No. 01/2002 item
# 6, by which point 1 may be the price for services provided with use of the
the apartment, which include services to 31. December 2001
subject to price regulation of services provided with the use of the apartment according to the
the Decree on the rent, negotiate between the supplier of the service and the landlord
or for services provided between the landlord and the landlord directly
the lessee shall not exceed the amount of the price fixed by decision of the authority or
the prices above normal at a given point and time, if not the price of the service
regulated price decision authority.
Finally, he proposed to cancel in part II. assessment no. 01/2002 (list of goods
which are applied in substance usměrňované prices) item No. 9, which is between the
factually usměrňované prices in addition to the marshals also renting the lease of apartments,
which is rent regulated by item No. 5 of part I and item # 10
Part II. assessment. The rent agreed in the lease contracts concluded to
December 31, 2001 on apartments whose construction or reconstruction has been enabled
After 30. June 1993, and participated in the financing of public
funds under this provision does not change.
According to the Ombudsman's assessment no. 01/2002 from the formal-legal
the perspective of law and shows the attributes of the normative legal
the Act of both formal (way of acceptance, publication, validity and efficiency),
above all, from the substantive aspects (regulativnost, General legal
binding nature). Points out the conclusions of the Constitutional Court, according to which the
classification of sources of law must be based on material concepts
the legal standards, as well as the jurisprudence of the European Court of human
rights (e.g. decision Spacek, s. r. o., v. Czech Republic), according to
the concept of the law be understood in the material, and not in a formal
the meaning of. Rent controls by the plaintiff is so substantial
intervention in the legal status of owner-occupiers and tenants that cannot be
adjusted in the form of a price assessment, regardless of whether it is by its very nature
by an act of law or source of law. In this context, he pointed out
article. paragraph 79. 3 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") and stated that the
the legal delegation in § 2 paragraph 1. 2 Act No. 266/1991 Coll., as amended by
amended, is too general, when closer does not specify how
and a form of price regulation. The provisions of § 10 of the Act on prices, then, as a form of
determined by decision. Having regard to the importance and content of such regulation is
the legal regulation of rent controls in the form of a price assessment by
Ombudsman in breach of article. paragraph 79. 3 of the Constitution, when the price
Bill meets the characters of legal regulation in the material, but not
in a formal sense. This content cannot be deleted or
the interpretation. How the Ministry of finance is therefore unconstitutional and contrary to
the basic principles of the democratic rule of law. In addition, the assessment
No 01/2002 renewal of the legislation in the form of a decree on the
rents, cancelled by the Constitutional Court finding no. 229/2000 Coll., and in addition to
approximate migration of its content, but now in the form of a price
assessment, and not by way of Decree. Standstill period to the adoption of the new legal
adjustments to the 31. December 2001 has not been used and unconstitutional state described in the
referred to Constitutional Court continues. In this context attention
on the article. 11 of the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural
rights, that regulates the right to an adequate standard of living including
equal access to housing. This provision has an approximate
nature (article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant), but even in that case, the State is
required to ensure equal access to the exercise of this right and do not create
not justified in the difference between the various owners of the defined categories of apartments,
as well as their tenants. In both cases the Ombudsman can be
seen as the reason for the neústavnosti of this form of regulation. Rent controls
does not specifically, but rather at a flat rate and so across the Board, does not distinguish whether the
increased social and economic protection of the tenant at all necessary.
This is called into question and its purpose in the form of preserving social peace as
the General societal interest when it is violated by the policy
of proportionality, as the base provide protection stops normativ
those who do not have the means to pay the rent. The result of such
Regulation is the parallel existence of the artificially maintained different levels
the rent and the resulting unequal conditions in the access to about tenancy
housing. Likewise, it is distorted by the housing market, where the demand for flats
with controlled rent, taking the very nature of things shows that such apartments
may be subject to only the black market. It also disproportionately increases the
the rent on the open market, which is also a manifestation of the unequal access
to about tenancy housing.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman drew attention to the possible unconstitutionality of section 10 of the Act
prices with a note that the proposal on this matter, however, is not open.
I. (B)
3 December 2004. April 2002, the Constitutional Court received a proposal from a group of 18 senators in the lead
with Robert and Michael Žantovským on cancellation of assessment no. 01/2002
in the "relating to the lease of the apartment", IE. in part that has been previously
attacked by the Ombudsman's proposal of 4 October 2005. March 2002. Further
the submission contained the proposal to repeal section 10 of the Act on prices.
This design kept under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 10/02 the Constitutional Court by a resolution
I. the Senate no j. pl. ÚS 10/02-13 of 15 July. May 2002 decided that it
in the section in which it is proposed to abolish the provisions in items # 5 and # 6
part i. section A and item 9 of part II. assessment no. 01/2002, draft
He rejects as inadmissible. At the same time it was decided that a group of Senators
has the right to participate in accordance with § 35 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the
The Constitutional Court, hearing on the PL. ÚS 8/02 as intervener.
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court by a resolution # j. pl. ÚS 8/02, pl. ÚS 10/02-16 of
May 28, 2002, decided to join the two things to the common control and
provided that this procedure will continue to be conducted under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 8/02.
A group of senators in its proposal on how to neústavnosti's argument has brought together
assessment no. 01/2002, section 10 of the Act on prices, with objections to the
the constitutionality of assessment are essentially the same as the above argument
The Ombudsman's sub and a. Specifically States that the notice of assessment no. 01/2002
in terms of formal references to the provisions of § 10 of the Act authorising the No.
526/1990 Coll., on the basis of which it is issued. In accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the
paragraph. 6 of Act No. 526/1990 Coll., as amended, may be
regulate pricing only in cases where the market is vulnerable to the effects of
restriction of competition or it requires extraordinary market situation.
Neither of these conditions has not been fulfilled. Prove it and
the results of the census, houses and apartments in 2001, which is in the
The Czech Republic, over 500 000 flats, in which no one is consistently reported.
The State of rental housing in the Czech Republic does not show signs of sudden
the extraordinary market situation, it is a constant in the long term, and only reflects the
conceptually and scraggly novel housing and social situation from the start
of the 1990s. In terms of the accepted principles of the rule of law is State
entitled to do only what is given him by law. In the case of
unauthorized and unwarranted regulation of the maximum monthly rent
through the price assessment no. 01/2002, Ministry of finance
According to the appellants, an apparent violation of article. 2 (2). 2 and article. 4 (4). 2 and 4
The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms ("the Charter"). The necessary
part of the democratic rule of law is the protection of the freedom of the Contracting
the will, which is a derivative of the constitutional protection of the rights of ownership under art. 11
paragraph. 1 of the Charter (the basic component is the ius disponendi). Price
the regulation is therefore acceptable only as an exceptional measure and for the
strictly limited to the conditions respecting the structure of regulated prices, which
includes both legitimate and reasonable costs (usually) profit,
comparable with the rate of long-term deposits. The rent is based on
of the civil code, in particular, in payment for the temporary abandonment of the apartment tenants
to use, taking into account the value of the apartment. Price regulation should be
enshrined in the position of always subsidiárním, IE. only for the case when
No to the agreement of the parties. The current regulation of leases is
unfair, because, paradoxically, provides the largest subsidies top
residing at the expense of poor households, particularly young families,
creating the conditions for the emergence of illegal market with apartments and ocean rights,
increases the regional unemployment rate and the cause is not the solution to the housing
the crisis.
The disputed and considered by a group of senators as well as unconstitutional is the very
the definition of the authorizing the provision of section 10 of the Act on prices. Definition of the rights and
on the basis of the legal obligations contained in the delegation the provisions of § 10
the law on prices leads to a situation in which it can be issued the contested notice of assessment.
The definition referred to the delegation is, however, only General. However, the mandate must be
specific enough to regulate a certain prescription podzákonný
the issue only in its context. In the case of the provision of section 10 of the Act on
prices this is a seizure of a flat-rate, which, moreover, from a formal point of view
leads to the issuance of some quasi implementing provisions.
Additionally, a group of Senators argued that the specific referencing standard, dealing
adjustment of rent and remuneration for the performance of that is provided with the use of the apartment,
can be found in paragraph 696 of paragraph 1. 1 of the civil code (hereinafter referred to as "about.
from "). The relationship between the provisions of § 696 para. 1. the provisions of section 10 and the
the law on prices, however, is the relationship of General and special legal
prescription, but a relationship of special standards and a general mandate to issue
(apparently) nenormativních acts. The internal relationship between the legal
standards does not exist. The nature of the case and of the provisions of § 696 para. 1. from.
apparently it follows that specific legislation governing
the issue of the maximum monthly rent has to be a law, which
the opinion of the appellants is find no 229/2000 Coll., to adjust the
and the Government is empowered to issue, on the basis of a mandate
contained in article 81(1). 78 of the Constitution.
If not and the issue does not necessarily edited
the law or Government Regulation, then it is necessary to provide apparently
interpreted as meaning that the provision of section 696 of paragraph 1. 1. contains the usual and
The Constitution provided the mandate for the Ministry to issue a
podzákonného the legal rules relating to the maximum monthly rent.
This legislation, anticipated in paragraph 696 of paragraph 1. 1. z.,
It is then necessarily assessment no. 01/2002, which even according to the case-law of the Constitutional Court
meets the characters of legal regulation in the material, but not in a strictly
in a formal sense. The provisions of § 696 para. 1. from the point of view of content.
does not distinguish between apartments, in which it is carried out, to the various rental housing
groups of these flats, so without authorising the State authorities and to adjust the rent
only for a certain group of these flats. From this perspective, podzákonná
legislation is illegal and unconstitutional, going beyond legal legal
editing. In this respect, it was pointed out and the convenience of assessment no.
01/2002, as in 2001, the Government wanted to adjust the
by law, the proposal was rejected by the Chamber of Deputies. Because
However, the Government has not materialized its own Bill, the situation should be resolved
assessment of the Ministry of finance. This solution is in the conditions of the rule
the State is completely unacceptable. This procedure, in the opinion of the appellants
experience a flagrant circumvention itself the meaning and essence of the development of standards
and-in relation to the award of the Constitutional Court No. 229/2000 Coll.-also to
an open breach of the article. 89 para. 2 of the Constitution, according to which enforceable
decisions of the Constitutional Court are binding on all authorities and persons.
The provisions of § 10 of the Act on prices for such a procedure lays the groundwork,
because it is not specific enough, according to plaintiffs, and obvious. By
When a situation arises, it opens exactly enough nevymezený space
the authorities of the State administration for the issuance of a court-nepřezkoumatelných
normative legal acts, which in some cases they are even
the function of law-as happened in the present case. Here the appellant
points to find no 96/2001 Coll., on which the Constitutional Court had defined
standardisation of the Executive-based policies entitled the body,
non-intervention in Affairs dedicated to the law, the will of the legislator to the obviousness
modify the above the legal standard.
In this case, however, it is clear that the appellant judikovaná
the constitutional rules for the derived normotvorbu has not been respected, in
relation to the provisions of § 10 of the Act on prices (not in it contained "obvious
will the legislature to modify the above legal standard "), and in particular in relation
the assessment no. 01/2002. In addition, legal conditions have not been fulfilled, or
the application of the provision, predicted in the provisions of § 1 (1). 6
Act No. 526/1990 Coll., the contested provisions of § 10 of the Act on prices in
relation to adjust rents also do not correspond to the provisions of § 696
paragraph. 1. for the participants of legal relationships is difficult to
predictability of considerable legal uncertainty.
Therefore, in the event that the Constitutional Court comes to the conclusion that the situation
It is not possible to interpret so that Bill No. 01/2002 is a legal prescription,
a group of Senators proposed to cancel the entire provision of section 10 of the Act on
prices and at the same time also the assessment. The reason for the annulment of the legal
provisions for such a case in particular sees that his
the basis of the State shall issue a decision with all the unconstitutional quasi
material characters of normative legal act, significantly affecting
the rights and obligations of the entities, which is not possible under the rule and
permissible. In other words, the provision of section 10 of the Act on prices created when you
your application to a situation that clearly does not envisage article. paragraph 79. 3
Of the Constitution. Under this article, namely the Ministry of may "on the basis of and in
the limits of the law, legislate if they are empowered to do so ".
Therefore, there is a constitutional prerequisite for it to issue Ministry
other decisions to the normative content, with the exception of individual legal
acts. If the Constitutional Court comes to the conclusion that Bill No. 01/2002 is not
legislation, then it is a competency that is contained in the provisions of § 10
the law on prices beyond the provisions of article. paragraph 79. 3 of the Constitution, and it is therefore
the reason for the repeal of this provision. The proposal to repeal section 10 of the Act on
prices for this case serves a group of Senators and, therefore, that in the case
that the Constitutional Court has deviated from its case-law, and a notice of assessment no. 01/2002 for the
the legislation did not appear to be unauthorized
the complainant.
In conclusion, therefore, the Group of Senators has proposed that the Constitutional Court annul the "Bill
The Ministry of Finance of the CZECH REPUBLIC No. 01/2002 and the provisions of § 10 of the Act No. 526/1990
Coll., on prices, as amended, "for their conflict with the article.
89 para. 2 and article. 1 of the Constitution, according to which the Czech Republic is democratic
the rule of law and in breach of article 88(3). paragraph 79. 3 of the Constitution, article. 1, art. 3,
article. 4 and article. 11 of the Charter and article. 1 of the additional protocol to the Convention on the protection of
human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"). Outlawry
the contested assessment no. 01/2002 in addition is also apparent from his conflict with the
the provisions of § 10 of the Act on prices and with the provisions of section 696 of paragraph 1. 1. from.
Cancellation should be done without delay, since the Constitutional Court according to the
the applicant in the annulment of the Decree on the rent (PL. ÚS 3/2000)
sufficient time to quality legislation, the drafting of new legal
prescription.
In its proposal, the remedies so a group of Senators has already the proposal to repeal section 10
the law on prices neformuluje just in case the eventum would be Constitutional
the Court has deviated from its settled case-law, and a notice of assessment no. 01/2002 did not consider the
under the legislation.
II.
The judge-rapporteur in accordance to § 42 para. 4 and § 69 para. 1 of law No.
182/1993 Coll. as amended by Act No. 77/1998 Coll. and Act No. 18/2000 Coll.
requested the observations of both chambers of the Czech Parliament, since section 10
the law on prices has been adopted by the Federal Assembly in 1990. In addition,
requested the Ministry of finance, both under the representation of the above
provisions of the Act on the Constitutional Court the application for annulment cited
assessment item No. 01/2002, and in accordance with § 48 para. 2 of the same Act
comments on the proposal to repeal section 10 of the Act on prices.
For the Chamber of Deputies posted by expressing its President PhDr. Lubomír
Fort Worth Star Telegram, which only said the circumstances of the adoption of the law on prices 27 June.
November 1990 and noted that it is up to the Constitutional Court to assess the
and issued the relevant decision.
The Senate has sent expressing his Chairman doc. JUDr. Petr Pithart, who
He stated that section 10 of the Act on prices was the Federal Assembly approved 27.
November 1990, IE. before the konstituováním of the Senate. His amendment has not yet
There has been, and therefore cannot substantiate the arguments as yet based representation of
the debate in the institutions of the Senate. However, the Senate has delivered qualified
the opinion, in which he pointed out the fact that section 10 of the Act on prices
It is the only provision on the formal classification and disclosure
the decision of the price authorities to the "item list", not the empowering
provisions, while authorization is contained in section 1 (1). 6 of the Act on
prices. Drew attention to the fact that the Ministry of finance may
proceed according to § 2 (2). 2 Act No. 266/1991 Coll., as amended by
amended, under which the Ministry of finance and legal issues
provisions for the control and negotiation of prices. as article. paragraph 79. 3 of the Constitution
does not prescribe the form of legislation, it may be considered that the law on prices
Conformal addresses the pricing way, constitutionally as well as some
other laws. The use of empowerment § 1 (1). 6 it is legitimate in relation to §
paragraph 696. 1. z., for the law on prices is cross-cutting law and has
General application in the case where there is no other legal provision of derogation.
The system of price regulation is not contrary to article. 4 (4). 1 of the Charter, which can be inferred
from the case law of the Constitutional Court. By regulating the prices the State only provides
the framework within which the agreement of the parties can move. However, if the
as to the possibility of a unilateral increase of the rent the landlord, it would be
It can only be by agreement, or, if provided for in special legislation (section 696
paragraph. 1. z.). This should be the law, since, according to the participant would
podzákonnou standard solutions could be found to be noncompliant
the constitutional order. Finally, the President of the Chamber in a comprehensive comment on potential
consequences of cancellation of assessment no. 01/2002, where in his opinion the only occurs
the preservation state until the Parliament adopts a new adjustment
the estimated section 696 of paragraph 1. 1. of. as regards the consequences of the repeal of section 10
the law on prices, said that the form of the publication of the decision on the price
the regulation would become an unedited, and therefore, in this case, it was
need to give lawmakers and the Treasury Department sufficient time to resolve
resulting from the situation.
For the Ministry of finance to draft a group of Senators to repeal section 10
the law on prices and assessment no. 01/2002 comment pursuant to § 48 para. 2 of the Act
on the Constitutional Court Finance Minister Ing. Jiri Rusnok, in which
dispute with its outlets in respect of unfulfilled demand for flats,
advantage for the best resident families, discrimination of young families with children,
the existence of vacant flats (they are unreasonably expensive). The nature of the
the issue of price assessments indicates that no legislation is less
legal force, they set out rights and obligations have a legal character.
It is therefore not unauthorized act with things pertaining to your
nature to modify the law. However, the price regulation by address
You cannot, because it would be difficult for its operational performance. To do this,
the State shall support the price authorities. The denial of these facts only
due to the allegedly insufficient amount of State rent control would
It was therefore inevitably denying the entire system state regulated prices
everywhere where there can be no market for a balanced supply and demand
(e.g. energy, gas, sewer, etc.). The collapse of this
the system as a result of inadequate interventions into the law on prices should
disastrous consequences for the entire economy of the State. In addition, the abolition of section 10
the law on the Ministry of finance will not be prices withdrawn right to make decisions about
prices will only be temporarily impeded by the publication of price decision.
The rent is not an unspecified reward, as claimed by the lessor
the appellant outside State control. Under section 877 of the of.
the price within the meaning of the Act on prices. Price decision implements its
the parent position in the field of administrative law. If you agree with the
the claimant, it is in the fact that there is no regulation price decision pursuant to §
paragraph 696. 1 of the Constitutional Court Itself meanwhile said that in the case of rent
from the apartment must ensure protection against abuse of property rights. In this
the context of the Ministry of finance pointed out the fact that find no.
231/2000 Coll. was not sufficiently substantiated, to be of the opinion
Of the Constitutional Court. On the one hand it is understandable
as the Constitutional Court is not pricing authority and therefore cannot correct
perform the calculation, on the other hand, it is then easy to find and exploit
against the public interest, as we, the Ministry of finance now
witnesses.
Furthermore, it is pointed out in the observations on the problems of access to calculate
rent a group of senators. No particular method of calculation data
the Ministry of finance is unable to deliver an opinion. In this context,
reported the results of its investigation in this matter for the municipalities, which in its
opinion, demonstrate the profitability of the rent. Such an investigation also tried to
perform for private landlords. From 220 respondents replied
only 48, others refused to disclose the price information, one for this
procedure the Ministry in the Constitutional Court. The answer then is collected
in its view, it follows that the regulated rent allows you to achieve
a reasonable profit, but not as a State of maximum profits
non-regulated market, which is the objective of the efforts of private landlords.
In conclusion, the Ministry their observations stated that the appellant
He did not put any figures to support its claims about the facts
decisive for the calculation of the rent, and economically legitimate requested
their additions. Applicants should submit to the Constitutional Court and its
the idea, as it will be followed in the event of their success against tenants
with the ocean in the treaties, since it is a matter of extraordinary
social importance, in which the State cannot gamble with the public
interest and must not lose the ability to continuously protect him. The Ministry of
Therefore, as the authority of the State Treasury is responsible for this area are requested to
The Constitutional Court clearly and indisputably said any evidence that
received and said, how it is reviewed. Further requests that the Constitutional Court gave
clear instructions on how to rent increase-and legal-kalkulačně in
lease contracts concluded for other price terms in the past,
and finally, before its decision verified the economic throughput of
their decision, since its scope will be quite extraordinary.
As regards the Ombudsman's proposal related to cancellation
the relevant provisions of the assessment no. 01/2002, Ministry of finance
as a participant in the management of its opinion pursuant to § 69 para. 1 of the law on
The Constitutional Court Administration Finance Minister Ing. George Rusnoka. In this
submission of a participant stated that identifies with the finding of the Constitutional Court of the
17.2.1999, SP. zn. II. TC 53/97, by which the price decision
The Ministry of finance is not legislation. Therefore, it cannot be
apply article. paragraph 79. 3 of the Constitution. Similarly, it does not agree with the arguments
Public defender of rights with regard to § 2 (2). 2 Act No. 266/1991 Coll., on
as amended, as regards prescription, whose competence
the application depends on the regulation of substantive. Price decision
cannot take the form of a decree, as is his nature, must be
released quickly (even from hour to hour) and cannot be dependent on the
publication in the journal of laws. Submit the comment would be completely
on the other hand its effectiveness. The provisions of § 10 of the Act on prices is a General
authorization for all price regulation of all pricing authorities. After his
cancellation of the State would have the freedom to price regulation, for which the participant refuses to
bear economic responsibility with regard to the unpredictable economic and
the social consequences. The importance of and the need for price regulation in so doing acknowledge
all the developed States. Such action would be in European terms
unprecedented.
Furthermore, a participant stressed the right to the protection of the public interest against misuse
ownership (article 11, paragraph 3, of the Charter, article 1 of the additional protocol to the
The Convention). If therefore, price regulation carried out on the basis of §
10 of the law on prices generally accepted rules of fairness and
they have a well-founded relationship of proportionality between the used
resources and objectives, cannot be, in the opinion of the participant
unconstitutional. Finding no 231/2000 Coll., on which the applicant relies,
a participant stated that the Constitutional Court said the former promoters,
without publicly evaluate the evidence allowed, which he directed in his
the conclusion that the price regulation contained in the repealed Ordinance on the rental
reduced price so that due to all the proven and necessarily incurred
the cost of eliminating the possibility of at least recouping the costs incurred and
in this case, disputing the purpose and function of the ownership. The Constitutional Court
It also did not indicate how to regulate the rent, to violation of the constitutionality of
did not occur. Therefore, the participant continued in the way of regulation, which shall be borne by
Economic and legal liability.
Find no 229/2000 Coll., yet cannot be interpreted so that the regulation of
rent discriminates against different categories of owners, since some fixed
substantial privileges of ownership rights, as claimed by the appellant. In the award
No 231/2000 Coll., in this context, the Constitutional Court has pointed out on the principle of
autonomy and said also that price regulation does not prevent anyone
a business or engage in other economic activities referred to in article. 26 paragraph 2. 1
Of the Charter, since everyone has the opportunity to freely decide whether or not under the
the conditions in a particular area will be. In addition, rent controls will
does not apply to newly concluded leases and therefore does not stand in the way of
entrepreneurial activity. Price regulation is applied only in the flats
leased to the effective date of this Ordinance. Such goods cannot be tenants
withdraw, as his lease contract is valid and must be State
respected. The landlord cannot do so, because the rent of an apartment is
the protected legal relationship, which can be terminated for the reasons, which increased
the rent does not belong. It is equally mistaken opinion of the applicant, that after the cancellation of the
assessment no. 01/2002, the lessor will have the possibility to determine the rent according to the
custom essays. According to the Subscriber's price regulation was from the beginning
measures to increase rents solely for the benefit of landlords,
When the State allowed in closed the unilateral increase in contractual relations
the rent, even if it was not contractually agreed, then had to price regulation
to limit its scope. Stated in this context that the neglect of housing
the Fund, which took over from the State and the municipality of restituenti, did not cause the current
the tenant of the apartment, because that question cannot be solved at its expense of fixing
highly profitable prices. Profit was not generally akumulován and has been consumed
outside the House, so restituenti and the municipality did not receive from the State, along with houses
and the accumulated funds. Even in these circumstances, however, you cannot
require the State to ensure that the lessor a distorted price
the ability to rapidly accumulated resources create long term, usually.
Subject to price regulation then there is no compensation for the period of the State
home ownership of current owners.
Furthermore, a participant pointed out the results of the investigations carried out by it (see above) in
municipalities and private owners of houses with apartments, the ocean. In this context,
stated what is paid by the lessee under the Government Decree No. 258/1995 Coll., which
performed by the civil code, from its (minor repairs, routine maintenance, full
the price of the services provided with the use of the apartment, the full cost of new equipment
the apartment), and posed the question, what are then operating costs-by
Constitutional Court No. 229/2000 Coll., arguably and rightfully
incurred-paid by the landlord from his.
Then on 11 July. November 2002, the Ministry of Finance has sent the Constitutional
Court information, in which it pointed out that preparing update
price assessment no. 01/2002 establishing the list of products with
regulated prices. On 15 December. November 2002, was issued in the price
Journal of updating no 06/2002, laying down the maximum rent from
the apartment, the maximum prices of the services provided with the use of the apartment and rules
for rent apartment usměrňované, in substance, and the amended Bill MF no 01/2002 (hereinafter referred to
only Bill No. 06/2002 "). In its paragraph 4 are repealed with effect from 15.
November 2002, item # 5 and # 6 of part I of section A and no. 9 in part II.
assessment no. 01/2002, that is, items that have been contaminated by the public defender
the design of rights 4. March 2002 on their removal. So the situation has occurred,
When legislation or its individual provisions, whose cancellation is
proposed longer valid before the end of the proceedings before the Constitutional
by the Court. This situation resolves to section 67 para. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., that
provides that in such a case, the procedure stops.
In the course of the proceedings, the legal representative of the applicant (expanded the Group
Senators) within the meaning of the provisions of section 63 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll. and section 95 para.
Code of civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the round") of the original draft of the proposal
on cancellation of the assessment notice No 06/2002. The extension required the abolition proposal
assessment notice No 06/2002 in accordance with the existing case-law of the constitutional
After the suspension of the court hearings by a resolution approved with regard to the
the fact that the contents of both documents is virtually identical in substance. Have been
so populated as the conditions of § 95 para. 2. s. l., when the results of the
previous proceedings, which could be the basis for the management of advanced design.
For this procedure was particularly significant that this Bill is identical to the
the broken assessment no. 01/2002, in particular with regard to the alleged defects
neústavnosti, or. the illegality of which they had in this proceeding
decide.
III.
The Constitutional Court first proceeded to the examination of formalities
the proposal to repeal section 10 of the Act on prices. First, it should be noted that the
assessment of the proposal of the Group of senators did not affect the wording of the preamble to the
the proposal, which repeal section 10 of the Act on prices only requires case
that would not be cancelled directly affected demand. In this design the remedies
cancellation is not required only in eventum, and therefore had to the Constitutional Court
progress in the above order of proposals setting out the, even though the vast majority of
the arguments of the appellant is directed only against the assessment as such.
The Constitutional Court notes that the proposal to repeal section 10 of the Act on prices was
filed a legitimate plaintiff in accordance with § 64 para. 1 (b). (b)) of the Act
No. 182/1993 Coll. Also admissible under section 66 paragraph 1. 1 of the law
on the Constitutional Court have been fulfilled in the present case. The proposal was found to be
permissible and Constitutional Court could act within the meaning of § 68 of the directives
the law on the Constitutional Court, as amended, that is. rate
gradually meet the procedural requirements, conflicts and content
the constitutionality of this provision. As regards the first two requirements, it is necessary to
held that the contested provisions of the Act on prices has been adopted and
issued at the time of validity of the previous constitutional division of legislative adjustments
competences between the Federation and of the Republic and the legislative process, and therefore
already the Constitutional Court with regard to section 66 paragraph 1. 2 of the Act on the Constitutional Court, in
as amended, their compliance with product reviews.
In terms of content requirements, IE. the consistency of the section 10 of the Act on prices with
the constitutional order [article 87, paragraph 1 (a)) of the Constitution, as amended by the constitutional
Act No. 395/2001 Coll.] and the international obligations of the United States (article 1
paragraph. 2 of the Constitution, as amended by Constitutional Act No. 395/2001 Coll.), came to the
the conclusion that this is not contrary to the provisions of these requirements, and therefore the proposal
in this section, dismiss.
While the Constitutional Court deliberated as follows. A group of Senators
It occurs basically only assessment resulting from the application of section 10 of the Act
about the prices. Any application of a provision of the Act unconstitutional, however,
cannot serve as a reason for the cancellation provisions of the Act itself,
that is not unconstitutional. The contested provisions of the Act provides that the price
"Goods for which price control is applied in accordance with § 5 and 6 are classified
the price authorities decision by the list of goods with regulated prices (
"the list"). The list and prices of the goods and, where
price regulation applies pursuant to § 8, published the prices in the price authorities
journal. ".
This provision, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court only summarizes the cases
price regulation and lays down a legally binding form of their publication in the
Price journal. If the applicant should therefore be successful, an attacker would
demonstrate not only the unconstitutionality of the contested assessment, which argues. He had to
It would also demonstrate the unconstitutionality and, second, the legal Institute of the price
the regulation as one of the key tools of the pricing policy of the State and
It would have to demonstrate, in case all the legislation that it
govern. Only if he could prove that any price
undertaken by this form of regulation is unconstitutional, it would be necessary to this
the provisions repealed. It would mean that the application of section 10 of the Act on prices
always throws in view of its normativnost and the general binding effect
unconstitutional state. In that case but not the proposer's or
do not claim.
The Constitutional Court did not consider it necessary to assess the actual question
admissibility of price regulation as such, since the proposal was heading only
against the admissibility of price regulation of rent and other related
Questions (against its form and content). Here it should be recalled that this
the issue already has delivered the opinion of the Constitutional Court, with the result that the price
the regulation as a whole saw a constitutional form of realization of the State policy
[especially in the findings, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/99 (No. 167/2000 Coll.), pl. ÚS
3/2000 (No. 229/2000 Coll.) and PL. ÚS 5/01 (no 410/2001 Coll.)]. As well as
It is not the reservations against the use of the Act on prices in relation to the regulation of
the rent, since paragraph 1 (1). 4 it does not explicitly exclude, while section 1
paragraph. 3 of the same law the possibility of rent controls explicitly does not adjust.
The provisions of § 696 para. 1. from the general mandate is then that can be
always apply, while the regulation under the Act on prices only in specific
the conditions defined by this Act.
The appellant claims that unconstitutional is already the definition provisions of §
10 of the law on prices as the authorizing provisions. Definition of the rights and
on the basis of the legal obligations contained in the delegation the provisions of § 10
the law on prices as it leads to a situation that could be issued by the affected
assessment. However, the mandate must be specific enough to podzákonný
a specific issue only regulate regulation under it. In the case of
the provisions of § 10 of the Act on prices, in his opinion, it is a mandate
flat-rate, which, moreover, from the formal point of view leads to the issuance of some
quasi implementing provisions. This creates a situation where opens
exactly enough to nevymezený the space authorities of State administration for issuing
judicially nepřezkoumatelných normative legal acts, which in some
cases they even feature laws-as it is done in the
case.
To do this, it should be noted that in the case of the enabling provisions
It's not. Competence of the Ministry of finance to regulate prices follows from § 1 (1).
7 of the law on prices in conjunction with the relevant provisions of law No.
265/1991 Coll., as amended. Own mandate to regulate
price is given in § 1 (1). 6 of the Act on prices. Its limits are given for
cases in which the market is vulnerable to the effects of the restriction of competition or
requires particular market situation. The determination of the additional terms can be found
First, in section 3 of the Act on prices, which requires a definition of the circle of addressees
the price of the decision and, secondly, in its paragraph 4, which sets out the ways the prices
of regulation. Additional details provided by § 5, 6 and 8 of the Act on prices, to
that paragraph 10 refers. In terms of legal forms of price regulation of legal
adjustment of the Ministry of finance to so was:
and the price in the form of the decision) (§ 2, paragraph 1, of Act No. 266/1991 Coll., on
amended by Act No. 135/1994 Coll. and Act No. 151/1997 Coll., in conjunction with section 3
paragraph. 1 of the law on prices), which marshals closer defined item in the
a list of goods with regulated prices and the prices in the list and the
Fixed Price published in the journal (article 10 of the law on prices), or
(b)) in the form of legal act in the strict sense of the word (section 2 (2) of law No.
265/1991 Coll., as amended by Act No. 135/1994 Coll. and Act No. 151/1997 Coll.
According to which the Ministry of finance publishes "legislation for the regulation of
and negotiation of prices, determine the disproportionate amount of economic benefit and
unauthorized benefit in connection with any violation of the price
regulations, price records, provision of price information, control
prices. ".
A similar dualism regulation is foreseen under section 2 c of the Act No. 266/1991 Coll., on
the text of Act No. 458/2000 Coll., in the case of another price authority, such as the
The Energy Regulatory Office. Only in the case of the Government section 9 of the Act on prices
provides that for the publication of a price moratorium must be applied to forms of
exclusively by the law in the strict sense of the word-order of the Government-
declared in the collection of laws (see, i find no 167/2000 Coll.).
In terms of the forms of implementation of price regulation thus sedes materiae
located in section 3 (a form of price decision) and in section 4 of the Act on prices
(ways to price regulation), not in its section 10 (way of the publication of the
the list of goods and regulated prices). The provisions of § 10 of the Act on prices
Additionally, you cannot be interpreted at a distance from the entire content of the law on prices (in particular
§ 1 (1). 6 § 3) including reference to § 5 (definition of the officially defined prices
and its species), § 6 (definition of the conditions to regulate prices
goods) and section 8 (definition of the time-price purposeful). Without canceling the other
related provisions of the Act on prices would not be the purpose of the
the reference the appellant achieved.
As regards the alleged exceeding of authorisation (interpreted as follows in terms of
a systematic interpretation of the Act on prices), it is a matter reviews the constitutionality of
the contested assessment (see below). At this point, the Constitutional Court shall be considered as
needed only to find that the exceeding of the authorised the implementation of the law
or other violations of the law does not lead to neústavnosti of the Act itself, but
up to the illegality of a legal act, which was based on the times
the authorization is issued.
Having regard to the requirements of the specific mandate, the Constitutional Court shall be considered as
necessary to refer also to find in the matter of the proposal of the Group of Senators to repeal
article. I, section 4 of Act No. 37/2000 Coll., amending Act No. 125/1997
Coll., on waste, as amended, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 14/2000
(find no 43/2001 Coll., a collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, St.
21, no. 4), in which he said for the case where the scope of the regulation
costs can vary significantly, that "the concept of the estimated eligible costs
municipalities, resulting from the treatment of municipal waste, however, the amendment
the law on waste defined are not, on the other hand, however, since
the nature of such a basis or defined to be exactly.
The municipality in its observations themselves concede that such costs may
vary significantly, it can influence a number of facts outside the village itself
(e.g., the cost of a body which, on the basis of the written consent of the municipality
will dispose of with household waste). In this respect, however, the maximum amount of
the fee cannot be determined easily, and probably single amount, because the
with regard to its construction (that just can't be fixed
otherwise) simply not possible. " In other words, the fact that the law
He admits that certain Materia has been adjusted with regard to the nature of the case up to
implementing (and therefore more flexible) Regulation, yet does not necessarily lead to
neústavnosti of such enabling provisions. As has already been
noted, that in the case of § 10 of the Act on prices, it can have but
importance for any reviews of the selected forms of price regulation in the case of
the rent.
Furthermore, the appellant argues the provisions of § 696 para. 1. z.,
States that "the method of calculation of the rent, payments for the implementation that is provided with
the use of the apartment, the way their pay, as well as cases in which it is
the lessor shall be entitled to unilaterally increase the rent, the remuneration for the performance of
provided with the use of the apartment, and change other conditions of the rental agreement,
provides for special legislation. ". In its view, this provision is
the specific referencing standard, and between it and section 10 of the Act on
prices there is no relationship of General and special.
This argument could not be in evaluating the constitutionality of § 10 take into
considerations. As we know, has not yet been authorised to section 696 of paragraph 1. 1. used from.
and this attempt was unsuccessful in 2001 [see the Government Bill on the
rent of the apartment and pay the price of the services provided with the use of the apartment and of the
Amendment of the civil code (law on the rent of the apartment). The Parliament Of The United
of the Republic. The Chamber of Deputies 2000. III. the electoral period. Print no. 883].
There is no obstacle to the issue of rent, namely whether or not the situations in
where the landlord is entitled to "unilaterally increase the rent, the payment of
for the implementation that is provided with the use of the apartment and change other terms of lease
the Treaty "has been adjusted on the basis of the General Law on prices. Condition
However, in order to meet the prerequisites for a regulation referred to in
§ 1 (1). 6 of this Act, to make the Edit concerned (rather than price regulation
other terms and conditions of the rental contract) and that the content and form of this edit has been in
accordance with the constitutional order and the international obligations of the United States. In
this case may not be an application of the law on pricing in the area of editing
a specially assigned questions in section paragraph 696. 1. from itself.
unconstitutional. Reviews of the relationship of these two laws and their provisions,
in particular, section 696 of paragraph 1. 1 and section 877 of and § 10 of the Act on prices, however, cannot
be the subject of proceedings on the constitutionality of legislation before the constitutional
by the Court.
The applicant, therefore, failed to demonstrate that the provisions of section 10 of the Act
price was in breach of article. paragraph 79. 3 of the Constitution, as the constitutional order
for the law of ministries and other administrative authorities expressly
legal form does not impose. Therefore, it is not with the article. paragraph 79. 3 of the Constitution
get to the contrary, if this is about specifically constitutionally prescribed rating
forms of legal regulation. This also applies to its objections to paragraph 10 of the law on
in terms of the admissibility of the prices the prices of rent controls as they are
listed below.
IV. AND
Then had the Constitutional Court reviews the constitutionality of an assessment no.
01/2002, which was attacked by the Ombudsman's proposal of 4 October 2005.
March 2002. However, since the contested parts of the assessment no. 01/2002 have been
cancelled, had to be stopped in this part of the procedure. The Constitutional Court only
States that the decision made here all conditions when already in
its case law dealt with the question of whether the price assessment be considered
legal prescription. He did so in finding no 167/2000 Coll., which deviated from the
the legal opinion expressed in finding SP. zn. II. TC 53/97 (collection
the findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, St. 13, no. 26), which relied on in
your opinion of the Ministry of finance. He came to the conclusion that
the case of the price assessment published in the journal of the Department of
health law goes, regardless of the absence of the corresponding
Forms. The Constitutional Court therefore is of the opinion that, in the case where a form of
required for legislation does not meet all the requirements, while the contents of the
and legal functions do, is crucial to meet the content requirements
legal regulation. The same conclusions apply to the conditions for evaluations of the legality
assessment notice No 06/2002.
Competence of the Ministry of finance for the issue of the price assessment is apparent from the above
those interpretations on the law on pricing and to Act No. 266/1991 Coll., on
as amended. From this perspective, it was not possible to have the objections from the
point of view of the constitutionality and legality of its release. However, it can be concluded
for the time being only in terms of the powers of the Bill. Above this
the framework, however, the Constitutional Court to the Ministry of finance when the release procedure
assessment notice No 06/2002 must state that sees it as an attempt to clear
to circumvent the purpose of section 67 para. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court and an attempt
prevent the passage of the constitutional justice system performance.
In terms of the issues that the Constitutional Court's defining the solution, you must
noted that did not consider it necessary to deal with objections, which
does not fall within its competence. This means primarily the issue of determination of rules
for the calculation of the rent and its calculation. The way to the suggests only
the opposition of the Treasury, that the infringement of article 81(1). 4 (4). 3 of the Charter in
the spirit of the previous award No. 229/2000 Coll. sees even in different edit
rules regarding the calculation of rent under points 2 and 3, no 5, part I.
section A and under points 2 and 3 of item No. 9 of part II. assessment no. 01/2002,
which means i edit in the new assessment no 06/2002 as points 2, 3 and
4 Item No. 1 and items 2 and 3 of the item # 3. Likewise, it takes the
is of the opinion that if there are other reasons for the cancellation of the legal
the legislation does not assess the fulfilment of the conditions under section 1 (1). 6 of the Act on prices,
Since such questions are primarily for considerations of the political authorities of the State
(Similarly, such as the conditions of the article 33, paragraph 1, of the Constitution in the case of
the issue of legal action), and the Constitutional Court as the judicial authority takes
opinion on the minimization of interference in their discretion in such
issues.
The Constitutional Court also does not provide that the Ministry of Finance of its concept
rent controls will spring into the competences of the Ministry of regional
the development, which include, among other things, regional policy,
housing, the development of household and housing stock and lease the apartments and
non-residential premises (article 14, paragraph 1, of Act No. 2/1969 Coll., on establishment of the
ministries and other central bodies of the State administration of the Czech
Socialist Republic, as amended by Act No 272/1996 Coll.), as with the
regard to the following outlets that was not to be.
In terms of content requirements, IE. the compliance of these provisions
assessment notice No 06/2002 with the constitutional order or law [article 87, paragraph 1, point (a).
(b)) of the Constitution, as amended by Constitutional Act No. 395/2001 Coll.], respectively.
international obligations of the United States (article 1, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, as amended by
Constitutional Act No. 395/2001 Coll.) and statutory provisions, the constitutional
the Court concluded that the proposal to their cancellation is justified.
IV. (B)
There were no obstacles that would impede the Constitutional Court in a hearing and
about advanced a proposal for the cancellation of the assessment notice No 06/2002, which was prosecuted by the
the same objections in neústavnosti and illegality. In accordance with section 95 para.
2. with the 8-course management could be the basis for a decision,
If the assessment notice No 06/2002 in accordance with the law. Additionally, added a more fundamental
the claim relates to that Ministry of finance your procedure
violates not only the law on prices, but also the constitutional rules. For the third time
(for the first time in the form of decrees, for the second time and third time by way of a price assessment),
rent control applies virtually the same content that already
the Constitutional Court was unconstitutional. Was not in breach of article. 89
paragraph. 2 of the Constitution respected by the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court expressed in
finding no 231/2000 Coll., which shall be repealed on 31 December. 12. the 2001 Ordinance
The Ministry of Finance No. 176/1993 Coll., as amended, and
which was in a similar ruling on the constitutionality of rent controls has already
to be judged. In this finding of the Constitutional Court has given the opinion that:
and protection of tenants is a constant) part of our legal system from 20.
years of the last century, and does not alter the fact that it is not
expressly enshrined in the Charter, since this role in our legal system fulfils the
article. 11 of the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural
rights, art. 16 of the European Social Charter and article. 4 of the additional protocol
to the Charter. Possibility of rent controls has been recognized even by pointing to
decision of the European Court of human rights. 12.1989 (A-169)
things Mellacher and the other against Austria. With regard to the article. 1 (1). 2
The Constitution, as amended by Constitutional Act No. 395/2001 Coll., these commitments
The United States to respect the protection of tenancies and from 1. June
2002.
(b)), the Constitutional Court rejected the argument of the appellants, pursuant to
where is the regulation of rent protected only by a certain group of tenants and
It is discriminated against a group of owners of apartments with controlled rent.
He pointed out the principle of autonomy and the right to transact business pursuant to article.
26 paragraph 2. 1 of the Charter.
(c) the Constitutional Court, however, acknowledged the) violations of the principle of reasonable (fair)
balance when the Ordinance regulating rents did not take into account process
destruction of property rights after the February 1948, in the area of management of
apartments. The housing stock was nationalised, but without resources
accumulated on its maintenance.
(d)), the Constitutional Court has recognized the violation of article. 1 of the additional protocol to the Convention,
as well as the right enshrined in article. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter, when the affected category
the owners, including the municipalities of owning rental homes, are denied some of the
the essential permissions that make up the contents of their ownership rights. Therefore,
the Court found a violation of article 6(1). 4 (4). 4 of the Charter.
e) having regard to the fact that these owners are in a wide variety
cases of forced from their appropriate what the Constitutional Court considered the thing
social nature and responsibilities requiring a responsible and balanced
access from the State and the whole society, the Constitutional Court expressed the
the legal opinion, according to which the price regulation, does not exceed the limits
constitutionality, not clearly reduce the price so that due to all the
proven and cost-effective option eliminate the need for at least
their return, because in such a case actually implied a
denial of purpose and all functions of the ownership.
(f)), the Constitutional Court questioned the obligation to such landlords, if
on the issue of raising the rent, to comply with certain restrictions, you may
so State but only under conditions resulting from the article. 4 (4). 3 and 4
Of the Charter, which in the case of Decree No. 176/1993 Coll., as amended
regulations, has not been fulfilled. Certain categories of owners were forced to
subject to significant limitations of their title, while the other
Instead, and this restriction existed in the contested Decree in a manner that
should have little to do with the investigation, the nature of property rights.
(g)), the Constitutional Court also questioned the obligation for tenants to undergo an intervention
into a contract by a third party, when the State is their new
it enters the area of an agreed adjustment of rent and allows you to
unilaterally increase.
The Constitutional Court did not find the given exception-the need to derogate
from the legal opinions that he expressed in finding no 231/2000 Coll. That is
He could, however, apply in the present case that notice No 06/2002, it was
necessary to evaluate whether these edits are in at least the essential parts of the
the same. The Constitutional Court on this basis assess the interrelationship between both
These adjustments and came to the conclusion that not only item 1 Item No 1 assessment no.
06/2002, where it only takes the present adaptation of assessment no. 01/2002,
but also other content item # 1 assessment no. 06/2002 on the essential
points matches the contents of that part of the rent controls in the Decree No.
176/1993 Coll., as amended, that was marked for
unconstitutional. whereas the derogations are not in terms of constitutional review
essential.
The difference of the two adjustments is not, therefore, in terms of reviews of the constitutionality of the first
place in their content, but rather in the form of a regulation. There shall be deemed to
the petitioner to be unconstitutional. To do this, it should be noted that the
the price of the decision to be a tool of State policy regulating the prices,
in fact, it also lays down general rules, according to which the
the Contracting Parties in determining the amount of the rent Act. This is different
from the rest of the content of the assessment no. 01/2002. This assessment was
pricing decisions only assigned to replace the cancelled
Decree No. 176/1993 Coll., as amended, as well as from the
It was assigned to the 15. November 2002, retired and then published with the
the apparent intent to prevent the Constitutional Court to decide. Therefore, even
Bill No. 06/2002 out of the legal conditions for price regulation,
laying down the law on prices.
According to § 3 (2). 1 of the law on prices, however, price regulation means
the determination of the amount of direct or guide the price the price authorities and local
authorities. Specifically, section 4 provides the following ways to price controls: a)
price fixing; (b) the streamlining of their development) building on substantive
conditions; c) channelling of price movements over time; (d)) the price of the moratorium;
an appropriate combination of these methods).
The content of the price decision is defined so that it decides on
classification of goods defined closer (§ 5, 6 and 8 of the Act on prices) to
the list of goods and the manner of its price (§ 4 of the law on
prices). Its mission is not to be the regulation of behavior other than this
the law as intended in relation to section 877 of the adjustment in the contested
the items of assessment no 06/2002 exceeds the legal framework which is given by
such concepts as:
and officially costs) IE. high price, low price and solid
price, other factual or time-limited conditions (section 5 of the Act on
prices);
(b)), i.e. the price benefits in streamlining. establishment of conditions for the negotiation of prices from
in terms of the maximum range of a possible increase in the price of goods in the established
period or the maximum stake in which is possible to reflect in the prices
price increases during the periods specified in the input or in the destination
a binding procedure for the formation of prices, or when its calculation (section 6 of the Act on
prices);
(c)), i.e. the time usměrňované prices. prices, which must be set
the minimum lead time for the announcement of price increase under consideration, or
the minimum time limit, after which the price increase can be considered
take place or time-limited ban renewed increase in the price of the goods (§
8 of the Act on prices).
According to § 3 (2). 2 of the law on pricing decisions are binding on the
audience, which is defined in them. The law on prices so empowers the
the price authorities to determine audience. So, the State must
in a way that respects the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. This
the definition is in the assessment notice No 06/2002 not indistinguishable from other
legislation, in particular the civil code. Also here is used for General
the designation "tenant", "lessor", so that that provision requires the
further personalisation of compulsory. the authorized body (the General
the character of the regulation). With regard to the statutory mandate to determine
audience, however, this procedure itself still cannot be considered as
unconstitutional. illegal. It already but does not apply to the definition of terms such as
"the apartment", "category", because here is no longer about the audience. Define what
is the content of the concept of "flat certain category", it is not the task of the price
decision. It's the same as if it was trying to define the price assessment
What should be the composition of the eg. drugs whose prices should be regulated
their quality, etc.
Likewise, it is exceeded in the case of legal warrant additional content
the contested parts of the assessment notice No 06/2002, where they are laid down in a general way
rules of behavior for the specified circuit operators. These rules have General
character, character law, i.e., that require additional
instantiating. The law on prices, however, allows you to regulate the behaviour of the intended
bodies only in that it imposes obligations to negotiate them officially
provided for or regulated the prices of specific goods, in substance, as defined in
the price of the decision in the form of five of the above ways to price regulation
(section 4 of the Act on prices). Bill No. 06/2002 provides in this respect
the rules of conduct of the parties of the rental agreement in a manner that is inconsistent with the
the Mission of price regulation and that is reserved by law for the modification of conditions
laid down by the Charter, or is given to contractual freedom party in accordance
with the constitutional principle of the autonomy of subjects of private law. So
Bill No. 06/2002 for example. provides that the lessee shall notify the lessor increase "
the rent before the date of its maturity "(section 4, item 1) or
When you can rent specific articles to negotiate agreement (paragraph 8, no. 1),
Although the constitutional principle of the autonomy of the will of the contract (article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter)
It is based on the concept of the opposite. Bill provides for additional relationships between the tenant
and the landlord of the apartment when you change the categories or improve its
equipment (item 5 Item No. 1), and in particular in the case of setting the rules
the prices of the services provided, together with the use of the apartment, which also regulates the
relations of suppliers of these services (waste management, lighting, lifts,
checking and cleaning the chimneys etc.), then the owners of flats who these services
used together with the owners of the apartments (point 7 of no 2). It shall fix the
the rules for the resolution of disputes between tenants on the prices of services
provided along with the use of the dwelling [section 2 (b), (c)) item No. 2, points
3 and 4 No 2]. In item # 2 is also modified the way
the granting, payment and settlement of advances for services associated with the dwelling.
Even in the case of no 2 assessment notice No 06/2002 is therefore not a price
a decision in the right sense of the word, but rather a temporary alternation of missing legal
adjustments in the above sense, IE. in the form of a law or its implementing
the Decree. The same is true for item # 3 of the assessment notice No 06/2002 as of
the basis of its normative nature, so in terms of that also is based on
from the December 31, 2001, the date on which the award has become enforceable
No 231/2000 Coll. was repealed Decree No. 176/1993 Coll., as amended by
amended. As regards the proposal to abolish the item No. 3,
nor the Constitutional Court to question the constitutionality of its content, in particular
in terms of criteria where economically justified costs shall not be considered
only to an average monthly growth rate of total construction price index
work in the previous year. In terms of the chosen legal form of presentation
However, even here, instead of the price of a replacement decision rules
by the legislator and the implementing rules. Therefore, regardless of any other position
tenants and landlords of these apartments compared with tenants and
the lessor under no 1 reached the Constitutional Court concluded that the
part of the assessment notice No 06/2002 does not match the mandate of the Ministry of finance in the
the law on prices and in Act No. 266/1991 Coll. 265/1991 Coll.
Replace the missing legislation ad hoc prediction
the provisions of § 696 para. 1 of the Ministry of finance led to
He was forced to go beyond legal authorization (and outside the scope of their
the scope of price regulation) for the content and its ways to establish
rules of conduct designated bodies (landlord and tenant of a particular
type of the apartment. and service suppliers, owners of flats), which of them
result in fixing the amount of the rent in the lease agreements. The prices of
the decision, however, is not designed for this type of treatment. It follows from
a systematic interpretation of § 2 (2). 1 of law No 266/1991 Coll., as amended by
amended, under which the Ministry of Finance shall exercise
the scope of the regulation and in the application of, control the prices of products, performance,
works and services, unless this Act provides otherwise. This competence in the
particularly does not control other than the above mentioned regulation. Only
§ 2 (2). 2 of the same law allows the Ministry of Finance issued
legislation to regulate and negotiate prices, determination of undue
economic benefit and the unlawful benefit in the
compliance with the price laws, price records
the provision of price information, checking prices. However, for the regulation of
cited competence, the law requires the release of legal regulation, which
However, it is not intended to prohibit price decision published in a journal,
but the legislation promulgated in the collection of laws and issued on the basis
explicit authorizations for specifically designated authority of executive power. Therefore,
The Constitutional Court considers election necessarily forms of price decision as
the second the remaining powers of the Ministry of finance, not only for the special purpose only
starring tackling housing policies of the State, but also for
starring illegal, going to beyond the above provisions
the law on prices, so beyond the competence that was the Ministry of
the Treasury entrusted to. This can be clearly seen when comparing with nezrušenou parts
assessment no. 01/2002. The Ministry of finance for example. assessment no. 01/2002
regulates and rail fares, however, does not regulate their own rules
the behavior of passengers and carriers, as this is determined by the civil
code, the law on rail and Decree No. 175/2000 Coll., on the transport regulations
for a public railway and road passenger transport, therefore, legislation in
the narrow sense of the word. Similarly, regulates for example. the price of performance associated with the
artificial termination of pregnancy, but not the conditions of its implementation, etc.
Bill No. 06/2002 beyond legal authorization not only regulates prices,
but defines terms used in the law. As public act not only
defines for example. the concept of "public money" in section 6 (a). Item No.)
3, but also the concept of "household member" (in paragraph 3 No 2), although the
members of the household for the area of civil-law relations, where unquestionably
also includes a lease area, defines the section 115 of this is Bill No. 06/2002
illegally beyond not only the law on prices. If should be understood as
a special law (which effectively and materially functional assessment
replaces) under section 696 of paragraph 1. 1. z., exceeded even the mandate in it
referred to. Even in case of the situation referred to in § 1 (1). 6 price is not
such a definition is possible. Similarly, Bill No. 06/2002 defines the categories of
apartments, details of the basic equipment of the bathroom and the toilet,
defines the basic accessories flat, living room etc.
The Constitutional Court did not consider it necessary to deal with the individual
the provisions of the assessment notice No 06/2002, because the remedy is possible
only the repeal of such provisions as a whole, and the adoption of the corresponding
statutory adjustments. Bill No. 06/2002 is clearly not just a price decision
within the meaning of the law on prices and Act No. 266/1991 Coll., but also the effort to
the replacement legislation, which was abolished as unconstitutional finding no.
231/2000 Sb. However, if in the above items in addition to price, the Ministry of
Finance regulates the behaviour of landlords and tenants in a way that is
reserved within the limits of the law and, while maintaining the fundamental rights and freedoms
and the implementing regulation, at the same time about the conflict with the article. 4 (4). 1 and 2
Of the Charter. That is done beyond the scope of the Act on prices, is not on the
the basis of what has been stated above, no doubt.
IV. (C)
The Constitutional Court considers necessary to provide additional conclusions
in this context, matured and that regardless of the evaluation forms
the rent control law and the efforts of the Ministry of Finance of the bypass
the law on the Constitutional Court lead also to the need to set aside part of the
assessment not only as contrary to the law, but also as unconstitutional.
On the issue of price controls, it should be noted that the fact that she was
the regulation of this path is chosen, was affected by the rules of law-making
under the rule of law. This form of interference in the relations of the tenants and
landlords to circumvent such rules the basic rules of law-making
legislation, especially laws that are reserved for the case of editing,
that interferes with the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. Such a právotvůrce
so he avoids both comment and at least the minimum
democratic demands for the creation of rights. It is not yet a problem
custom price regulation by the law defined ways, but that
price decision in the present case is, in fact, the solution
questions, the adjustment should be in a democratic legal State
reserved democratically legitimovanému lawmakers (and in terms of
social peace, which is in the observations of the participant argued),
button is clicked. podzákonným the legislation within the limits of the mandate of this
by the legislator.
Many misunderstandings arise from the different concept itself of the concept of price
rent controls. This itself in a democratic State is not
considered to be unconstitutional if it is based on the market prices are dependent on
the position of the home, it must be determined what sources it comes from, must, however,
respect the "fair balance" between the imperatives of general interest and
the protection of fundamental rights of the individual.
Price regulation in the US is based on the user's relationship to flats, which
they were usually based on the allocation of administrative act of the State of the apartment,
not a contract based on the free will of both parties. This concept,
based on the doctrine that considered the rental of flats in the private
ownership for exploitation, tried to move into the realm of the rent
social services and to allocate flats from management of the market economy.
Incomplete conversion of the so-called. personal use of apartments on lease conditions in
1992 originated in our dual system, which cannot be compared with the legal
Regulation in the European Union. Just by changing the terminological designation
"the personal use of the apartment" to "renting" while maintaining the content of these
terms not to the actual transformation of the legal regulation of the corresponding
the system of market economy. In this sense, therefore, each
arguments referring to the decisions of the European Court of human rights
and the right of the European Union for a limited period.
The rental ratio according to European standards is usually temporary, whereas
us is fundamentally closed for an indefinite period, and given that
personal use rights flat transitions are very similar rights when
the right to inherit property, personal use of the apartment was in fact
a lasting relationship and in a sort of quasi property rights. The worst thing is that the
This concept for a long duration even in switched General legal
consciousness and has great inertia. As has been said, the bulk of the
tenancy relationships from the past did not produce a free contract, but
the administrative command, often against the will of owners in accordance with the
the concept of a gradual transfer of all of the housing stock. higher
Socialist forms of ownership. This is called housing law happened
part of the public law and is not well comparable with the European concept
classical private Institute of the lease. In addition, this hybrid
the legal relationship called for socialism as a personal use and now only
renamed to rent, also from the perspective of the theory of civil law
moved from the contractual rights between a kind of new rights to the material. This
the conversion took place and continues to be effectively in real life: people
rented flats are sold and buy each other, often in disguised form
exchanges, but lately even openly called for severance pay. Gradient range
exploitation rights to flats, respectively. the rights of tenants, are comparable to the
by inheriting these apartments, while in European law is more limited. In
European law is not adjusted separately replacement flats, different editing
Notice the reasons and responsibilities provision of a replacement flat.
As from the perspective of economic law in comparative literature
point of view cannot be compared to a key concept of rent controls. In European
the standards are based on the regulation of rent (rent control) from the market price
housing. Those include, in addition to the market prices of land and home market
the cost of repairs and maintenance, as well as a reasonable profit. Our
the design is based on the rent prices typically command prices that are
were based on a fundamentally different concept of housing as a social service,
paid mainly from the social funds. This system exclude
influence of different levels of housing prices is the concept of the land annuities.
Current attempts to compromise between the two concepts not only
allocation and information does not take the effect of market prices, but leads to
non-utilisation of the entire housing stock, injustices in its
distribution and corruption.
The argument in favour of maintaining the prices of rent controls citations
European sources of law has throughout this preamble sense only,
If we understand it in the "European" or "Western" concept, not as a
maintaining, or only the adaptation of development costs and price inflation,
that are constructed on entirely different principles without regard to
the influence of the market.
Mutual correlation of price and rent controls lagging conversion
civil-law relations regulating housing is reflected in the solution of
the basic contradiction of any modern housing policies, namely search
the balance between the principle of protection of tenants and the principle of the protection of
ownership. The biggest violation of this balance lies in the fact that, in
dual-stage transformation has to do, that the subsidies provided by the
tenants of the mainstream resources through low prices
the rent of the landlord is transferred to some-private owners,
who acquired the registries houses in restitution. These landlords must
to pay for the operation, maintenance and repair and the management of their own resources.
The cost of "social policy through the low-rent" have been
transferred from the State to the landlord. It is therefore not surprising that the relations between the
the following randomly selected group of tenants and just randomly caused
a group of landlords, is rapidly deteriorating. This situation is unique
in comparison with other European States and should be rapidly
deleted.
In this context, it is necessary to go back to the basic objection to infringement
equality in rights. If in 2000 the Constitutional Court yet on this issue
not paying attention [see above sub IV. (B) (a). (b))], it was
because the decider when expected (see observations
Ministry for regional development cited in the finding of no 231/2000 Coll.) that
by the end of 2001, this unconstitutional and unlawful interference with the
the position of the removed by modifying the following the landlord section 696 of paragraph 1. 1
of in the form of the law on rent, which will allow a separate and market
the authentic development of rental prices, at the same time, however, the effective protection of the tenant
as the consumer against unfair price jumps and unfair
requirements of the landlord. But this did not happen. Therefore, now the constitutional
Court address primarily this aspect from two perspectives.
The first is the question of equality in the treatment of individuals by the State
power. In the case of rent controls originally contested assessment no. 01/2002
There is no doubt here that the violation of equality and discrimination occurs
as one group of subjects of property rights (landlords and
tenants of apartments in point mode 1 Item No 9 of part II. assessment no. 01/2002)
they must be treated differently, and their assets are not legally the same content as
property of other landlords. With regard to social linking
ownership (article 11, paragraph 3, of the Charter), which is reflected in particular in the
rental apartments, however, this does not exclude that the legislator will regulate
tenancy relations in such a way that they are protected in a reasonable proportion
how the interests of the owner (landlord) and the tenant, and in a particular
period of time you can give precedence to the interests of one party (usually the tenants),
but not permanently, and not unilaterally.
According to the article. 1 (1). 2 of the additional protocol to the Convention the provisions of article. 1
paragraph. 1 on the right to the peaceful use of property shall not preclude the right of States to take
laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in
accordance with the general interest. The European Court of human rights in this
context usually stresses that wholesale changes in this area should
incurring significant social tensions and pose a threat to public order, so it is
the use of the provisions of article. 1 (1). 2 of the additional protocol to the Convention
generally recognised in the framework of the free thoughts of the State. At the same time, however, the measures must
of the State to respect the "fair balance" between the imperatives of General
interest and the protection of fundamental rights of the individual. To them belong the protection
against discrimination that occurs in the event of differences in treatment,
If "lacks objective and reasonable justification", IE. If
does not track the "legitimate aim" or does not exist "reasonable ratio" between
resources and the objectives pursued. The Contracting States have a certain
space to assess whether and to what extent the differences between otherwise analogous
situations justify differences in treatment (e.g.. Larkos against
Cyprus from 18. February 1999. An overview of the judgments of the European Court of human
law, vol. 1999, no. 6, p. 129). The inequality itself, so may not yet
always refer to the unconstitutional status. It may be a justified intervention
other significant interest in the protection of, for example. other fundamental rights.
According to the Constitutional Court is not sustainable in terms of constitutionality
a situation that is a result of twisted relationships in the area of housing
policy in 1989. The Constitutional Court is based on the fact that the lessor-lessee relationships,
that are protected by price regulation, have been avoided in normal conditions
the rule of law, but to transform user relations to flats, which
the administrative act of the State were established (even against the will of the owner),
not the free will of the two parties. Just after 1989 was
in such a situation can be rented (UAC) relations introduced after
1948 taken into account (cf. in this connection, the decision of the German
The Constitutional Court BvR 3 51/91 of 22. 11.1994, which acknowledged the temporary
the takeover price laws in the area of the rent of the GDR). The Constitutional Court
such a transformation is constitutionally recognised as conforming in finding pl. ÚS 38/93
(No 86/1994 Coll.) having regard to the need to create for the existing, albeit
deformed, use the relationships status with sufficient legal certainty. He stated
in doing so, that even if they were the owners of private houses, compared to other
the owners of the truly disadvantaged, this would be balanced with the public interest
on the transformation of the former user relations to flats in the institution
protected tenancies.
The Constitutional Court is of the opinion that the reasons for a legal solution just after
in 1989, when the Act came into effect Decree No. 176/1993 Coll., already in
now they are losing their strength. Especially in the case where the
This is not about the very existence of the rental relationship, but about regulating
rents in a way that makes the assessment notice No 06/2002. The ownership of the
rental housing is also to ownership, and therefore cannot be permanently removed
from the regular legal regime and made subject to a special scheme, if for
These are not good reasons. These circumstances are certainly worthy of consideration,
However, such a situation permanently in the form of restrictions on the position of landlords
This category cannot be maintained, even if it was chosen
the appropriate form of regulation on the way of the law. The State therefore, must find another
way to the rental of these homes the situation to deal with. The Constitutional Court of the
gave enough time to the end of 2001, when, in accordance with the legal
options under section 70 para. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court of the former sanoval
unconstitutional state rent controls for editing certain categories of apartments.
The next time and neřešením of this adjustment laid down constitutional way
the status of the discriminatory effect of a stage further, and from the procedure
The Ministry of finance does not imply that there was intent to this constitutionally
unsatisfactory status change, as it finally shows the release of assessment no.
06/2002, where from 15. November 2002 to 30. June 2003 preserves
the status quo, which in turn is essentially based on the Decree No.
176/1993 Coll., which was repealed as unconstitutional.
The Constitutional Court is not pricing authority and its task in the present proceedings was not
determine how many tenants rent is okay or not. Is
natural that cannot be for any single rental ratio clearly
to determine whether the controlled rent is or is not appropriate (see, in
other contexts mentioned finding no 43/2001 Coll.). However, if the State
considers it necessary to regulate the price of rent, it is necessary to modify such
the procedure that the landlord had the option in your case and for your apartment
to prove that this is the case, and hiring in his case does not comply with
business function, but functions that belong to the social
State. Rate determination of coefficient of 1.04, or cannot be, since it is a
Obviously, the temporary measures, which cannot be accepted or from the point of view of the law on
prices. Bill does not include a determination of what costs should rent
cover, such as, in particular, the use and repair costs, return on
capital employed, the location and the attractiveness of the apartment and a reasonable profit (cf. section
Article 16(1). 2 of the Act on prices). As a rule, the market reacts to these aspects.
If the State has already returned the rental adjustment, cannot arbitrarily such
the fundamental questions of possible future disputes and writer. To do this, the legislator must
create the necessary tools in terms of both landlords and tenants,
who must be able to defend itself. If the State will provide direct
social rent, is also a legislature to
ensure that these posts actually come to where they will be identified, i.e..
in the hands of landlords.
Price regulation cannot of itself be in a democratic legal State
considered to be unconstitutional. The question to consider is why it is always, in which
cases (the kind of goods and services), against whom (manufacturers, dealers)
(price decision, podzákonný regulation, law) and to what extent
(principle of proportionality, the protection of nature and the meaning of the basic law, or
freedom) it is permissible to use it. The claim of the Ministry of finance, the
price regulation must be carried out only in this way, since they are sometimes
requires intervention from hour to hour, although it is generally acceptable, not
However, for the area of housing, where traditionally the emphasis on
the stability of emerging and existing lease conditions. Finally, even in the
the end of 2001, this issue has been addressed in our legislation.
The question of how to control this materia is, therefore, on the first place reserved
lawmakers.
The European Court of human rights has dealt with multiple times the Institute
rent control (such as, in particular, Spadea and Scalabrino against Italy
from 28. September 1995, Scollo against Italy from 28. September 1995, Veloso Baretto
against Portugal from 21. November 1995 or Immobiliare Saffi against
Italy from 28. July 1999). As a general rule, however, the question whether the
recognize the protection of the rental relationship, even if the housing needs of the owner.
As regards the admissibility of rent controls, has delivered on this issue
in particular, the judgment in opinion No 2 of the European Court of human rights in the
things Mellacher and the other against Austria (see Publications of the
The European Court of Human Rights. Series a: Judgments and Decisions. Vol.
169.2. Judgment of 19 December 1989). Here the European Court of human
Rights concluded on the basis of the interpretation of the article. 1 of the additional protocol to the Convention
the conclusion that neither a formal nor de facto expropriation, as
There has been no form of transfer of the ownership. The complainants were not deprived of their
the right to receive, use, rent or sell your property. The regulation of the
rent them to withdraw a part of their income from the rental, this
but the European Court of human rights considers just for the regulation of
the use of property (paragraph 44 of the judgment, p. 25), which is not possible
be considered as a breach of the article. 1 (1). 2 of the additional protocol to the Convention,
because it's not about measures devoid of a rational surface. This is true by
rather, that the area of housing is a central concern in modern society
social and economic policy. Therefore it leaves States with wide
discretion, both in terms of assessing the seriousness of the problem, so
in terms of the selection of the chosen adjustment measures (paragraph 45, p. 25-26).
In the opinion of the Constitutional Court may be scale, which are placed on the
evaluation of the activities of the State in accordance with national constitutional order, more stringent
than the scale that applied by the European Court of human rights in the evaluation
compliance with the Convention. The European standard in the field of protection of property
rights and non-discrimination under the Convention may appear otherwise than by
the rules of the Charter only in relation to national conditions, where the Charter of
may set higher demands on the State's conduct in relation to the individual.
At the same time, it should be pointed out that housing policy in each State can
Watch the different objectives and that can be very difficult to compare the situation in this
the area in the Czech Republic and in the countries of Western Europe. Anything but that
It does not change its obligation to provide protection to a certain group of owners,
When all the owners of the same kind under the article. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter
guarantee that their right of ownership will be regulated primarily by law
(not a pricing decision), and that it will have the same content and protection.
Protection of property rights does not exclude the rent control (in particular, article 11
paragraph. 3 and article. 26 paragraph 2. 1 and 2 of the Charter) as a form of realization of the constitutional
State policy in the event that moves in the framework defined by the constitutional
policy and international commitments of the Czech Republic, while it is necessary to
carefully consider how the existence of public interest, giving entitlement to
application of governing (control) measures, so the choice
the detailed rules for the implementation of such measures. Interference with
the State must respect the reasonable (fair) a balance between the
the requirement in the general interest of society and the need for protection
fundamental rights of the individual. This means that there must be reasonable
(unfounded) relationship of proportionality between the means
objectives pursued [see findings SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/99 (No. 167/2000
Coll.), pl. ÚS 3/2000 (No. 229/2000 Coll.) and PL. ÚS 5/01 (no 410/2001 Coll.)].
Rent controls is not a compulsory purchase order, however, may relate to the content of the
the concept of property rights. Ownership of the Instrument (article 11 (3))
is not understood as a neomezitelné law, however, according to the Charter limited (article.
11 (1) 4) can only be by law and under the conditions laid down by the Charter of
(article 4 (2)) and only to the extent that it does not affect the substance of the
ownership (which cannot become a mere skin devoid of content), (article.
4 (4). 4) and even with this limitation, the prohibition of discrimination (article 4
paragraph. 3 of the Charter). The rule in this area, therefore, the determination of rent
Agreement (article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter) as free (not any)
rents, its regulation is an exception, which should be limited in time
limited to a necessary period of time.
The Constitutional Court therefore finds that Bill No. 06/2002 is in conflict with
the constitutional order of the Czech Republic's international obligations, and how the laws of the
point of view of their content and the corresponding legal form. Specifically,
There has been a violation of article 6(1). 2 (2). 2 of the Charter and article. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution in
conjunction with article. 1, art. 4 (4). 3 and 4 and article. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter and article. 1
The additional protocol to the Convention in conjunction with article. 14 of the Convention, when
The Ministry of finance failed to meet its legally defined scope in
the regulation of prices and has hit into the regulation of the reserved laws.
At the same time your procedure to discriminate a special group of owners, without
Here it was found "reasonable ratio" between resources and
the aim with regard to the time which has elapsed since 1989. Also
There was issue of exceeding the competence of the Ministry of finance,
that decision also has adjusted the price relations and define the concepts that
should be reserved for the laws and implementing legislation issued by the
their basis. This article have also been violated. 1 to 15 of the Constitution, which
enshrining the principle of democratic rule of law and the constitutional principle of the Division of
power. Because of its content and features Bill No. 06/2002 on their own legal
Edit replaced the Constitutional Court was compelled to it with regard to its content and
form to cancel.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
v.z. JUDr. Holeček v.r.
Vice Chairman
Different opinion referred to in section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,
delivered to the decisions of the full judge JUDr. Pavel param V and its
the preamble took a different position to the judge. Pavel Holländer,
JUDr. Vladimir Jurka and JUDr. Jiří Malenovský.
