409/2006 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic
The Constitutional Court ruled June 20. June 2006 in the plenary in the composition of Stanislav
Package, Vlasta Formankova, Turgut Güttler, Pavel Holländer, Ivana Janů,
Vladimir Crust, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodým, Pavel Rychetský, Miloslav
Excellent, Elisabeth Wagner (the judge rapporteur) and Michael Židlická of the
the proposal of the Group of MPs and Senators of the Parliament group of the Czech Republic
on the repeal of certain provisions of Act No. 252/1997 Coll., on agriculture,
in force on 22. 7.2004, and specifically on abolition of the provisions
section 2e, paragraph. 1 (a). (c)), and (d)), on the abolition of the sentences "Meet reality
referred to in points (a) to (f))) for legal persons must demonstrate its
responsible representative. The responsible agent for the purposes of this Act, is
natural person provided for a legal entity, which is responsible for the proper
the operation of the business and which is in relation to agricultural employment
entrepreneurs. "in article 2e, paragraph. 1, the cancellation of the whole section 2e
paragraph. 3 and 5, § 2f, paragraph. 2 (a). (b)) (a). 3 (b). (c)), the abolition of the words "and
(c)) "in section 2f, paragraph. 4 (b). (c)) and the cancellation of the entire section 2f, paragraph. 8,
as well as on the proposal to repeal certain provisions of Act No. 85/2004 Coll.
amending Law No. 252/1997 SB., on agriculture, in the text of the
amended, and some other laws, in force December 22.
7.2004, specifically on the repeal of the sentence "certificate issued separately
hospodařícímu rolníkovi according to law No. 105/1990 Coll., on private
the business of citizens, as amended by Act No. 219/1991 Coll. and Act No 455/1991
Coll., valid 5 years from the date of entry into force of this Act "in the article. (II) point
1 and the repeal of article II, section 2 of Act No. 85/2004 Coll.
as follows:
The provisions of section I, paragraph 2e. 1 (a). (c)), section 2e, paragraph. 5 of law No 249/1997
Coll., on agriculture, as amended, shall be abolished on the date of
the publication of this finding in the collection of laws.
II. Provisions of section, paragraph 2e. 1 (a). (d)), section 2f, paragraph. 2 (a). (b)) and section 2f
paragraph. 3 (b). (c)), the words "and (c))" in article 2f, paragraph. 4 (b). (c)) and section
2F, paragraph. 8 of law No 249/1997 Coll., on agriculture, as amended
regulations, is cancelled on the day 30. 6.2007.
III. Article II, section 2 of Act No. 85/2004 Coll. repealing the day of its publication in the
This award is in the collection of laws.
IV. Proposal to abolish the sentence "meet the facts referred to in (a))
to f) in the case of a legal person must demonstrate its responsible representative.
The responsible agent for the purposes of this Act, a natural person is provided for in
a legal person who is responsible for the proper operation of the business and which is
in the employment relationship to agricultural entrepreneurs. "contained in the
the provisions of section, paragraph 2e. 1 of law No 249/1997 Coll., on agriculture, in the text of the
amended, as well as the proposal to repeal the provisions of section, paragraph 2e. 3
the same law shall be rejected.
In the proposal to repeal the sentence. "certificate issued by separately hospodařícímu
rolníkovi pursuant to Act No. 106/1990 Coll., on citizens ' private business,
in the wording of Act No. 219/1991 Coll. and Act No. 455/1991 Coll., valid for 5 years
from the date of entry into force of this law "in article II, section 1 of Act No.
85/2004 Coll. is rejected.
Justification
I. draft Recap
1. A group of 55 members of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and
23 Senators of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic with a full proposal [cf..
article. paragraph 87. 1 (a). and the Constitution of the Czech Republic) (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") and section
64 paragraph. 1 (a). (b)) of the Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by
amended, ("the law on the Constitutional Court")], the examination of the
the mail transport on 22. 7.2004, demanded the cancellation of the above
parts of the law No. 252/1997 SB., on agriculture, in the then current version of the
(hereinafter the "law"), as well as the abolition of the transitional
the provisions of Act No. 85/2004 Coll., amending Act No. 252/1997 Coll.,
on agriculture, in wording of later regulations, and some other laws,
(hereinafter "the Act").
2. The nature of the objection, the appellants themselves summarize so that challenged
provisions distort how the principle of equality, especially the very
the essence of freedom of business [article 26, paragraph 1, and article 4, paragraph 4, of the Charter of
fundamental rights and freedoms (the "Charter"), when each of the newly
introduced restrictions (in particular, the requirements of good repute and professional
competence) do not have any clear reasons of public interest.
From the point of view of the general restriction is excessive (article 26, paragraph 2,
Of the Charter).
I and the inadequacy of conditions and absence of) integrity
3. The provisions of the
section 2e, paragraph. 1 (a). (c)) of the law on agriculture
According to the plaintiffs violates the right to do business and engage in other
economic activity (article 26 of the Charter), as in the determination of the conditions for
exercise of this right does not spare its essence and purpose (article 4, paragraph 4,
Of the Charter). Here the appellants pointed to the findings, in which the Constitutional Court
He stated [SP. zn. PL. ÚS 11/2000 and SP. zn i. ÚS 504/03 (Note red.:
see below)], nor the relative freedom of the legislature resulting from the article. 41
paragraph. 1 of the Charter does not allow lawmakers to break the essence and meaning of the right
guaranteed article. 26 paragraph. 1 of the Charter. Conditions for the exercise of certain activities
the public authorities to lay down just to protect the public interest, but
proportionally. The positives, according to the case-law of the constitutional restrictions must
outweigh the negatives [find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/97-NB. Red:
A collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as "Collection
the decision "), Volume 11, finding no. 53; promulgated under no. 159/1998 Coll.]. From
the relevant explanatory memorandum, however, cannot be in the public interest to identify and
If identified, was then, according to the plaintiffs, the more restrictive modification
cannot pass the test of proportionality, since the condition of integrity indirectly
further punishing the perpetrator of any intentional criminal offence or offender
nedbalostního of a crime committed in connection with the business of the
Agriculture. Objective reasons for such a ban is not a flat-rate
obstacle to the business is unreasonable. The crime was committed in the
the context of the business may in a particular case found reflection in the
prohibition of activity (stored individually). The adjustment is illogical. Natural
a person who cannot meet the requirement of integrity, the permission is not obtained,
but the non-fulfillment of the conditions shall not affect the physical integrity of the person
such permission will already have. Separate adjustment of similar cases is in
contrary to the article. 4 (4). 3 of the Charter. The condition of integrity
[section 2e, paragraph 1 (b), (c))
and follow-up
section 2e, paragraph. 5 of the law on Agriculture]
violates article. 26 paragraph. 1 and article. 4 (4). 3 and 4. Of the Charter and should therefore be
the provisions in question should be deleted.
And (B) the inadequacy of the condition of professional competence)
4. the condition of professional competence provided for in
section 2e, paragraph. 1 (a). (d)), section 2f, paragraph. 2 (a). (b)) of the law on agriculture
According to the plaintiffs, extends the essence of freedom of entrepreneurship
guaranteed by the article. 26 paragraph. 1 of the Charter, since the difference in the conditions of
integrity does not have a parallel with the arrangements contained in the trades
the Act. Entrepreneur may request expertise to live up to the establishment of the
the responsible representative (section 11 of the Trade Licensing Act). More restrictive modification
the law on agriculture, however, such a possibility gives only to legal persons. (I)
in comparison with the requirements for the operation of free trade is a requirement
professional competence, inappropriate (e.g. free živnostmi production
railway traction vehicles or manufacture of electronic components). Even in the case
professionally bound intensive trades (e.g. construction) may not
the requirement of professional competence must meet the entrepreneur himself. Undue
the requirement is so hindered access to the business and selective condition
violates and the article. 3 of the Charter. The plaintiffs also demanded cancellation of the
the provisions of the
section 2f, paragraph. 3 (b). (c)), section 2f, paragraph. 8 and the words "and (c))" in section 2f, paragraph. 4 (b).
(c)) of the law on agriculture,
as the follow on article 2f, paragraph. 2 (a). (b)) of the law on
Agriculture.
I. C) changes to the legal regulation of the Unconstitutionality of business carried out in direct
connection with agriculture
5. the definition of the concept of agricultural production contained in the
section 2e, paragraph. 3 of the law on agriculture
According to the plaintiffs, has significantly changed and tightened the legal regime of entrepreneurs
performing their activity in direct connection with agriculture, as it
It excludes from the scheme with the Trade Licensing Act, the transitional provisions of the
the amendment to the law on Agriculture establishes as a penalty the demise of permissions
business owners who fail to comply with terms and conditions within one year of the effectiveness of the amendment
the law on Agriculture (cf..
article. (II) point 2 of the amendment to the law on agriculture
). While the adoption of the amendment to the law on agriculture, the number of persons
operating in the context of the agriculture business, based on the
trade privileges under the various free trade, without
It was a self-employed farmers pursuant to Act No. 106/1990 Coll., on
the private business of citizens, as amended.
6. The plaintiffs have said these examples of substantial defects of the contested
the provisions of:
and, in General, and with Only) unclear criteria are addressed, the person operating
on the basis of the business licence will be subject to the regime of the law on
Agriculture. Can go for free trade
services for agriculture, forestry, manufacture of food products,
domestic animals
(see regulation of the Government No. 140/2000 Coll., laying down a list of subjects
trades).
Dog breeding
would probably be compared to the
horse breeding
should still be free trade, rather than the agricultural business.
(b) in accordance with the contested provisions are)
processing and sale of own production of agricultural production
, including
the production of food
from it, understood as the activities of the agricultural entrepreneurs. Yet in doing so, e.g..
There are craft trades
Miller, a butcher's shop or the dairy sector
and free trade
manufacture of food products
(see regulation of the Government No. 469/2000 Coll., laying down the content of
individual trades). The subject of these trades is the production of food, and
It is not clear to what extent, and whether these existing business owners
accommodated under the newly defined concept of the agricultural entrepreneur. The requirements for the
the qualifications are more stringent for the craft trades (section 20 and
21 the Trade Licensing Act) than in the law on agriculture, but can be
met through the responsible representative.
(c) the business licence Holders)
"the production of food products" (section 42 the Trade Licensing Act)
zařazovaní new in the mode of the agricultural law, are likely to be newly
also need a business license in the field of retail. Existing permissions
shall be extinguished only in part.
(d)) the New Testament nepodchycuje (unlike the Trade Licensing Act), a series of
situations in life commonly occurs (loss of competence, lack of
the age), and which cannot be countered with the provisions of the responsible representative. While the law
does not address the fate of tradesmen doing business through responsible
representative. After the death of agricultural entrepreneurs is not clear who runs the
agricultural production to the end of the inheritance and legacy Manager
In addition, has no obligation to establish
"representative"
. The law on agriculture does not include the adjustment of the barriers in the business and
bankruptcy or criminal activity will not have a prohibition referred to in
plaintiffs have no effect.
7. The way the change was made, or the transition to the new legal
the regulation, according to the plaintiffs in the conflict with the essential requirements
the rule of law (article 1 of the Constitution). Change is an expression of arbitrariness, the adjustment is
internally contradictory, unpredictable and raises many of the interpretative
the problems, which can, in the meaning of the findings of the Constitutional Court [SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
9/95 (Note red.: a collection of decisions, volume 5, finding no 16; announced
under no 107/1996 Sb.) and SP. zn. I. ÚS 504/03] to establish the unconstitutionality of
the law. Such a law is contrary to and case law of the European Court of human
rights (e.g., the thing
Heinrich against France
). The Charter in article. 26 paragraph. 2 of the Charter allows the determination of the conditions and
restrictions on the exercise of certain professions or activities, but must go on
the conditions for transparent, predictable, with the possibility of Defense concerned
persons. These claims cannot act on agriculture to meet. The appellants
pointed out that, according to the Constitutional Court [SP. zn. PL. ÚS 2/02 (Note red.:
see below)] intervention of the legislature giving strong signs of arbitrariness disrupts
confidence in the law, which is one of the fundamental attributes of a rule of law.
8. The appellants stressed that are invading the idea of common mode
self-employed farmers and entrepreneurs engaged in direct
connection with agriculture, but unconstitutional way of performing this
changes. The legislature according to the plaintiffs as a result of the amendment
(the concept of the law originally allegedly counted with changes in the field of business)
he snatched a group of stable business environment, which
the regulation offered a certain flexibility, and converted them into edit mode
imperfect, not reflecting the different options of business. As to the
arbitrariness of the legislature, who didn't realize all the implications of his step.
Such a procedure is unacceptable even in the legal State while respecting the
the disposition of the legislature in the election legislation, because the legislature
an unjustified, unpredictable, unreasonable and internally rozpornou
the change exceeded constitutional limitations. Therefore, the proposal, in addition to cancellation provisions
section 2e, paragraph. 3 of the law on agriculture
, asked and cancellation
article. (II) point 2 of the amendment to the law on agriculture
.
I. D) Neodůvodnitelná inequality in the demise of the existing permissions
9. In response to the above argument the plaintiffs also attacked
inequality, which has established itself
the amendment to the law on agriculture in the article. II, point 1 of the transitional provisions
where is the modified individuals operating in the mode of the basis of the law on
private business people (specifically the sentence
"A certificate issued by a self hospodařícímu rolníkovi according to the law No.
105/1990 Coll., on citizens ' private business, in the wording of Act No. 219/1991
Coll. and Act No. 455/1991 Coll., the 5 years from the date of entry into force of
This Act "
). The demise of the existing diversity of periods of permission gratuitously favors
one group of entrepreneurs (self-employed farmers), compared to other
the Group (not yet established on the basis of the Trade Licensing Act), as
their position is similar to, which is in contradiction with article. 4 (4). 3 of the Charter.
Law violates the equality rights (article 1, article 3 and article 4, paragraph 3
Of the Charter) and the abolition of privilege and obligation to the new evidence, no doubt
restrict the freedom of enterprise, while the disadvantage is gratuitous [cf..
find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/01 (Note red.: a collection of decisions, volume 29,
finding no. 39; promulgated under no. 87/2003 Coll.)]. Unable to tolerate the determination
different arrangements for similar cases, and that's not even taking into account the specific
freedom of the legislature in setting new conditions for the pursuit of certain
the occupation, which was carried out in accordance with the existing legislation [cf. for example.
find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 4/95 (Note red.: see below)]. For a different mode
close to transition activities (therefore are modified in the same Act)
There are objective reasons. In addition, unlike peasants, must
some newly laid down for now, which should lead to the
This transition should be (if take into consideration for the purpose of the change)
milder. Therefore, the procedure of the legislature and inappropriate. For these reasons,
the appellants requested the deletion of the sentence as specified above. The appellants
pointed out that, in the case of voicing neústavnosti changes to the business
mode (see paragraphs 5 to 8), this part of the proposal is irrelevant.
I. E) Inequality between legal and natural persons in the performance of
eligibility conditions
10. The appellants requested repeal and
listed in the first paragraph of section, paragraph 2e. 1 of the law on agriculture,
which an entrenchment of inequalities, and the violation of the article. 4 (4). 3
Of the Charter, since legal persons were allowed to meet the conditions of the law
any person in the employment relationship, while for natural persons
This option is not given. Individuals will be forced to assigned based
legal persons, but there is no public interest (as in the case
Bank or securities dealer), which would restrict access
individuals to justify the business. The appellants stated that they are
aware that the cancellation of this favouring of legal persons will require
legislative amendments to the law on Agriculture (differentiating the conditions, which
an agricultural entrepreneur meet, the introduction of the General adjustment of the responsible
Representative, or the way, as the legal person to demonstrate compliance with the
the conditions of the Act).
II. recapitulation of the representation of the parties
II. A) representation of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
11. The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic represented by the Chairman of the
PhDr. Lubomír Zaorálkem, in its observations of 10 February. 9.2004, stated,
that the conditions laid down in the Act on business agriculture provide
adequately protect the public interest and do not confer any inequality of various
operators in the business. Legal opinion of the plaintiffs is the special-purpose and
the superficial. According to the explanatory memorandum to the amendment to the agriculture
remove some of the shortcomings of the existing editing: to define the concepts of agricultural
production, agricultural entrepreneur and lay down the conditions and obligations of persons,
they want to do business in agriculture.
12. Request
professional competence
results from the fact that the agricultural products become part of the
the food chain. Also the way of farming on land production
organic food, the use of biochemical products, fertilizers,
animal feed, plant health care and the development of non-productive functions
Agriculture
"require a competence, no doubt"
.
13. Request
integrity
(nepostihující delinquencies and less socially dangerous zahlazené) is
justified by the possibility to draw subsidies from the State budget and the funds of the European
the Union. Without the subsidies would be a businessman was not competitive. The State is obliged to
to ensure the responsible and efficient management of subsidies. And State guarantees and
food security (§ 1 of the law on Agriculture).
14. neither the definition of agricultural production made by the provision of section, paragraph 2e. 3
the law on agriculture, which shifts part of the activities of the scheme
the Trade Licensing Act into law on agriculture is not in conflict with
the principles of the rule of law, because only unifies the legal regime of persons
engaged in agriculture and removes the absence of definition of terms
agricultural production and agricultural entrepreneur.
15. transitional provisions of the amendment to the law on agriculture do not infringe
equality in rights, as both groups of people interested in the field of
(on) Act, the deadline for the registration of the same.
II. B) representation of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
16. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic represented by the former Chairman of the
doc. JUDr. Peter Pithartem in its observations of 9 October. 9.2004, stated,
the draft amendment to the law on agriculture was in the committees recommended to the
approval. In the debate of the Assembly, but appeared a whole series of comments
the constitutional nature of the by-law for example. creates an environment that can
the owners of the soil, to prevent (if they want) started on its soil
manage. Some Senators warned the constitutional requirement that when
clash of individual rights with the public interest, it was examined whether the public
interest in the private realm and simply legitimizes the restrictions that target actually tracks
the public interest. Otherwise, the restrictions unconstitutional. Therefore was made whole
a number of amendments, the aim of which was the deletion of any
the provisions relating to good repute and professional qualifications. However, over the
These concerns was the result of the vote just shortening the minimum length
mandatory retraining course from 300 to 150 hours [section 2f (2) (a).
(b) point 1 of the law) on Agriculture], which are then still
The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and the law approved in the
the text returned by the Senate.
17. Beyond the above, the President of the Senate, said that the provisions of the
enabling legal persons who meet the conditions of article 2e, paragraph. 1
the law on agriculture through the responsible representative is in edit
This law is necessary, as in the case of the deletion of this provision would be
legal persons have not been able to meet the conditions for the qualification and
integrity. By removing any doubt about an uneven position
natural and legal persons would therefore be positive legislation,
enabling to meet legal conditions through the responsible representative
also to natural persons.
18. The Constitutional Court asked the parties for approval by refraining from
oral proceedings (article 44, paragraph 2, of Act No. 182/1993 Coll.), as from the oral
the negotiations could not be expect further clarification of the matter. The participants consent
reviews are written by. Then it was possible to proceed to the hearing of the case meritornímu.
III. Formal conditions consultation draft
III. A) the contested provisions of the law on the diction of the agriculture
19. The contested provisions of Act No. 252/1997 Coll. are worded as follows (in bold are
highlighted in the contested section; If the text is written in italics indicates that it was
in the intervening period between the filing of the application and the decision of the Constitutional Court changed
or extended-see below):
"section 2e
Business in agriculture
(1) Agricultural entrepreneur under this Act is a natural or
legal person who intends to engage in agricultural production as
continuous and discrete activities on their own behalf, on your own
responsibility for profit, under the conditions laid down in this
the law and that, as regards the person physical
(c)) is impeachable,
d) competence (article 2f, paragraph 2),
Meet the facts referred to in points (a) to (f))) for legal persons
must demonstrate its responsible representative. The responsible agent for the purposes of
This law is a natural person provided for a legal entity
responsible for the proper operation of the business and which is in the employment relationship
to agricultural entrepreneurs.
No one can be appointed to the position of the responsible representative for more than
two agricultural entrepreneurs. Responsible representative of the legal person cannot
be a member of the Supervisory Board or other controlling body of the legal
of the person. If the responsible agent to perform a function or
does not satisfy the conditions, an agricultural entrepreneur not later than 15 days
appoint a new representative responsible.
(3) agricultural production, including farming in the forests and waterways of 4i)
areas means
and) crop production including the hop-growing, fruit growing, viticulture,
the winery and the cultivation of vegetables, mushrooms, medicinal and ornamental plants,
aromatic plants, plants for technical and energy use on
the plots of their own, leased, or used by other
the rule of reason, or operated without a land,
b) livestock production involving the breeding of livestock and other animals or
animals for the purpose of the acquisition and production of animal products,
farm animals to stroke and sports and breeding racehorses,
(c)) production of breeding breeding animals and their genetic
material in respect of the animals referred to in point (a) (b)),
(d)) the production of seed and planting, nursery crops and genetic material
plants,
e) editing, processing, and sale of own production of agricultural production
including the production of food
^ 4j)
from it,
f) fish, aquatic animals and plants growing on the water surface to the
the plots of their own, leased or used by any other
the rule of reason.
(g)) in the forest management ^ 4i), on the grounds of its own, leased or
used based on other legal grounds, the
h) water management for agricultural and forestry purposes.
(5) For an impeccable for the purposes of this Act shall be considered as one who has not been
been sentenced or who looks as if he has been convicted
^ 4 k)
a) for an offence committed intentionally to nepodmíněnému prison sentence
the freedom of at least one year,
(b)) for the offence committed intentionally, committed in the context of
with the business and that is not a criminal offence referred to in subparagraph (a)), or
(c)) for an offence committed through negligence committed in
connection with the business of agriculture.
section 2f
Registr
(2) Agricultural entrepreneur registers the locally competent municipal office
municipalities with extended competence (hereinafter referred to as "the authority"), if the applicant
(b)) meets the competence
1. obtaining education at least at the level of secondary vocational education
^ 4)
in a farm field, veterinary medicine and veterinary prevention,
or at the level of full secondary education with a focus on agriculture,
where appropriate, by completing an accredited training course aimed
on the performance of the General agricultural activities in the range of a minimum of 150 hours,
or
2. the fact that proves the agricultural practices in the holding of at least
period of 5 years. The competent municipal authority for the registration of the applicant of the
agricultural business is the municipal office municipality with extended competence, in
the territorial scope of the place of business or registered office
agricultural entrepreneurs. Place of business for the purposes of this Act,
means the place where the agricultural entrepreneur manages its business
activity.
(3) in the application for registration in the register of agricultural entrepreneurs natural
the person shall indicate the
(c)) the indication of the competence, if it meets the,
(4) in the application for registration in the register of agricultural entrepreneurs, if
submitted by a legal person, shall bear the
(c)) the data referred to in paragraph 3 (b). and (b)))
and (c))
concerning the responsibility of the representative,
(8) in assessing the competence of the applicant for registration of the
in accordance with a special law.
^ 4 m)
In the assessment of professional competence shall decide in doubtful cases
the regional authority. "
4i) Law No 289/1995 Coll., forest Act, as amended.
4J) Act No. 110/1997 Coll. on foodstuffs and tobacco products and
change and the addition of some related laws, as amended
regulations.
4 k), for example, section 60, 60a, and 70 of the criminal code.
4 l) Act No. 29/1984 Coll., the Education Act, as amended.
4 m) Law No 18/2004 Coll., the Act on the recognition of professional qualifications. ".
20. In the meantime, since the submission of the proposal was Act No. 441/2005 Sb.
amended some of the contested provisions, but their nature has not been
in terms of the factual content of the objections, since the plaintiffs without prejudice to the
It was only changed (end of paragraph 1, section 2e) that the responsible representative
legal persons may have
the Contracting
not
employment relationship
, and have been formulated (ibid) obstacles to the performance of the duties of the responsible
Representative due to the incompatibility of the (conflict of interest, Singularity
representation). Furthermore, additional items have been added to the legal definition of the concept of
agricultural production [section 2e, paragraph 3 (b), (g) and (h)))].
III. B) the diction of the contested provisions of the amendment to the law on agriculture
21. The contested provisions of Act No. 85/2004 Coll. are worded as follows:
"Article II
Transitional provisions
1. the person operating on the date of entry into force of this Act, agricultural
production according to law No. 105/1990 Coll., on citizens ' private business, in the
the text of Act No. 219/1991 Coll. and Act No. 455/1991 Coll., shall be deemed to
agricultural entrepreneurs to engage in agricultural production in accordance with this
the law, if within a period of 1 year from the date of entry into force of this
law on registers the appropriate City Office of the municipality with extended
powers under section 2f law No. 252/1997 SB., on agriculture, in the text of the
of this law.
Certificate issued by the self hospodařícímu rolníkovi according to the law No.
105/1990 Coll., on citizens ' private business, in the wording of Act No. 219/1991
Coll. and Act No. 455/1991 Coll., the 5 years from the date of entry into force of
This law
; the holder of this certificate, for the purposes of sickness and pension
insurance and health insurance be considered agricultural entrepreneurs
for the performance of agricultural production under this Act. If self
peasant farmers is not going to engage in agricultural production in accordance with this
the Bill, requested by the local authority municipalities with extended competence for the issue
confirmation of the removal from the register of persons held under the Act No 105/1990
Coll. on the private business of citizens, as amended by Act No. 219/1991 Coll. and
Act No. 455/1991 Coll.
2. the person operating on the date of entry into force of this law on the basis of the
business licence obtained prior to the effective date of this law
the activities, which are agricultural production under this Act and by the time
its effectiveness has been živnostmi pursuant to Act No. 455/1991 Coll., on the
trades (Trade Act), as amended
regulations, shall be considered an agricultural entrepreneur under this Act.
The person referred to in the first sentence shall, within a period of 1 year from the date of
This Act takes effect on the appropriate municipal register Office
municipalities with expanded authority under section 2f law No. 252/1997 SB., about
Agriculture, as amended by this Act. If the person fails to comply with the obligation to
to register within the specified period, the permission to operate these activities
shall cease. By the time of fulfilment of the obligation to register under section 2f of this
the law is a trade licence issued in accordance with the first sentence of the permission card
the relevant agricultural entrepreneurs to engage in agricultural production
in accordance with this Act.
"
22. point 1 of the transitional provisions of Act No. 85/2004 Coll. pleaded guilty in
Interim changes legislatively-technical character of the law No 441/2005
Coll., which, however, the nature of the contested provisions retained without change. In
accordance with the law on Agriculture and rules of formal logic was
repealed the statutory presumption that narrowing for a period of five years —
incorporation status of farmers agricultural entrepreneurs according to the
the law on agriculture, but only
"for the purposes of sickness and pension insurance and health
insurance "
. The narrowing was cancelled and the terms
"under this Act, an agricultural entrepreneur"
and
"person established in agriculture"
have been standardized in the form
"the agricultural entrepreneur
[true]
for the performance of agricultural production under this Act "
. At the end of paragraph 1 was connected to the text:
"If the self-employed farmer is not going to engage in agricultural
production under this Act, it shall ask the local authority of the municipality with extended
scope of issue of the certificate of disposal from the register of persons held under the
Law No. 105/1990 Coll., on citizens ' private business, in the text of the Act
No 219/1991 Coll. and Act No 455/1991 Sb. "
.
23. Here, however, was not the substance of the contested provisions with regard to
the nature of the objections of plaintiffs amended. In terms of section 66 paragraph. 1 of the law on
The Constitutional Court therefore identified the reason non-proposal, or reason to
termination of the proceeding [see, by analogy, the third paragraph of part VII c) award from the
on 31 December 2004. 10.2001, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 15/01, collection of decisions, volume 24,
finding no. 164, p. 201; promulgated under no. 424/2001 Coll.].
III. C) the admissibility of the application for revocation of the amendment
24. The proposal was acceptable even in the part in which it proposed the abolition of the
the transitional provisions of the amendment to the law on agriculture, as this
the provisions are part of this amendment only. In the very act of
Agriculture is absent and are not part of it (cf.. III. part of the
the award of 12 June. 3.2002, SP. zn. PL-33/01, collection of decisions,
Volume 25, finding no. 28, p. 215; promulgated under no. 145/2002 Coll.). It was not
the case of the same things were the discovery of 12 June. 2. the 2002 sp.
Zn. PL. TC 21/01 (a collection of decisions, volume 25, finding no. 14, p. 97;
promulgated under no. 95/2002 Coll.), the Constitutional Court stated
neprojednatelnost in the design, in which the challenged provisions of the novelizující
geothermal in the novelizovaném text.
III. (D)) the constitutionality of legislative procedures
25. Before the consideration of the content of the contested provisions with regard to their
accordance with the constitutional law of the Constitutional Court (within the meaning of section 68 (2)
in fine of the Act on the Constitutional Court) to assess compliance with formal requirements
the adoption of the contested act. The legislative procedure was not the participants of the
called into question. Of the relevant documents in a digital library
The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, or on the Internet
website of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (www.psp.cz or
www.senat.cz), shows that the bill approved by July 4. 11.2003
Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (116 votes) was on the
the basis of the resolution of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic of 10 June 1999. 12.2003
The House returned (33 votes from the present 64) with amendments,
that the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate proposal as amended on 14 July.
1.2004 (134 votes). The same attitude adopted House
the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic on 10. 2. in 2004, when the 133 votes for
outvoted veto of the Bill, which the President's law
returned (article 50, paragraph 1, of the Constitution) on 29. 1.2004. Then the law of 19 December 2003.
2. the 2004 under number 85/2004 Coll., published in collection of laws. The constitutional
the Court notes that the law No. 85/2004 Coll., which was in law No.
252/1997 Coll., on agriculture, inserted contested provision was adopted
The Constitution for anticipated manner.
IV. Your own review
IV.) and the objective pursued by the condition of integrity
26. The claimants in the first place attacked by the condition of integrity
agricultural entrepreneurs
[section 2e, paragraph 1 (b), (c))
and follow-up
section 2e, paragraph. 5 of the law on Agriculture]
as a condition of excessive and unconstitutionally to prevent access to
business without such a restriction of the basic law was necessary and
justifiable from the standpoint of the public interest.
27. in such a situation, the Constitutional Court examines the constitutionality of the standard
restrictions on fundamental rights of the test of proportionality. In the award of 13 April. 8.
2002, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/02, the Constitutional Court with reference to the preamble and the first
Article of the Constitution stated that, in cases of conflicts of fundamental rights and
freedoms with the public interest, or with other fundamental rights or freedoms:
"... is the need to assess purpose (goal) of such intervention in relation to used
resources, while taking the measure of this is the principle of assessment
proportionality (adequacy in the broader sense), which can also be
known as the prohibition of interference in the more rights and freedoms. This General
the policy includes
the three criteria
the assessment of the admissibility of the intervention. The first of these is the
the principle of eligibility for the fulfillment of the purpose of the
(or fitness), according to which the relevant measures must be at
able to achieve the intended objective, which is another of the basic protection
rights or the public good. Then this is the
the principle of necessity
According to which it is allowed to use only the most environmentally-friendly-in relation to the
concerned the fundamental rights and freedoms-of more possible resources.
The third principle is
the principle of proportionality (in the narrower sense)
According to the basic law which the injury shall not be excessive in relation to the
the intended target, IE. measures restricting fundamental human rights and
freedom must not, in the case of the collision of the basic rights and freedom with the public
interest, its negative consequences exceed benefits, which
represents the public interest in such measures "(a collection of decisions,
Volume 27, finding no. 105.177 and 183; promulgated under no. 405/2002 Coll.).
The test of proportionality belong to the standard legal tools how to
European constitutional courts and courts of international or transnational
(cf. the numerous decisions of the European Court of human rights; its
a variant of the test of proportionality uses, of course, the European Court of
Court-see also the Constitutional Court of 8 April. 3.2006, SP. zn. PL.
TC 50/04 announced 26 March. 4.2006 under no 154/2006 Coll., and quoted here
case law of the European Court of Justice).
28. The test of proportionality requires to locate and identify
the objectives of the provisions restricting the fundamental right. What the target has to watch
the condition of integrity of agricultural entrepreneurs, is not prima facie clear,
and not to amend the draft explanatory memorandum to the amendment to the law on agriculture
such a goal does not (cf. House print no. 305/0 sent to members
on 12 June 2006. 6. in 2003, the digital library of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament
The Czech Republic on URwww.psp.cz). In the initial debate was not a condition
integrity of the promoters in the Chamber of Deputies no closer
justified (cf. ibid.). Day 10. 2.2004 (in the debate over
President of the Republic returned to the law) Agriculture Minister Jaroslav
Palas in the Chamber of Deputies stated:
"Integrity is Required in the draft law specified very closely on the
natural persons, agricultural entrepreneurs and responsible legal representative
the person
with a view to preventively protect
to such persons exclusively with business in agriculture nedopouštěly
in particular, the repeated crime. Particular emphasis is needed
the experience so far with the crime that the person doing business
in agriculture perpetrated by in connection with illegally obtained or
used subsidies, i.e., funds from the State budget.
Specification of integrity, which is listed in section 2e paragraph 5 of the draft,
in no way does not restrict the persons who have criminal records, but
This crime was a minor social danger, or
It does not apply to business in agriculture. It does not preclude the possibility
the owner or user of agricultural land in the event that it is not blameless in the
the meaning of this draft law, ensure
nutrition
yourself, or your family, but outside of the mode of business activity. ".
The Constitutional Court therefore, the objective of the legislator considered to ensure the proper
management of agricultural subsidies (cf. also the comments of the Chairman of
The Chamber of Deputies).
29. Article 26, paragraph. 2 of the Charter foresees the possibility of limiting the exercise of
certain professions or activities the law without specified purpose
the restrictions. The legal standards issued on its basis must, however, compete in the test
of proportionality. First is the need to assess the nature of the objectives, which
limitations of monitors. Lawmakers justify the condition of integrity of the public
interest in the proper management of public money, the intensity and the nature of the
may (according to the beliefs of the legislature) legitimize the flat-rate restrictions
entry into the sector just for those agricultural entrepreneurs who meet the
the necessary conditions for successful pumping subsidies. The objective that the provisions of this
tracks appear to be legitimate.
30. However, it is also necessary to Examine the need for the selected resource from the
the perspective of its economy in relation to the Basic Law-IE. for a free
the business. Not to be overlooked, that the purpose of agriculture is not pumping
subsidies, but crop and animal production. Whether it is possible to agricultural
produce only with subsidies, it should be left to the daily reality, the
the result of the activities stemming from the free decisions of individuals. From
It necessarily follows that the decision about whether entrepreneurs will
do business with the use of subsidies, would be in terms of the article. 26 of the Charter should be
left to their choice. In the event that they decide to apply for a grant,
It is conceivable that the legislature tied to just the positive decision on the
the provision of subsidies on integrity in the range vážícímu is the statutory
the use of public funds provided by the applicant in the past. From
It follows that the chosen solution is not in terms of konkurujícího
most of the basic law. It was therefore not necessary to continue the test
proportionality, as the condition of integrity in terms of failed!
the need for a selected resource, as is the basic freedom of publication
business and the desired state (reference objectives) can be achieved
(for example, during the process of allocating and monitoring the treatment of subsidies,
as mentioned above).
31. For these reasons, the Constitutional Court decided to repeal the provisions of the
section 2e, paragraph. 1 (a). (c)) of the law on agriculture
, defining the condition of integrity. As the related was cancelled
the provisions of the
section 2e, paragraph. 5 of the law on agriculture
, which defines the concept of integrity for the purposes of the law on Agriculture [to
This procedure, see. Part VII. (d)) of the award in the case sp.. PL. ÚS 15/01,
Collection of decisions, volume 24, finding no. 164, p. 201; promulgated under no.
424/2001 Coll.].
IV. B) the need for and adequacy of conditions of expertise
32. The objective pursued by the condition of expertise
[section 2e, paragraph 1, point (b) (d)) and article 2f, paragraph. 2 (a). (b)) of the law on agriculture
and related
section 2f, paragraph. 3 (b). (c)),
the words of the
"and (c))" in section 2f, paragraph. 4 (b). (c)) and article 2f, paragraph. 8 of the law on Agriculture]
It is clear and understandable, and also corresponds to the purpose of the law on agriculture, which
is:
") creating the conditions for ensuring the ability of the Czech agriculture
to secure the basic nutrition, population, food security and the necessary
non-food raw materials; (b) creating the conditions for support)
non-productive functions of agriculture that contribute to the protection of components
the environment, such as soil, water and air, and to the maintenance of populated and
the cultural landscape; (c) the creation of conditions for the implementation) of the common
agricultural policy and rural development policy of the European Union. "
[cf. § 1 of the law on agriculture in the version applicable until 9. 11.2005; After
This date was extended by a further purpose of the Act, which is
"(d)) creating conditions for the development of various economic activities and
improve the quality of life in rural areas and for the development of villages. "
].
33. The Minister of agriculture in the first reading of a draft amendment to the law on the
Agriculture in the Chamber of Deputies on 11 July. 6.2003 stated:
"the amendment of the law
[I]
discussed with a broad agricultural public at different meetings,
including farmers, individuals. They understand that the basic things
each farmer is not only working on the entrusted property, but also
sebevzdělávat. They take it as a natural necessity, because development in
the area of agricultural production going forward. Come new and new knowledge
Science and research, so i feel the need to educate the farmers, and the newly
beginning farmer by rather. I have discussed this matter, as I have already
He said, with a wide range of agricultural and the public they minimum
the requirement of 300 hours to fully respect and understand. So I lay these
bikeways and concerns for more or less out of the question. "
(cf.. stenozáznam to print a 350/0, the digital library of the
the Chamber of Deputies). On 14 June 2004. 1.2004 in front of the debate over the Senate returned
by law the Senator Jan Fencl said:
"only the highly skilled farmers and entrepreneurs in agriculture are
warranty competitiveness and social prestige of the sector, which
It is now at the bottom of a nationwide review. Without it, that would be our
professionally prepared, farmers are not able to-and I agree-
rearm the necessary funding from the European Union, on which
eagerly waiting. These and other arguments may seem negative, because
the amendments introduced to the deletion of the integrity and professional
the qualifications were not accepted "
(ibid, stenozáznam to print a 350/3).
34. The Constitutional Court had to once again assess the proportionality of the restriction of rights
a business by determining the conditions of expertise. The plaintiffs here have pointed
on the discovery of 25 June. 11.2003, where the Constitutional Court stated that:
"it is to some extent the public too, which positively shaped and lays down
the conditions for the exercise of professions and economic activities and creates
actually, the projections of the performance of such activities (status
positivus). The essence of the rights under article. 26 paragraph. 1 of the Charter must necessarily lead
the differentiation of economic activities according to the different degrees of ingerence,
participation of the public or even to the control of
such economic activities. The determination of the conditions and limitations of performance
certain professions and certain economic activities take place public
very much in the public interest, which is primarily interested in the quality of the performance
such activities. One of the assumptions ... for example, and adequate
degree achieved
education
and the appropriate length
practice
in a given field of activity. In such cases, you must always watch,
whether the restriction of the right of such public interest is still
the proportional
or even whether there is no such restriction for disruption or denial of the
the meaning and essence of the Basic Law (the right to freedom of choice
occupation). " (cf. find SP. zn. I. ÚS 504/03, collection of decisions,
volume 31, find no 138, p. 227).
35. The condition of the agricultural skills of the entrepreneur, which limits the
the freedom of business, it should be aprobovat from the viewpoint of the assessment of the legitimacy of the
objectives, which tracks. This is primarily the quality of the performance of the agricultural
the business. The single purpose, but does not guarantee the safety of
product for the consumer.
36. With regard to the principle of the necessity of the situation is not so clear, since the
the legislature defined the condition options expertise very strictly.
For new entrepreneurs, lays down a condition of secondary education, which is
obligatorním rekvalifikačnímu course to be completed where the
"the candidates for business in agriculture"
do not have the area closely (or given)-oriented education.
The equivalent of this education is then a five-year practice in the agricultural
the firm, which is not made clear whether the concept of an undertaking also applies to the
the former self-employed farmers, respectively. individual
business owners. In the case that the practice took place outside of the collective agricultural
the bodies have not been considered as a practice within the meaning of section 2f, paragraph. 2 (a). (b))
section 2 of the law on agriculture, then such application practice could not be
considered constitutionally conformal, since it was not possible to determine
objective and reasonable criteria establishing the importance of training
the yield of the practice in the collective farm compared to the practice in the
operated by the company, on an individual basis. Prefer, of course,
must have constitutionally Conformal interpretation.
37. There was therefore to assess the situation from the point of view of the persons that do not have
the appropriate secondary vocational education and do not have five years ' experience in the
Agriculture. Such persons, the law on agriculture does not allow you to do business.
They are forced to either establish a legal person and to hire a responsible
Representative, or postpone business on time, when the condition of the practice,
or get the secondary vocational education in the agricultural (or related)
or complete a retraining course (after obtaining any other
secondary vocational education).
38. The Constitutional Court has already in the past, stated that:
"In the interpretation of article. 26 of the Charter ... it is necessary to bear in mind that, according to article. 41
paragraph. 1 of the Charter, it is possible with the rights enshrined in article. 26 to demand ' only
the limits of the law, that these provisions are carried out '. The legislature has therefore
the relatively wide available for a specific definition of the content and the method of
the implementation of this article. However, even in this case, is bound by the constitutional
maximami, from which the main in this sense represents the article. 4 (4). 4
Of the Charter. ... In other words, neither mentioned the relative freedom of the legislature,
resulting from the article. paragraph 41. 1, can lead to a form of the Act
violated the essence and meaning of article. 26 of the Charter, which guarantees in paragraph 1
everyone the right to free choice of profession and to prepare for it, as well as
the right to do business and engage in other economic activities. "
(from 12 May 2003. 7.2001, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 11/2000, collection of decisions,
Volume 23, finding no 113, p. 105; promulgated under no. 322/2001 Coll.). In
the meaning of the cited legal opinion as very hard and
the obligation to fulfil the condition appears to be monospaced expertise exclusively
personally, having regard to the provisions of § diction listed 2e paragraph. 1 of the law
on agriculture applies to all natural persons, which is so hindered in
the business. Such restrictions, however, cannot succeed in the measurement principle
the need for, and all the more when weighing the proportionality criterion in the strict
the meaning of (see above). However, the agricultural products become a part of
food chain and agriculture is hauntingly associated with
farming on land (or the production of organic food, use
biochemical preparations, fertilizers, feed, plant health care and
the development of the non-productive functions of agriculture), it is not clear why it would
Security for the public interest in these areas require
not having the necessary education, entrepreneur or practice was in the field at all
do business. The Constitutional Court is obliged to refuse the request of expertise
agricultural entrepreneurs in general terms applicable to all forms of
the agricultural business. In doing so, is aware that with regard to the very
broad definition of agricultural production, including the management of forests and
on the surfaces of water in a newly inserted provisions, section 2e, paragraph. 3 may, after
This amendment to the present activity, for which the demand is increased
expertise undoubtedly justified and proportionate to the nature of these activities and
(for example, the production and the use of genetic material breeding animals
or plants), but the legislature erred will pray request
increased professional capacity exclusively to those forms of agricultural activity,
that would be warranted and postulated it at a flat rate in relation to all
forms of agricultural production.
39. the objectives pursued by establishing the conditions, however, the skill can be
to achieve otherwise, eg. using the well-proven practice Institute
the responsible representative. However, the Institute can take advantage only of a legal
persons (cf. codicil to section 2e, paragraph 1, the law on Agriculture). The provisions of the
imposing an obligation to meet personally, therefore does not meet the skill condition
the criterion of the need, as it is not the friendliest way
(article 4, paragraph 4, since article 26, paragraph 1, of the Charter), to achieve the goal
reference the public interest.
40. The Constitutional Court therefore set aside as provisions
section 2e, paragraph. 1, point (a). (d))
and
section 2f, paragraph. 2 (a). (b)) of the law on agriculture,
so the provisions related
section 2f, paragraph. 3 (b). (c))
, words
"and (c))" in section 2f, paragraph. 4 (b). (c)) and article 2f, paragraph. 8 of the law on agriculture
. The moment of cancellation of these provisions was established on 30 April 2005. 6.2007.
Lawmakers are then given to the condition of expertise stipulated
constitutionally Conformal manner and with regard to existing practices in
the area of the public regulation of business. In the intervening period between the announcement of the
the award, in the collection of laws and the repeal of these provisions, it is necessary to act on the
Agriculture applied constitutionally Conformal manner.
IV. C) way to change the regulation of the business carried out in direct relation
with agriculture
41. Amendment of the legal regulation of entrepreneurs engaged in direct connection
Agriculture ("secondary agricultural entrepreneurs") appellants
tagged for violating the freedom of entrepreneurship (article 26, paragraph 1, of the Charter).
The main argument was the voucher on the absence of Rapture of such persons from the
a stable legal framework within the framework of an uncertain. Therefore demanded the cancellation of the
the provisions of the
section 2e, paragraph. 3 of the law on agriculture,
defining the concept of agricultural production, and the abolition of
article. (II) point 2 of the amendment to the law on agriculture,
determining the demise of the existing business licence. This two
the provisions of the Act must be assessed together with the construction.
42. From the overall context of the law on Agriculture and its comparison with
trade law shows that the new conditions to be considered
more stringent for all natural persons engaged in connection with the
agriculture under the still valid edits, since the law made it impossible for them to
to meet the legal requirements by the responsible representative, which
the present adaptation allowed (law on agriculture does not include provisions
similar to the provisions of § 11-14 valid Trade Licensing Act or
the provisions of section 7 (1). 4 repealed the law on citizens ' private business no.
105/1990 Coll.). Natural persons operating in direct connection with the
agriculture must meet the requirements of the law on agriculture, personally, otherwise
their permission to do business, which it follows from point 2 of the article. (II) the amendment to the
the law on agriculture.
43. The amendment to the amendment to the law on agriculture clearly established
the demise of the existing commercial privileges (article. (II) point 2 of the amendment to the Act
on Agriculture) and established a business in agriculture is possible only
compliance with the conditions of the law on Agriculture (the introductory section 2e, paragraph 1, of the law on
Agriculture; CF.. the resolution of the agricultural Committee of 1 March. 10.2003,
the digital library of the Chamber of Deputies, printing, 350/1). The aim of the
the design was the unification of the legal status of all persons engaged in the
Agriculture. It is clear from the debate on the second reading of the Assembly on 22.
10.2003, when members of the agricultural Committee of the zdůvodňovali proposed changes
of course the skill requirement and the requirements of the European Union. Member of the
Jan Grůza, said:
"The European Union wants us three important things. Us wants to clear the registry
animals, clear the registry of land and clear the registry of entrepreneurs in the agricultural
the production. If we don't have these three things right, we will not be able to
draw and the entrepreneur will also not be able to draw the money of the European Union.
Just for this reason, we need to keep a clear record of agricultural
entrepreneurs. No one shall prevent any private entrepreneurs, to
took the stage and began on her farm. Friends, it can do immediately-
take according to the law of the land and the other their land and begin farming.
But if you want to achieve on the money of the European Union, in accordance with this
the law will have to duly register and under this law will be able to
start asking for money for the European Union. Only the meaning of this law. "
Another Member of the agricultural Committee, Member of Ladislav Skopal, in house
the debate. He said:
"... five years practice in the case that does not meet the qualifying requirements, in
Basically what was said. This means 300 hours to go through certain
rate of Exchange. Every business must have some qualifications. I think,
that agriculture is not such a business, we don't have to know anything. I'm sorry
a little agricultural activity that Mr. mp Kučera considered so
low, that can take anyone, what nothing. "
(cf. ibid. General and detailed photographs and a video of the debate to print no. 350).
44. The Constitutional Court consistently recalls the links principle of predictability
the consequences of the law with the principles of the rule of law (e.g., SP. zn. PL.
TC 6/2000, collection of decisions, volume 21, finding no 22, p. 195; announced
under Act No. 77/2001 Coll., SP. zn. PL-40/02, collection of decisions,
volume 30, finding no. 88, p. 327; promulgated under no. 199/2003 Coll.).
The predictability of the legal act is undoubtedly to be considered
from the viewpoint of the dynamic. As pointed out, the Constitutional Court, the plaintiffs in the
past changes in the conditions, judged the constitutionality of the profession in the things
determined to find of 7 July. 6. the 1995 SP. zn. PL. ÚS 4/95 (collection
the decision, volume 3, finding no 29, p. 209; promulgated under no. 169/1995
SB.), where the case was measured in terms of the categories of equality. Without
The Constitutional Court said from this case law, could not overlook, that
its own case-law developed in the meantime. The amendment regulation has
Indeed, even in the realm of natural effects of the protection of legitimate expectations. How it was
recalled in the award of 13 April. 12.2005:
"... an assessment of the contextual aspects of the constitutionality of limits according to the existing
the case-law of the Constitutional Court are ... the arbitrariness of the legislature in the determination
the time limits. Within the meaning of this perspective, the assessment of the constitutionality of the period progressed
the Court in the matter of sp.. PL. ÚS 2/02 a collection of decisions, volume 32, find no.
35; promulgated under no. 278/2004 Coll.), which called for the unconstitutional
repeal the provisions ... of the civil code ... which the legislature intervened in the
legitimate expectations ... the bodies just one day before the expiry of the time limit,
the acquisition of ownership has occurred, as a result of which
the bodies, which have acted in reliance on the State of the conditions laid down in advance,
they were just a day before the expiry of the said period compared with arbitrary
the procedure of the State, which the Court found conflicting with article. 1 Additional
Protocol to the Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (and with it the
citing the case-law of the European Court on human rights matters
Broniowski against Poland from 2002, Gratzinger and Gratzingerová against the
The Czech Republic from 2002, Zvolský and Zvolská against the Czech Republic from r.
2001). "
(cf. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 6/05, has been declared under the no 531/2005 Coll., or on
URwww.judikatura.cz).
45. Of the outlined principles implies that the legislature must change the legal
Regulation take account of the current legal situation and the changes must be carried out
sensitively, and only to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives of the regulation. Take on the
This behavior of the legislature is necessary, since it guarantees the stability of the
the realm of free negotiations. The laws define the basic structure in which
the framework puts the free activities. If they are uncertain of the legal boundaries
the requirements of, i.e.. If they are not respected the legitimate expectation based on the
the law is uncertain and freedom. Therefore, the protection of legitimate expectations
an integral part of the rule of law (see, mutatis mutandis, from 26 March. 4.
2005, SP. zn. IV. TC 167/05, URwww.judikatura.cz). Taking into account the legitimate
the expectation is a vital dimension of legality (cf. to Rawls,
J., a theory of Justice, Prague, Victoria Publishing, 1995, p. 145).
From command respect legitimate expectations arising from existing
of course, the legislation cannot be inferred prohibition on amendments to the legislation. As
just that when deciding on the choice of design changes
legislature to those expectations and that neignoroval watched the addressees
their standards of behavior (and the choice between different alternatives) for a longer period of time
adapted to the requirements of different content.
46. The requirement of compliance with the conditions of the personal expertise and integrity
together with the short period of the demise of the existing permissions is very hard.
The way the change was made, it was not necessary or not required
the objectives pursued. Indeed, even if you can recognize the unification of adjustments
legitimate purpose of the legislature, as it tracks the clarification of the rule of law, it is
the question of whether the law was just on agriculture should be by law, under which the
the application scope of regulation of the agricultural business should be brought,
as the public service terms and conditions of business already regulates the Trade Act,
the applications are in addition, years of experience, and in it contained
the institutes must therefore be regarded as best practice.
47. It is common ground that the definition of the concept of agricultural production, contained in the
the provisions of the
section 2e, paragraph. 3 of the law on agriculture
There has been a change in the regulatory framework of the secondary agricultural
entrepreneurs (as confirmed by the Chamber of Deputies), but the reach of the
This provision goes beyond the defined engagement. A proposal from the
asked for the repeal of this provision, however, was challenged by the erosion of
in particular, the way in which the legislator chose when the transition to the new edit, then
is the primary fault to be found in the
article. (II) point 2 of the amendment to the law on agriculture
which secondary provides for registration of entrepreneurs for the new
conditions and the demise of the previous permission, because these provisions
is an expression of the claimant alleged neústavnosti changes of legal regulation.
Therefore, the Constitutional Court upheld the application for revocation
article. (II) point 2 of the amendment to the law on agriculture
and rejected the proposal to repeal the provisions of the
section 2e, paragraph. 3 of the law on agriculture
.
48. The appellants also requested cancellation of the dovětků to the provisions of the
section 2e, paragraph. 1 of the law on agriculture
that legal entities allows you to meet the conditions of integrity and
expertise through the responsible representative, but the cancellation of this
the provisions would make it impossible for legal persons in the agricultural business, which
the intervention, which could not be justified by the argument that other entities is
prevented from doing business. Such understanding of the principle of equality is devoid of the attributes
a reasonable interpretation of the law, and therefore was rejected. Indeed, even
the appellants themselves stated (p. 13) that, if the will is found to be
the defective nature of the business, the mode changes in this part of the proposal is irrelevant. For
discriminatory and longer period was considered by proponents of the demise of the permissions
self-employed farmers (
the above part of the article. II, point 1 of the amendment to the law on agriculture
). Nor could the constitutional court petition. The actual situation of these
persons (and the resulting ability to respond to changes) from the
secondary agricultural entrepreneurs very different and for a different mode
You can find a reasonable prima facie grounds. Providing "advantages" should, therefore,
the expression could not be considered constitutionally unacceptable arbitrariness (cf..
find Pl. TC 16/93, collection, volume 1, decision finding no. 25, p. 189;
promulgated under no. 131/1994 Coll., and other findings). Therefore, the Constitutional Court
in these parts (cf. above paragraph 9 and 10).
49. Of all of the above reasons, the Constitutional Court ruled, as shown
in his statements.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
