410/2001 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court ruled on 16. October 2001 in plenary on the draft group
members of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for annulment of
Government Regulation No. 445/2000 Coll., on the establishment of production quotas of milk on
the years 2001 to 2005,
as follows:
On 31 December 2007. December 2001, the provisions of § 4, paragraph 4 shall be deleted. 2 and § 14 para. 2
Government Regulation No. 445/2000 Coll., on the establishment of production quotas of milk on
the years 2001 to 2005.
The remaining part of the proposal is rejected.
Justification
(I).
A group of 28 members of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
(hereinafter referred to as the "group members") filed an application for annulment of the Constitutional Court
Government Regulation No. 445/2000 Coll., on the establishment of production quotas of milk on
the years 2001 to 2005, (hereinafter "the regulation"). This regulation was issued
According to § 2 (2). 5 and § 12 para. 3 to 5 of the Act No. 257/2000 Coll., on the State
the agricultural intervention fund and amending some other acts
(the law on the State agricultural intervention fund).
Members of the Group concludes that the contested regulation creates the legal adjustment
production and processing of milk, which is incompatible with the fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms ("the Charter") and
Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter referred to as
"The Convention"), as well as with the provisions of common law, in particular, of law No.
256/2000 SB., in the grounds of its proposal, MEPs mainly argues that
penalty-expulsion provisions of section 13 of the Act introduced no 256/2000 SB.-
causes the volume of the milk will become neprodejným, because its price would
She had to increase to 215% of the minimum price. The essence of the sanctions removal
in fact lies in the fact that it is a levy payable by the producer,
a processor or sales organization, which is expected to produce, takes over the
processing or to secure sales volume of milk from the producer, if
provided for him exceeds the individual production quota in the amount of
115% (section 13, paragraph 3, of Act No. 257/2000 Coll.) officially designated minimum
prices (section 10 of the regulation: today 7.60 Eur). This individual production quota
represents an individual delivery quota and an individual quota of direct
the sale. According to Act No. 257/2000 Coll., while producer to apply for the allocation of
production quotas may not.
A group of Deputies believes that limiting the amount of production
represents an inadmissible encroachment on constitutionally guaranteed right of ownership
(article 11 of the Charter), as it means expropriation, which is not based on public
interest and which takes place without compensation (paragraph 4 of the said article).
Determination of production quotas and their free distribution to present
producers, as well as the possibility of free trade he says puts a strain on
current and future producers no longer want to invest in the development of milk
production, which is understood by the plaintiffs also as inadmissible restrictions
ownership. A group of Deputies means that the introduction of the quantitative regulation
milk production occurs to limit free market. Maintains that in the United
the Republic does not exceed the offer milk demand, and denies the need for a
Regulation of the production and sales of listed milk having regard to the accession of the Czech
Republic to the European Union; declares that the public interest is also
to allow the use of things in private ownership, which argues
the concept of the public interest in the case-law (an interwar "... public
interest is achieved, taking the thing in order to satisfy
the needs of a broader whole. "-opinion of the Supreme
Administrative Court of Czechoslovakia in the finding of Boh. ADM No. 14260). Concludes that the public
interest in restrictions of ownership rights in the case of milk producers
is missing, so this is a contradiction with article. 11 (1) 4 of the Charter and article. 1
The additional protocol to the Convention.
Members of the group argue that the established mechanism of production quotas
coupled with sanctions for the overproduction of the introduction of the de facto price represents
the regulation, which establishes the unconstitutional discrimination against some owners
(the producers) against those milk producers, already on the allocation of
production quotas do not apply.
A group of Deputies claims that the production quota system is also
unacceptable restrictions on the right to do business and engage in other economic
activity (article 26, paragraph 1, of the Charter). They say the law may lay down only
qualifying and similar assumptions of the business performance or similar
activities, but such restrictions do not apply to your own business process.
Off it goes about the intervention so intense that undermines the very essence of law
do business. Quantitative regulation of production means the limitation of liability
the entrepreneur and his freedom when deciding on your business, which is
allegedly in conflict with the principles of the Act (section 2 of the commercial code). System
production quotas can be, in the opinion of the appellants to establish just the way
the Act, not the podzákonným provision (article 26, paragraph 1, in conjunction with article 4
paragraph. 2 of the Charter), as in the present case, it is the limits (restrictions)
the fundamental right to do business.
Members of the Group believes that the establishment of production quotas on the basis of
milk production in the previous year, i.e. in 2000, (section 3 and 4
of the present Regulation) does not match or the requirement of equal access to all
applicants (section 12 (6) of Act No. 257/2000 Coll.) and does not respect the
an objective method of calculation, because it neglects the possible short-term
the decline in milk production with the producer concerned, which may cause
a wide variety of influences and reality. These effects are not paying attention, or
in setting future quotas for individual years.
A group of deputies in the contested regulation also sees the violation of
the legal principle of openness for new producers (§ 12 para. 7 of the law
No. 257/2000 Coll.), and in the way they enhance existing
individual production quotas and divide the new individual production
quotas for increasing the sum of the individual production quotas from the reserve (section
3 and section 4, paragraph 4. 1, 3 and 4 of the regulation); This exceeded the limits that are said to be
Act No. 257/2000 Coll. As unconstitutional inequality (article 1 of the Charter)
evaluate the appellants further disadvantage producers doing business exclusively
in the system of permanent vazného housing, which-as a sanctions-
individual production quota cannot raise (§ 4 (2) of the regulation). This
the sanctions apparently finds no support in the law, in which the plaintiffs also see
exceeding the limits given by law No. 257/2000 Coll. As unconstitutional mandate
to the tertiary normotvorbě is the group members finally seems to be right
The Ministry of agriculture not later than 30 days before the beginning of the relevant
the quota year to announce the amount of the reserve, in the journal of the Department of
Agriculture (§ 14 (2) of the regulation). Similarly, the appellants criticize
the obligation to inform the processor, or the producer's sales organization
their individual production quota obligation or sales
inform the producer organisation of its fulfilment (section 11, paragraph 3,
or § 12 para. 5 and § 13 para. 5 of the regulation); It is said to be on the obligation
fixed by regulation of the Government (not law), so that they are stored in the
contrary to the article. 4 of the Charter.
The legal representative of a group of MPs at a hearing before the constitutional
Finally, the Court pointed out that, in Mr. things apparently could not argue
the so-called. Community law, since the Czech Republic has not yet a member of the European
the Union is not.
II.
The Constitutional Court has asked for comments on the application for annulment of the contested
Regulation of the Party-Government of the Czech Republic (as the authority
the contested regulation § 69 paragraph walked. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the
The Constitutional Court, as amended). Also asked about the representation
-According to § 48 para. 2 in conjunction with § 49 paragraph 1. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court
-Ministry of agriculture and State agricultural intervention fund.
Finally, the Constitutional Court pursuant to § 69 para. 2 of the Act on the Constitutional Court, in
as amended, sent a petition to the Public
the Ombudsman and called for him to the Constitutional Court within 10 days of the said
whether entering the control. Since the Ombudsman has not made,
intervener did not happen.
The Government of the United States in its observations contends that the Constitutional Court
members of the group design completely rejected. States that the relevant regulation
issued for the implementation of Act No. 257/2000 Coll. creates in the Czech Republic
market regulation of the production and marketing of milk that is comparable to the market regulation
introduced by the European Community in all Member States. The latter is
required for future membership of the Czech Republic in the European Union. Indeed,
Czech Republic to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the Czech
of the one part, and the European communities and their
Member States, of the other part (published as no. 7/1995 Sb.)
committed to implement EC law in the Czech law. Recalls in this
the context of the essential features of the Community regulation of milk production in the Member
States of the European communities. These are centrally laid down
national production quotas (individual Member States), which
then individual farms of quotas to individual.
The aim of the regulation is to stabilize the agricultural sector, in which the
rules on the protection of competition by the Government (article 36 shall not apply
Of the EC Treaty). The Government in its statement explicitly refers to the
Council Regulation (EC) no 3950/92, No 1255/99 and no 1258/99. Especially highlights the
its mandate to support certain forms of agriculture according to § 2 (2). 5 of law
No 256/2000 SB. in doing so, the plaintiffs said they attack only referred to
Regulation, and not law no 256/2000 SB., albeit the gist of the objections in the
the fact is directed against that law. The alleged breach of the
of property rights, the Government states that the Convention does not prevent the States receive
laws that are considered necessary to modify the use of property in accordance with the
the general interest. The Government does not see any contradiction of the contested regulation nor with
the cited articles of the Charter, as-with reference to the finding of the Constitutional Court
No 231/2000 Coll.-comes from the fact that price regulation does not prevent anyone
a business or engage in other economic activities, because each has a
option is free to decide whether in the circumstances, in particular
area will be. The possibility of limiting the quotas for producers who
doing business exclusively on the system of the permanent vazného of housing, the Government concludes from
§ 2 (2). 5 of law no 256/2000 SB., implying permissions
to support certain forms of agriculture, in the present case the so-called. organic
Agriculture.
Of all of the above reasons, the Government of the United Kingdom proposes that the draft
the cancellation of the Decree-Law No. 445/2000 Coll. is dismissed.
The Ministry of agriculture (hereinafter referred to as "the Ministry") in its observations
above all, States that the main objective of the system of production quotas of milk is
stabilization of the milk market and the protection of all of its participants (the producers,
processors and consumers) against negative market fluctuations. This
stabilization is said to be necessary in view of the relatively long production
cycle, when the response to a change in demand menu is long overdue. Framework
the introduction of production quotas for milk is apparent from section 12 of Act No. 256/2000
Coll. and the Government to respect in its regulation, both formally,
and after the content.
To the objection that the production quotas are contrary to certain fundamental rights
enshrined in the Charter, the Ministry States that the production quota system
milk does not limit or the right of ownership or the right to do business.
The regulation was not jeopardised by the already existing ownership
the right to the existing items (production equipment for the production of milk,
dairy cows) and the right to dispose of the asset. Each producer,
that will have as a result of the increased demand the ability to increase production
milk or will want to start milk production, has the option to request a
the new quota allocation or increase an existing quota from the reserve.
You may acquire a contractual transfer of quota from another producer. System
the production quotas they say does not distort or free markets, since each producer
milk can freely choose their customer, and each processor
your supplier and customer finished products. In addition, there is a
the real demand for milk by processors or consumers (which
they say he may be the only rational reason for the entry of entrepreneurs into the market
or to increase the production), has a new option to get a new producer
the quota or the quota increased. The condition that the quota allocation from the reserve
may request only milk producer in the system of permanent vazného-non-entrepreneur
stabling, demonstrates the public's interest to develop the production of those
producers who provide so-called animals. welfare in all the usual
developed countries. The system of permanent vazného housing is not Conformal
even with the common agricultural policy of the EU. In the context of the allocation of the reserve
However, all applicants that meet the condition called. animal welfare
the same options when you increase or quota allocation.
The Ministry contends that the contested regulation is violated or the right
the freedom to do business, because the production quota system must protect the market before
"the entry of speculators", and that only avoids a situation where for the menu
milk on the market will not exist the real demand, which is said to be justified by an
from the perspective of the entrepreneur himself (producer). To the objection of inequality
the Ministry said that producer naturally for producers who
the quota system will not and have not participated in, the quota system is disadvantageous to them,
because otherwise, the quotas lack sense. Equality is said to be
However, to be understood as freedom of choice, where everyone has the opportunity to provide or
not to lodge a request for quota allocation, and when connected to a system of quotas
can maximize their profits. The advantage provided by the supply system is
the allegedly comparable with subsidies and with-from which the financial
State grants under the different programmes, and thus in the introduction
quotas have been seen as a violation of equality, would not necessarily have been unconstitutional as well as
These programs.
Facing objections against sanctions for exceeding the quota adjustment
The Ministry said that it is necessary for the control system
production quotas, because "it would not be possible to achieve stabilization without
penalization of the producer, which exceeds an individual production
milk quota ". While quota system allows producers to increase their
and consequently the production quota. Levy of 115% of the minimum price in the
individual production quotas exceeded supposedly corresponds to the penalty
applied in the EU. It is not therefore a regulation or a double-track
prices.
To set the minimum price, the Ministry stated that this tool
in no way does not prevent raising quotas or in the entry of new producers on
market, and in this respect is neutral. Its importance lies in the fact, he says that
acts as a safety net for when the market falls
prices. It is therefore a proven tool market stability.
The Ministry further contends that the contested regulation is an expression of the performance of
long-term international commitments of the Czech Republic to the EU and that is based on
mainly of Council Regulation No 3950/92, as amended by Council Regulation No.
1256/99, and of Commission Regulation No 536/93. This system works on
the principle that the Council EC set out specific national reference quantity
milk (national quotas), which are further individual States
přerozdělovány between specific national manufacturer. The quota in question
are set fixed for each period, always for nine consecutive
the next 12 monthly periods. In case of exceeding of the national and
individual quotas is applied an additional fee equal to 115% of the price
milk, that is. Similarly, in the contested regulation of the Government. European edit
also provides for a national reserve and the conversion option, transition, or
lease of quotas.
For the initial allocation of the quota, the Ministry is of the opinion that for all
the applicant uses the same method of calculation, IE. the same criterion. If
in the so-called. the reference period (i.e. the year 2000) there has been a failure in the production,
Remember to § 4 paragraph 2. 3 of the contested regulation. In addition, each entity has a
the right to use all remedies available under the administrative procedure. As well
so the Ministry bureaucrats as unfounded the objection that the quota system
It does not take a random short term factors which may adversely affect the
milk production, and in this respect, referring to paragraph 6 of the regulation.
The determination of the amount of the reserve in accordance with § 12 para. 4 (b). (c)) Law No.
256/2000 SB. said the contested regulation respects the fact that the sum of all
quota entries and reserves may not exceed 3.01 billion. litres of milk.
Because the regulation provides for a system of production quotas for 5 years and
at the same time before its applications cannot objectively determine what amount of quotas
shall be allocated on the basis of applications pursuant to section 3 of the regulation, "it is necessary to keep the
determining the exact reserve for each quota year the Ministry
Agriculture ". In this way is said to be the contested regulation secundum et intra
legem.
The obligation to provide information the Ministry States that this obligation
is regulated in § 3 (1). 1 of law no 256/2000 Coll. and is thus stored
directly by law in accordance with article 6(1). 4 of the Charter. So, while it is not enshrined
directly in section 12 of the Act, which provides the enabling provisions for the
Government Regulation, the Act is a "there is no doubt that there is a need
it applied to government regulation issued under this Act ".
From all of these causes, the Ministry believes that the proposal is submitted
to be unfounded.
The State agricultural intervention fund ("SAIF") in its observations
notes that the contested regulation is based on Act No. 257/2000 Coll.
A production quota is defined in section 2 (2). 5 of the Act, and because
production quotas may be subject to certain forms of agricultural support is
the Government empowered through SAIF implement measures and implement market
order for the stabilisation of the markets in agricultural products and foodstuffs
order to minimize fluctuations in prices on the domestic market. This statutory mandate
the Government issuing the contested regulation fully respects and cannot,
go to modify the work carried out in violation of the law. Quota system is not in
inconsistent with the proprietary right or with the right to freely operate, since it is
everyone's a producer of milk and its decision to ask
for inclusion in the system, and that on this basis, produced by the agreed
the quantity of milk. This only creates the conditions to ensure that every
the producer assured sales and to receive corresponding to the minimum price.
The introduction of this system therefore does not distort the free market, but on the contrary
guarantees a balance between production and sales. This is said to be the
means to ensure compliance with Community law of Czech law and
also the public interest in the context of the United States, as the milk kvotací have
be removed price fluctuations reflected on all the inhabitants of the United
of the Republic.
Justified, the argument is not even alleged that the contested regulation
introduce double price for milk, as it is the responsibility of each producer, to consider
the appropriateness of the inclusion in the system; If they do not, it cannot be inferred from this
inequality between him and the producer who did so. Finally, you can add
that the State has an interest in the rearing of cattle without permanent extension vazného
housing, and therefore binds the increase of production quotas and the allocation of new
individual production quotas on condition that the producer will behave
cattle without permanent housing vazného. This is not said to be a penalty, but
"a specific type of farming of cattle" corresponding to the ecological
Agriculture.
Of all of the above reasons, the SAIF has proposed that the proposal
rejected.
III.
Even before the Constitutional Court dealt with the examination of the merits, the proposal
focused on the question whether the procedural prerequisites are fulfilled for the management
before the Constitutional Court.
In this regard it notes that pursuant to § 64 para. 2 (a). b) of law No.
182/1993 Coll., the proposal to abolish any law or its
individual provisions is entitled to bring a group of at least 25 members.
In Mr. proposal signed by 28 members of the Chamber of Deputies, and is
therefore a legitimate claimant.
The Constitutional Court also dealt with the question whether the contested regulation was
adopted and published within the limits of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution")
set out competences and constitutionally prescribed manner (section 68, paragraph 2,
Act No. 182/1993 Coll., in fine). In this respect, the Court held that the constitutional
authorization to issue a regulation is determined by the Government, article. 78 of the Constitution, according to which the
implementation of the law and within the limits of the Government is authorised to issue the regulation.
Regulation shall be signed by the Prime Minister and the Member of the Government. In a given
If the Constitutional Court found that the resolution No. 1166 of 22 March. November
2000 the Government approved a draft regulation on the setting of production quotas for milk
and the conditions of their system for the years 2001 to 2005, when 12 of the present
the Government members voted for its approval of all 12 members. The practice in question
the regulation signed by Prime Minister Ing. Zeman and Minister of agriculture Ing.
Fencl, the regulation has been published in an appropriate manner in the collection of laws in
the amount of the 124 under no. 445/2000 Coll., came into effect on January 1. January 2001 and
ceases to have effect on 31 December. December 10, 2005.
In these circumstances, the Constitutional Court concludes that the contested regulation of the Government
adopted and published within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and constitutionally
in the prescribed manner within the meaning of the provisions of § 68 para. 2 of law No.
182/1993, therefore, the Constitutional Court could deal with the merits.
IV.
The Constitutional Court also dealt with the question of legislative competence of the Government and
The Ministry of agriculture to the determination of the quota system. In this respect,
noted that the quantitative restrictions on the manufacture, supply or consumption
specific goods or the provision of, or acceptance of mediation
services in the context of the fundamental right to free choice of profession, law
a business or engage in other economic activities (article 26, paragraph 1,
Of the Charter) in Czech Republic-just as with the other
-establish conditions or limitations only by law (article 26, paragraph 2, of the Charter).
The details associated with those limits or refine
framework conditions can be done podzákonným law
If the competent authority has given it according to the mandate of the Constitution or common
the law. While the Constitution distinguishes between the right of the Government to issue regulations "to
implementation of the law and within the limits of "(article 78 of the Constitution), and between the right of
ministries, other administrative authorities and bodies of local and regional authorities "on
the basis and within the limits of the law to issue legislation if they are to
mandated by law "(article 79, paragraph 3, of the Constitution).
Production system of milk quotas is based on Act No. 257/2000 Coll., Act
defines the production quota (section 2, paragraph 5), and the financial penalties which, on
the manufacturer, processor or distributor in case of fall
or exceeded production (collection, processing) without a quota entry (section 13).
It also lays down the principles for allocating production quotas (e.g., section 12
paragraph. 6. the Act Government) directly to the stores (section 12 (1)) to its regulation
within three months from the effectiveness of the law laid down the conditions and principles for the
the implementation of additional measures for the organisation of the market in agricultural products, and
food pursuant to § 1 (1). 2 (a). (b)), and (c)) and to its regulation
established production quotas and production quota system conditions (§ 12
paragraph. 3). It is thus clear that, when the issue of the contested regulation, in addition
the constitutional mandate of the Government also employed the mandate (command) is lawful.
In this context, the Constitutional Court States that it does not agree with the statement
a group of MPs that the contested regulation is out of the limits set by the
Act No. 257/2000 Coll. and that it is in breach of article. 4 of the Charter, according to which
obligations can be imposed only under the law and within the limits
and the limits of fundamental rights and freedoms can be regulated only by law.
The Constitutional Court is already in the report # 96/2001 Coll., held that the constitutional definition of the
the Executive must respect the standardisation derived the following policies:
-Regulation must be issued to authorized body,
-Regulation cannot interfere in the Affairs of the designated law
-It must be the will of the legislator to modify the apparent over the legal standard (must
therefore be opened space for the realm of the regulation).
In the case of the contested regulation, the Constitutional Court-for the above reasons-
notes that all the cited policy for its issue have been maintained,
Since the contested regulation Government issued as a qualified entity,
the regulation of content does not intervene in Affairs of the reserved Act (No.
256/2000 Coll.) and the legislature provided for the definition of the content of the contested
Regulation (section 12 of Act No. 257/2000 Coll.) is specific enough so that
It was possible to conclude on the evident will of the legislature in the above
the meaning of. Consequently, the objection that the contested regulation law
does not violate, because only on the basis of explicit legal authorization
instantiates the issue modified in the basic features already
by law. The opposite conclusion, that would be demanded by the determination of any
obligations directly and exclusively by the law would clearly lead to absurd
consequences, and to the denial of the meaning of a secondary (and in some cases even
the primary), since conceptual standardisation part of every legal standards is
the definition of certain rights and obligations of the addressees of standards.
Therefore, the Constitutional Court in this direction or the unconstitutionality or outlawry
the contested regulation, the Government did not find.
In contrast, the Constitutional Court shall be deemed to be unconstitutional and illegal podzákonnou
the delegation, according to which the amount of the reserve, already Announces Ministry of
in the journal of the Department of agriculture (section 14 (2) of the regulation). The text of the
of the cited provision in this respect, clearly does not determine who of
the reserve provides. The publication can be inferred from the way he does so
Ministry (Minister of agriculture). Deciding the amount of the reserve, however, is
an integral part of the system of production quotas for milk in the Czech Republic.
The law stipulates that a system of production quotas for each farm
commodities, the Government of the Czech Republic introduced by Regulation (section 12 (3)),
which, in accordance with the Constitution and with the Act No. 309/1999 Coll., on the collection of
about the collection of laws and international agreements [§ 1, paragraph 1 (b), (d))]
published in collection of laws. The Ministry here that is not in accordance with the law,
even under the Constitution, is not concerned. As the Constitutional Court ruled on the report No.
96/2001 Coll., because "the legislature can't edit relations area designated
to modify the law, delegate to the Executive, and thus actually resign
on its legislative obligation, the more the Executive power's not right
such modification can monopolize itself, citing a law that clearly
It has a different purpose and sense ".
Therefore, the Constitutional Court concludes that already for this reason, the provisions of § 14
paragraph. 2 of the contested regulation in breach of article. paragraph 79. 3 of the Constitution.
In the.
After examining the legislative aspects of the regulation of competence
the Government, the Constitutional Court also dealt with the substantive analysis,
gradually, each of the appellants in terms of opposition. Even before the
However, it should be noted some comments of a more general nature.
And the Constitutional Court) is according to art. 83 of the Constitution, the judicial authority of the protection
the constitutionality. According to the article. 87 para. 1 (b). (b)) of the Constitution, is empowered to decide
repealing other laws or their individual provisions,
If they are in conflict with the constitutional law, the law or international treaty
According to the article. 10. It may thus be assessed in their decision-making activities only
the constitutionality (legality) of the contested legislation, and not
its suitability or effectiveness. Also on matters where this is the case
the so-called. abstract control standards, the Constitutional Court deals only with
ústavněprávními aspects of the contested regulation nor to its
suitability and effectiveness in terms of e.g.. the existence of a free market and
Similarly (see below).
(B)), the Constitutional Court also notes that its opinion on the issue of
already in the award regulations No. 231/2000 Coll. in this finding, although referee
the constitutionality and legality of 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, content related to the regulation of the lease of apartments, however, some
General conclusions in this opinion can be contained by the finding of the Constitutional Court
reasonably use, even on things. The Constitutional Court therefore mainly
recalls that, in the preamble to the finding of dovozoval that when you check the
the use of property, which may lie in the amount of rent regulation, is
should be carefully considered as to 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.
(C)), the Constitutional Court finally preliminary point, that, according to its settled case-law-in
accordance with its constitutional and legal definition-it is in proceedings for review of
standards bound application and Petite cannot exceed this. In Mr.
things therefore could only deal with ústavností and the legality of the contested
Government Regulation, and not the ústavností of the laws of the other, in particular the law
No. 257/2000 Coll., Constitutional Court, therefore, on the basis of a submitted proposal could
only assess whether the contested regulation is not in conflict with the law, with the
the constitutional law or with an international agreement pursuant to article. 10 of the Constitution, not
However, if the law itself-complaints-not nenapadený
unconstitutional.
Vi.
The appellants ' objections to the first group [to freedom of enterprise and
the admissibility of its limitations (article 26, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Charter)]
According to the article. 26 paragraph 2. 1 of the Charter, everyone has the right to free choice of profession
and preparation for it, as well as the right to do business and engage in other
economic activity. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the same article the law may
lay down the conditions and limitations for the exercise of certain professions or activities.
In this context, in particular, the appellants argue that the law may
anchor only qualifying and similar assumptions of the business and other
economic activity, not business process limitations in
the form of the de facto price controls, which is so intense that it interferes with the
the very essence of the right to do business.
To do this, the Constitutional Court mainly notes that already in the report # 231/2000 Sb.
the Court held that "price regulation does not prevent anyone doing business or
engage in other economic activities, as everyone has the opportunity to
free to decide whether under the given conditions in the specific area of the business
It will be ". In Mr. things Constitutional Court furthermore points out that neither the constitutional
order, nor international treaties on human rights and fundamental
freedoms nezapovídají lawmakers introduction limit the amount
economic production, distribution or consumption of goods. It is not inappropriate
in this context, i draw attention to the fact that a particular restriction
production and distribution of goods commonly occurs even on an international scale, and
through the control of the import or export of goods between countries
contractually agree to liberalize trade between them (e.g., the relevant provisions of
Of the EC Treaty or the General Agreement on tariffs and trade).
Therefore, in principle, in particular on the Parliament of the United Kingdom (that is, on the
the legislature) that when issuing common laws taking into account the
the general interest to adjust the ratios in a specific economic sector.
The economic and social effectiveness of the load carrying capacity of a given edit has to be subject to
political control in the first place. On the other hand, however, consistently
take that-as already stated, the Constitutional Court sub in B)-is, in any
a specific case should be carefully considered the existence of a public interest
for the application of measures since, as interference with
the State shall respect the fair balance between the general interest
the company on the one hand, and the protection of the fundamental rights of the individual to
the other side. This means that there must be a corresponding relationship
of proportionality between the means used and objectives pursued. In the opposite
the case, IE. in the case of bezúčelnosti or inadequacy of restrictions
by the regulation came to the apparent breach of article. 4 (4). 4
Of the Charter, which States that when using the provisions on the limits of the fundamental rights of the
and freedoms must be preserved, the nature and the meaning of. Such restrictions
must not be abused for purposes other than those for which it was established.
The introduction of production quotas (for production, sales and processing of milk)
However, the contested regulation mentioned bezúčelnosti characters or inadequacy
does not show. Limiting the supply of milk and milk-based products (such as one of the
basic food groups) by setting production quotas-due to the
long-term surpluses of milk--that is, there is no risk. How to correctly on your
observations on the draft State Ministry and the SAIF, the task of the system
production quotas is to protect the market before the entry of speculators and create
such conditions, to ensure that every producer to receive sales and ensured
corresponding to the minimum price, that is, to safeguard the balance between
production and sales. This is not contrary to public interest or
the fixing of minimum prices for milk (section 10 of the regulation), whose obvious aim is to
to stabilize the market if the decline in prices.
The Constitutional Court accepts the opinion of the Government that the introduction of production quotas
milk, the Czech legislation, legislation in the
The European Union and in its Member States, induced by long-term
an overproduction of milk in Western Europe (see Europe-European Union-
European Commission-Agriculture: Agriculture-Situation and Outlook:
Dairy Sector, in:
www.europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/public/pac2000/dairy/index_en.htm#to
p. Regulation introduced by the contested regulation therefore-how to correctly States the Government
-basically represents a transfer of the Community model (control) to
the Czech agriculture, both in terms of the legal-technical resources
(production quotas and punitive charges for overproduction), so when it comes to
the amount of settings. You can accept the view of the Government, according to which community
Regulation of milk production is based on the principle that of a centrally defined
national production quotas of the Member States, each
of quotas to individual producers. The contested regulation is, therefore,
a step closer to European agriculture in the Czech Republic
conditions, and to some extent makes it easy to enter the United States to
Of the European Union. In addition, the established regulation means the fulfillment of program
the provisions on approximation of the Czech law law of the community, how it
down and asks (if not explicitly) article. 70 the European Agreement establishing an
the association between the Czech Republic on the one hand, and the European
communities and their Member States, of the other part (No. 7/1995
SB.).
The Constitutional Court considers it appropriate in this connection to emphasize that
does not share the plaintiffs ' claim (expressed in the course of oral proceedings) that the
Community law is not for the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic as a State
standing outside the European Union in assessing the constitutionality of the relevant.
This claim is unduly simplistic and schematic. One of the
sources of primary Community law are also the General principles of
legal, European Court of Justice which it excerpts from the constitutional traditions of the Member
States of the European Union. Their contents are the basic values common to all
to its members. Meet the general principle of legal concepts of the rule of law,
Thus the fundamental human rights and freedoms, and the fairness of the proceedings in the framework of the
them. Also, the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic has repeatedly applied the General
legal policy which are not expressly contained in the legislation,
However, in the European legal culture to fully apply (e.g., the principle of
of proportionality)-see SP. zn. PL. ÚS 33/97 (collection of findings and resolutions
The Constitutional Court, Volume 9, finding no 163; promulgated under no. 30/1998 Coll.).
The Constitutional Court is so signed up to European legal culture and its
constitutional traditions. In the light of the General principles of law also interprets the
constitutional provisions, in particular the Charter. The primary Community law therefore
the Constitutional Court is not an alien, but a few of those-in particular in the form of General
legal principles of European law-to a large extent on its own
the decision-making activities. In this respect the Constitutional Court's decision and is
relevant.
As an unacceptable complaint seems to be that the introduction of production quotas for milk
represents a serious disruption to the exclusion of the free market. Completely
free markets, free of any legal regulation, namely it is not basic and
the constitutional order or the guaranteed value of the arrangement of the United
the company. The right of individuals to him is not a fundamental right, which would
the vehemence of the Constitution, the Charter or international treaties on human rights
and fundamental freedoms. Even in the European Union, that at the highest level
(article. 2 of the Treaty establishing the European Community) declares
holding a whole and within individual Member States as a market,
It is not understood the regulation of agriculture as a violation of this policy, as
recognize other equivalent objectives, such as economic convergence
performance, economic and social cohesion, etc. Regulation of agriculture
market orders also indeed expressly permitted under provisions of primary law
on Agriculture (article 34 of the EC Treaty). The Constitutional Court in this
context, reiterates that, in their decision-making activity may
consider only the constitutionality (legality) of the contested legal
Act, and not its suitability or effectiveness. This claim
the appellants is therefore unfounded.
Therefore, the legislature may (understandably only within the limits of a constitutionally
guaranteed fundamental human rights and freedoms) according to your reasoning
establish a price or quantitative control of production in a particular sector
economy, define or affect the type and number of entities operating in the
This sector or somewhat restrict the contractual freedom in applying
production on the market or in the purchase of raw materials. A group of MPs claim that the
restriction of the possibilities set out for the adjustment of business or other economic
activities applies only to qualifying and similar assumptions can be
described as excessively narrow interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Charter (article.
26 paragraph 2. 2.). paragraph 41. 1 of the Charter, it is clear that the
economic, social and cultural rights, which include article. 26
Of the Charter, it is possible to sue only within the limits of the laws, that this
the provisions are carried out. The nature of these rights is significantly different from the
the fundamental rights of others (e.g. rights typically civil and political), and
the ability of the legislature to provide for their more detailed conditions and restrictions it is therefore
considerably larger and is, in principle, limited to only the already-cited principle
enshrined in article. 4 (4). 4 of the Charter.
To the objection that the price regulation, limits the liability of the company for the
the results of his economic management (section 2 of the commercial code), it should be noted that the
the legal autonomy of the producer-through strict regulation of the production, apparently
milk-is maintained. I can now milk manufacturer make a profit
or suffer a loss according to the productivity of its work, its quality and
external influences. For their produce which continue to be the responsibility of the similarly
as other businesses. His position is unlike the position of the employee
controlled by the employer. Each State regulation of business or
economic activity affects the business environment, the amount of real
potential revenues and profit and risk of loss. In the case of strict regulation
milk production is certainly possible to conclude that income from milk production are
due to the de facto inability to sell milk above a certain amount of relatively
well, predictable. To preserve the substance of the business in the production of milk
However, the contested regulation does not change anything.
Any limitation on business or determination of prerequisites and conditions for them
You must have a specific purpose, must observe the general interest. Pointless
limitations namely-as mentioned above-are the Charter
visit "nešetření" and the meaning of the basic law. Public
interested in, which is reason enough to state intervention in the market
milk, including regulation of the amount of its production, the stabilization of prices, and hence the
farm incomes and farmers due to the
social, economic and ecological particularities of agriculture.
In this context, nor is the claim of the appellants cannot regard that in
The Czech Republic is among the milk supply and demand balance. Annual
consumption of milk (in the form of a variety of dairy products)
in the Czech Republic 2.1 million tonnes, while production amounted to
2.789 million tonnes (see Statistical Yearbook of the Czech Republic 2000, Czech
the Statistical Office, Prague, 2000, p. 278, and 713). The surplus, which in addition
adding to the growing imports, with great difficulty, mainly exported to
abroad. This export would be, were it not for the export subsidies granted by the
out of public funds, permanently highly lossy, and it would be possible to
take place only on a transitional basis.
In conclusion to this part of the Constitutional Court finding points out that (in principle) is not
summoned to the assessment of the economic aspects of the need and necessity
restrictions on business or determine the conditions under which it is possible to run a business,
given the need to ensure the individual, often next to each other or
even against the competing public interests. The selection of the restrictive
(control) instruments and their application rate is primarily the task of the
the legislature. Only Parliament as the representative body may in our
such steps make the constitutional system. His responsibility for the detection of
problems in the economy, which call for regulation, the choice of instruments and
their effects, that can be sometimes negative, it is in the first place
political and Constitutional Court may in this case into its legislative
activities to intervene only if it finds the unconstitutionality. In
Mr. case, the legislature by Act No. 257/2000 Coll. (which itself
was not subject to review by the Constitutional Court) had defined clear enabling
rules and limits for the issue of government regulation and Government of this authorisation
respect by the contested regulation. It can therefore be concluded that the
Government Regulation with the article. 26 paragraph 2. 1 and 2 of the Charter is not in conflict.
Finally-how the Constitutional Court already stated above (sub IV.)-is not warranted, or
the appellants ' objection that any restriction of the basic rights enshrined
in the article. 26 paragraph 2. 1 of the Charter can be made only by law (and not
the Government Ordinance), which it said does not respect the regulation in question, and finds himself
Thus in breach of article. 4 (4). 2 of the Charter. In that case, the Government
respect the applicable policy for the issuance of the contested regulation-on
the basis of the explicit legal authorization-and this Regulation (with the exception of
the provisions of § 14 para. 2 and section 4, paragraph 4. 2) its only matter in more detail
instantiates the cited statutory authority, IE. the issue of modified in
basic features already by this law. It is thus clear that the contested
the regulation as a whole is not unconstitutional nor in this direction; the limits of the
fundamental rights and freedoms have been established in this case by
(article 4, paragraph 2, of the Charter), and the obligations arising from this regulation
Therefore, they are stored "on the basis of and within the limits of the law" (article 4 (1)
Of the Charter).
For completeness, the Constitutional Court adds that, in the present case, the system
production of milk quotas is not excessive nor comparatively speaking with
regard to a similar adjustment to the milk market in the Member States of the European
Union. Not only in those States, but also in other advanced
democratic States of Western Europe had comparable market adjustments
milk and some other agricultural products exist (see
Council Regulation No 3950/92, Commission Regulation No 536/93). Are often
the subject of fairly strong criticism for its cost and problematic
competition and structural effects, but this criticism is not based on
doubts about the compatibility of the rules with the European market and
the universal standard of human rights.
VII.
To the second group of the opposition of the appellants [the nature of the property, to
the conditions of admissibility and its limitations (article 11 of the Charter and article 1 of the
The additional protocol to the Convention)]
According to the article. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter, everyone has the right to own property.
Ownership of all owners has the same statutory content and protection.
Pursuant to paragraph 4 of the same article the expropriation or compulsory restrictions
of property rights can be in the public interest, on the basis of the law and
for the replacement. According to the article. 1 of the additional protocol to the Convention has any natural
or legal person the "right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one can
be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions,
provided for by law and general principles of international law. Previous
the provisions do not prevent the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, and
to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. "
The appellants essentially claim that limiting the amount of milk production
represents an illegal intervention in the title, not the
public interest and occurs without compensation.
To do this, the Constitutional Court in particular States that limit the amount of production
any product naturally constitutes a restriction on the right to use the product-
as an object of property-produced in excess of production
the quota, and thus also occurs to a specific form of ownership restrictions. It comes
in particular, about the restrictions or even to prevent the sale of such a product on the
the market at a certain price. Such a restriction, however, does not constitute an expropriation
(which the appellants nor does not claim), as the owner of the product with it
can the-albeit limited-continue to possess, use or even
I destroy them. It is not therefore a transition or transfer of ownership of
product (produced above the specified amount) to another person. The product is
regulation becomes difficult to venal or unmarketable. Entitled to
achieve the exact prices on the market, however, is not part of the fundamental right to
ownership. To the objection that the quota system is the forced restriction
of property rights, the Constitutional Court again recalls [see part V paragraph (B))],
This system constitutes a form of control of the use of property which is
should be carefully considered as to the existence of public interest, giving entitlement to
application of governing (control) measures, as well as a selection of detailed
rules for the implementation of such measures. State interference must
respect the reasonable (fair) a balance between the general interest
the company and the protection of the fundamental rights of the individual. This means that you must
be reasonable (well founded) relationship of proportionality between the used
resources and objectives. In the opinion of the Constitutional Court-when it comes
-the existence of the contested regulation in the public interest (that is, stabilization of the market
with milk) legitimizujícího State to introduce the quota system and is given by
the means chosen to achieve this (quota system) are-
the constitutional point of view – completely reasonable.
In this context, it should be recalled that, for example. and the tightening of
quality requirements for the production of goods when doing business or other
economic activity often means for operating or managing the
person price disadvantage of products produced, or raw materials and equipment,
that is used for the production. Such regulation is, however, often necessary due to
better ensure a wide range of often still inadequately protected
important general interests. Claim limitation of property rights, however, would
in such cases, was undoubtedly considered to be neakceptovatelnou.
How to properly in its observations the Ministry, each producer,
who would want to due to the increased demand to increase milk production, or
will want to start milk production, according to the contested regulation, the possibility of
request a new quota allocation or to increase the existing quota of
reserve, or. You may acquire a contractual transfer of quota from another producer.
It is thus clear that the quota system does not constitute a substantial and unjustified
restriction of property rights, but is-in essence-measures
effectively the protectionist. This to some extent and in a specific direction can be
subjectively felt as a restriction of ownership rights of producers
milk; However, it cannot be overlooked that such measures-in its final
the effect, according to clearly defined and predetermined conditions-
the right of ownership to protect and develop producer objectively. The purpose of the
the quota system is the creation of conditions to ensure that each
the producer had secured distribution and to obtain the corresponding minimum price.
The answer to the question of whether it is a measure of the optimum and economically
the best, however, clearly cannot give the Constitutional Court.
The logic of the newly introduced quota system comes from the fact that, in the
the long-term superiority of menu milk over demand after him (see section VI.)
ensure the "viability" of milk production in the Czech Republic only
increasing State subsidies. Investment in such production represent a
in particular, the ratios mentioned efforts to take advantage of them. The impact of the introduction of the system
the production quotas of milk, produced from day to day, it is essentially
only potential. Himself a penalty chip in the specified amount derived from
minimum milk prices for the supply of production in excess of the
individual production quota (section 13 of Act No. 257/2000 Coll.)
represents the required tool must be have in promoting the
any-hence the quantitative-regulation of economic life. His
the aim is to discourage producers from the just the right zapovídaného or
at all of the unwanted behavior. State which of the important reasons of General
order to limit the quantity of production, introduces can produce in excess of
the specified amount and disable. Breach of such prohibition may undoubtedly
to punish. Less hitting the restrictions that overproduction of milk over
fixed production quotas or outside their system only at a disadvantage,
but, it is also permissible (arg. and maiori ad minus). Store
penalty charges, therefore, cannot be considered as expropriation, or for forced
restriction of ownership rights in the above sense. Besides, how
The Constitutional Court has already said in another place, the possibility of the imposition of the sanctions removal
SAIF is regulated by law No. 257/2000 Coll., and not in the contested
of the regulation. However, the appellants did not attack the cited law, and the Constitutional Court
It could not, therefore, in the context of an abstract review of standards
review.
The Constitutional Court did not neglect the fact that the quota production
milk (or any other item) already from the nature of things tends to
the efforts of the State to discourage potential investors from further-in this
the case of quantitative-the development of the economic sector in which it is not
the public interest. Such deterrence of investment may also mean changes
qualitative regulations, changes in the area of tax (restrictive tax)
or even changes in the purchases of goods or services by public bodies
intended for the provision of public services. Therefore, you cannot treat
discourage investment in production of milk under the ownership restrictions to
resources, the use of which in other economic spheres could
existing and potential producers (in the light of these factors,)
take into account. These resources can be-in general-use to the development of
a number of other sectors of the economy (and even in agriculture), whose
quantitative growth is not an obstacle to any important public interest.
Comparatively speaking, it should be noted, as well as on the case-law of the European
the Court of Justice (ECJ), which is the question of restriction of the fundamental right to
ownership of the comment in the context of the application of community
regulations on agricultural production. Case 44/79 Hauer (, in: p. Craig
and g. de Búrca, EU Law, Text, Cases and Materials, Oxford University
Press, 1998, pp. 306-307) the ECJ pointed out that the provisions of article. 1
The additional protocol to the Convention (on the right of ownership) shall not preclude the
the right of the State to use such regulations, which the State considers it necessary for the
the arrangements for the ownership in accordance with the general interest. In a given
the case of the German authorities in the enforcement of Community law, in particular
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1163/76 on the adaptation of the vineyards to market needs,
not allowing vinařce of the German Rhineland-Palatinate wine planting on
her just having regard to the Community restrictions on production.
VIII.
The third group of the opposition of the appellants [to the application of principles of equality and
the prohibition of discrimination (article 1 of the Charter)]
According to the article. 1 of the Charter, people are free and equal in dignity and in the
rights. The fundamental rights and freedoms are inalienable, not subject to alienation,
nepromlčitelné and non-cancelable. The principle of equality and non-discrimination
It is further specified in article 2(1). 3 (2). 1 of the Charter ("fundamental rights and
freedom to guarantee to all, without distinction of sex, race, colour,
language, faith and religion, political or other opinion, national
or social origin, membership of a national or ethnic
minority, property, birth or other status. "). To refer them to the
article. 4 (4). 3 of the Charter, according to which "the legal restrictions of fundamental rights and
freedoms must apply equally to all cases that meet the specified
conditions. ".
Violation of the principle of equality promoters fro that running
production of milk quotas is introduced a form de facto price
the regulation, which introduces a double the price of milk. Calculation method of initial
the distribution of the production quotas they say is not objective, since the
factors that might have in the period 2000 to adversely affect production
milk for a particular producer. Finally, limitations resulting from § 4 paragraph 2.
2 of the contested regulation, according to which producers doing business exclusively
in the system of permanent vazného housing allocated to individual production
the quota does not increase nor does not allocate a new individual production quota from
the reserve, a group allegedly discriminates against producers, those
who do business exclusively in the system of permanent vazného housing.
The Constitutional Court in the first instance recalls that the question of equality is dealt with already
The Constitutional Court of Czechoslovakia, which held (find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 22/92, a collection of
resolutions and findings of the Constitutional Court of the CSFR, pp. 37 and 38): "equality of citizens
before the law was not understood as an abstract category, but has always been
attributed to a specific legal standard, understood in the ratio between the different
bodies, etc. If it was done right of equality, every
an individual is entitled to a State within the limits of its capabilities, removed the
all de facto inequality. This design, however, applies only if
If we consider equality as an absolute. Relative equality, as have the
the mind of all the modern Constitution, only requires the removal of unjustified
the differences. (...) Special standards for specific scopes may provide for specific
the criteria of equality, that the general principle of access or because the
applications of the principle of equality are not laid down in precise limits to
they excluded any discretion of those who have it are applied. ".
In on things, the Constitutional Court has repeatedly stressed that the purpose of the system
production quotas is to create the conditions for it to ensure that every producer
ensure sales and to receive corresponding to the minimum price. It is therefore
Obviously, this system has not been created for the purpose of favouring or vice versa
disadvantage some groups of producers of milk, but on the contrary, its
the aim is to ensure a level playing field in the market and to protect producers and
consumers from unwanted large price fluctuations. The objection of double
milk prices is therefore irrelevant, since the cost of milk remains for all
producers of the same and exhaust of 115% of the minimum or regulated prices
(section 13 of Act No. 257/2000 Coll.) does not constitute a "double" the price of milk, but
the penalty for violation of rules of the quota system. In other words, when you
respect for the rules to all milk producers
ensured equal status, and that is why, to produce the target system
the quotas, which is the stability of the market, the law (not the contested regulation)
edited by penalties for violating the rules of that system.
Furthermore, it is necessary to see the fact that the creation of a system of production quotas
does not discriminate against those bodies into it. The claim of inequality
or discrimination in this respect is unfounded, since the distinction between
individual producers in the present case determined by choice of the
entity. He has the option of individual production quota request, or
not to use this option. Quota system therefore corresponds to the principle of
zakotvenému in the article. 4 (4). 3 of the Charter, according to which legal restrictions
"fundamental rights and freedoms must apply equally to all cases that
meet the specified conditions. " Due to the de facto inability to produce
milk outside the system of production quotas – with regard to the neprodejnost of milk,
the purchase by the State at the expense of punitive levy-represents the distribution of
a similar mechanism such as production quotas. the activities of entrepreneurs
associated with defining the quantitative extent of their business. From
the constitutional point of view, it is essential that the rules of the quota system
are generic, affordable and predictable, and in this respect, therefore, the objection
inequality is unfounded.
From the nature of things is obvious-as already mentioned-the creation
the system of milk production quotas must be somewhat "discouraged" from the entry
new entrants into the sector. The aim of the production quotas is
stabilization of production at a certain maximum amount, which in the current situation
in fact, a reduction in the means. Unlimited access to the
the industry could stymie any effect the production quotas. The purpose of the
limit the quantity of production is therefore discouraged from entering into the industry as well
as from future investments where there is a public interest in its
the restrictions. Some disadvantages of potential future producers to
current producers is a natural and unavoidable property
all restrictions on the quantity of production and cannot be seen as a
violations of the constitutionally guaranteed principle of equality, for which has already been
-equality in modern constitutional systems should not be understood as
the category of absolute, but relative. Therefore, the Constitutional Court could not
Neither of the appellants ' objections regard that the contested regulation is contrary to section
12 paragraph 1. 7 of Act No. 256/2000 Coll., according to which "the system of production quotas
It will allow the new operators to enter the market, and shall ensure that those bodies on the
market will have the same options to obtain the production quotas as
bodies that already exist on the market, in the context of the allocation of the reserve,
However to the maximum amount of the current annual quota. ".
Divide the individual production quotas between the individual farmers
According to their production in the previous calendar year (section 3, paragraph 1, and
subs. Regulation), in practice, cannot be fully in accordance with the principle of equality
-the violation of which the plaintiffs argue-enshrined in § 12 para. 6
(a). and) Act No. 256/2000 SB., if this principle was understood in
absolute (abstract) concept. Can be considered for example. so that, in the
in 2000, some producers do not have to produce too much milk,
as it had in the stable of various causes mostly heifers and calves, their
the economy could affect natural disaster or disease, etc. On
the majority of such cases, however, remember the formula for calculating the
individual delivery quotas fixed in annex No. 1 of the contested
of the regulation. A certain inequality would therefore be arise if he added a
producer after a period of time as a result of natural effects of or as a result of
the uneven state of the cattle of age or different point of view only a limited
the quantity of milk. However, this inequality cannot be considered unconstitutional, and
Even so, that any law of the modified method of determining individual
production quotas could in the specific case under certain circumstances lead
to subjectively perceived unfair result. However, if the legal
edit these cases wanted to delete it, there would be others-and equally
a serious danger of the risk a certain arbitrariness when
"the removal of hardness" in the allocation of production quotas. Or here
cannot be found (and an) the unconstitutionality of the contested regulation.
As regards the producers doing business exclusively on the system of the permanent vazného
housing, the Constitutional Court concluded that the preference for organic farming
dairy cattle by a special Act (No. 242/2000 Coll., on organic
Agriculture and amending Act No. 368/1992 Coll., on administrative fees,
as amended) cannot be in the allocation of new production
quotas or raising existing-itself-can be considered as unconstitutional
discrimination. The legislature has the right to have recourse to it just for reasons of
the public interest is no doubt improved behavior of animals (see
(I) representation of the Ministry. animal welfare). An activity course
a correct and acceptable. State support can have for example. the form of the
subsidies or other forms of public support. The legislature has the right to
such preference in connection with a distribution of additional production
quotas or their reduction without a doubt in the anchor.
However, it cannot act beyond Government-to make when issuing
podzákonného of CCIP.
Therefore, the Government of the United States-in this context-is wrong, if the
claims that section 2 (2). 5 of law no 256/2000 SB. authorizing it to preference
certain forms of agriculture, as it is in section 4, paragraph 4. 2 of the
of the regulation. It provides that producers who operate exclusively in the system
Permanent vazného housing, individual quota allocated
does not increase nor does not allocate a new individual production quota of milk from
in the reserve. Cited the provisions of § 2 (2). 5 of law no 256/2000 Sb.
merely says that "a production quota, you can make the granting of some form of
support agriculture. ". This means that the meaning of the cited legal
the provisions clearly lies in allowing the positive preference of certain forms of
Agriculture (e.g. environmentally oriented typically) State aid
for the fulfillment of the conditions for inclusion in the system of production quotas. At the same time
However, from the wording of the cited statutory provisions cannot be inferred
the mandate of the Government to the exclusion of certain producers from raising
existing or allocate a new production quota as provided for in paragraph 4 of the
paragraph. 2 of the contested regulation.
This provision therefore clearly does not respect the reservation of law and finds himself with the
contrary to the article. 4 (4). 1 and 2 of the Charter.
IX.
Of all of the above reasons, the Constitutional Court annulled section 4(1). 2 of regulation
Government No 445/2000 Coll. for the conflict with the article. 4 (4). 1 and 2 of the Charter and section 14
paragraph. 2 of the same regulation for its conflict with article. paragraph 79. 3 of the Constitution.
In accordance with § 58 para. 1 and § 70 para. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., set aside
The following provisions of the Constitutional Court on 31 December. December 2001, to provide to the Government
sufficient time for any necessary measures and modifications.
The remainder of the claim for annulment of the contested regulation, the Governments of the Constitutional Court
It has refused.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
Under section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, have
the preamble to the decision of the judges of the different views. Paul Hollander, and
JUDr. Antonín Procházka.
