The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court ruled on 14 June 2005. February 2001 in plenary on the proposal for the sugar refinery in.,
s. r. o., the annulment of Decree-Law No. 51/2000 Coll., laying down
the measures and the share of the State in the creation of conditions for ensuring and maintaining the
the production of sugar beet and sugar and stabilisation of the market in sugar,
Government Regulation No. 51/2000 Coll., laying down the measures and the share of State
in the creation of conditions for ensuring and maintaining the production of sugarbeet and sugar and
stabilisation of the market in sugar shall be repealed on the date of publication of this finding in the
The collection of laws.
On 4 April 2006. August 2000 constitutional complaint, the Constitutional Court received a sugar refinery in.,
s. r. o., against measures of the Ministry of Agriculture of 2 July. June 2000
No 1914/2000-1000 on the determination of specific individual sugar quotas
for the marketing year 2000/2001. By that measure, established the Ministry of
complainant an individual quota on sugar, and broken down 7 470 tonnes for the
domestic quota and 2 490 tonnes for export quota when originally
the complainant requested the 27 000 tonnes for the domestic market and for export of 5,000 tons.
Along with a constitutional complaint the complainant lodged a proposal to repeal Regulation
No 51/2000 Coll., laying down the measures and the share of State
the creation of conditions for ensuring and maintaining the production of sugarbeet and sugar and
stabilisation of the market in sugar.
The Fourth Chamber of the Constitutional Court by a resolution of 20 November 2003. September 2000, SP. zn. IV.
CS 468/2000 according to § 78 para. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the constitutional
the court interrupted the proceedings on constitutional complaints, and annulment
of the cited regulation, the Government plenary session of the Constitutional Court.
Company sugar refinery in., s. r. o., (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") stated that the
sugar factory's rented to a planned production of 32 000 tonnes of sugar per year from Mr
O. m., who bought this sugar factory from the estate of the bankrupt-
the company's Union, and sugar, on the basis of the purchase agreement of 4 March.
November 1999. The Treaty had been concluded at a time when no one could
anticipate that the contested regulation the Government will be doing business in the area of production
sugar greatly restricted or prevented. The company has put into obtaining
the sugar itself and to purchase new technology considerable
the means to achieve the scheduled annual capacity, but after
the release of government regulation is built into a situation where is forced to ask
The Ministry of agriculture to issue measures pursuant to this regulation,
Although she is convinced that such regulation is unconstitutional and production
In the opinion of the appellants to the performance of certain activities, which can be
production and sale of sugar produced, limited only by the law, not
Therefore, regulation of the Government. In addition, the Government has created a special regulation, in
basically the preferred category called. strategic sugar manufacturers
(listed in annex No. 1 of the cited Government Regulation),
administrative channels and without the possibility of other companies
producing sugar if only affect the selection of sugar listed as follows.
This led to an advantage one group of producers at the expense of other groups,
as regards the possibility of and access to the business referred to in article. 26 paragraph 2. 1 of the Charter
fundamental rights and freedoms ("the Charter"), in conjunction with article. 1 and article.
3 (2). 1 of the Charter, the equality in rights. Further, the appellant stated that the
According to the introductory sentence of the Government regulation for the powers of execution to the
the fixing of quotas apparently considers the § 2 (2). 1 of law No 249/1997 Coll., on
Agriculture. However, this provision shall not confer any right to definitely
of a particular Government Department, including the Government, to issue subordinate
legislation in the area of kvotace and the regulation of the production and
Save your rights and obligations. However, the Government may issue its regulation without
express authorisation, must be done within the limits laid down by law, which
in that case it is not.
In addition, the appellant expressed disagreement with the fact that the conditions for
price stabilisation of the market in agricultural commodities could be
interpreted as meaning that the Government is in a position to achieve this goal, certain
bodies removed from options freely do business in a field, without having to
had the authorization in the Act. About the questions kvotace and regulation of production
agricultural commodities cannot be modified simply by regulation of the Government, evidenced by the
Indeed, the fact that after the release of the contested regulation, the Ministry of
Agriculture, Government and Parliament, the draft law that such
the procedure allows. In the oral proceedings the appellant then said it had to
the mind in the meantime adopted Law No. 257/2000 Coll., on the State farm
the intervention of the Fund and on the amendments to certain other laws (the law on the State
the agricultural intervention fund). Actually, it was confirmed that the
the regulation made by the contested regulation in form does not hold water. The contested
Government regulation in the opinion of the appellant violates the right to do everything
is not prohibited by law, and the right not to be forced to do what the law does not impose
[article 2, paragraph 4, of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") and article 2 (2).
3 of the Charter]. If the appellant has accepted measures of the Ministry of
Agriculture, the production facilities of the sugar refinery used to roughly 30%, and
This actually happens to economic coercion operation disposed of with great
loss. By then there will be an infringement of article 81(1). 11 of the Charter, which guarantees the
protection of property rights and provides that the right of ownership shall have the same legal
the contents and protection. The appellant is a prohibited de facto made
sugar on the market in the Czech Republic, by decision of the State and without compensation.
At the same time, the appellant stated that, in a similar way could be to
disposal and to discriminate against producers and other food commodities.
In the comments, which the Constitutional Court challenge was lodged, the Government stated that
Government Regulation No. 51/2000 was issued to implement section 2 (2). 1
Act No. 252/1997 Coll., on agriculture. This provision, while the express
authorization to issue a government regulation does not, however, under art. 78 of the Constitution
the Government is authorised to perform the Act and within the limits of
-can the law do its regulations even without express authorisation.
Enumerate the measures set out in that provision of the law on agriculture, to be
used to achieve the purpose of the Act, is only illustrative. The Government, therefore,
considers it possible for the Executive power in the implementation of this provision
used other measures will lead to the achievement of the statutory objective-the creation
conditions for maintaining production potential of agriculture, in particular
the case in the area of sugar beet farming and sugar production and to
stabilization of the sugar market as one of the basic agricultural
commodities. State are not subject to such measures, as opposed to supporting
and indirect aid programmes, the approval of the Chamber of Deputies
Parliament. The Government is therefore of the opinion that the contested regulation does not exceed and
does not violate article. 78 of the Constitution, because it does not deviate from the limits of the law, to whose
the implementation is specified.
The Government further pointed out that the contested regulation is not hurting the rights
the appellants are free to do business. This regulation, the Government decided in a certain
way to motivate a sugar manufacturer-both the so-called. strategic and
other manufacturers-to reduce production by establishing domestic and export
the quotas of sugar and they also offers various forms of State compensation
assistance (provision of professional advice, market research, with sugar,
the provision of export options, assistance in ensuring the buying-in of sugar).
The provision of section 10 of the regulation is to be interpreted in the context of the whole
legal regulation. In particular, of section 11 makes it clear that compliance with the
the quota is based on a voluntary basis and advantages for producers to
the basis of the desired behavior is entitled to the said compensation forms
of State aid. For producers who exceed quotas, are not
fixed penalties, does not, however, entitled to the application of the measures referred to in paragraph
6 to 8. Regulation of the Government are not stored other obligations than those which
are laid down in the law, and thus to limit the right of access to
business according to article. 26 paragraph 2. 1 of the Charter. On the contrary, the Government itself is committed to
do certain positive measures in favour of producers who behave
a big way, which is clear from section 1 of the Government Regulation, according to which the
This regulation governs the State's participation in the creation of conditions for ensuring and
maintain production and sugar diabetes and stabilization of the sugar market within the territory of
Of the Czech Republic. Access to the market is not so enclosed or capped.
Still, the Government stated that the allegation of a violation of the guarantees of equal rights and
discrimination other than strategic, since sugar manufacturers
When issuing the contested regulation the Government were taken into account realistically
the existing differences in production capacity between the various bodies.
Institute for strategic manufacturers was created with regard to the expected
production in the marketing year and certainly was not made accidentally or on
the basis of administrative discretion, but on the basis of clearly specified criteria
-the objective characteristics of the individual producers, based on the
the production volume of individual sugar factories in the last five years, therefore, the
taking into account their long-term activity. Just not taking into consideration these
objective differences would be discrimination as it would at a disadvantage
large manufacturers who have invested in their development perspective considerable
resources. Having regard to the limited capacity of the sugar market, the Government
She and trying to stabilize the situation, and therefore is forced to in some way
limit the scope of its assistance to growers of sugar beet producers or sugar. In
options for sugar manufacture and placing it on the market, however, there are no
Based on the facts, the Government expressed the belief that the contents of the
the impugned government regulation is balanced so that it did not act in a discriminatory way
against any of the growers or producers of sugar beet, in no case
then it is not focused on reducing their number, and therefore proposed the rejection
The Ministry of agriculture in the representation that has been requested before
the interruption of the proceedings on constitutional complaints, argued that the contested regulation
the Government is not intended to be an approximation of the law of the European communities, even if
adopts the principles applied in the Member States of the European Union.
Is based in particular on the following principles:
-the transposition obligations article. 69 and 70 of the Europe Agreement establishing an association
through Act No. 252/1997 Coll., on agriculture,
-fulfilment of the obligations towards the EU and the WTO-to introduce the so-called. order, 1917
-the temporary validity of Government Regulation (only for the marketing year
2000/2001. from the 1. August 2000 to 30. September 2001),
-determination of individual quotas to sugar producers (11 strategic
sugar factories in 8 bodies in the past five years
manufactured and marketed by an average of at least 10 000 tonnes of sugar per year),
-fixing the minimum price, the minimum price for sugar beet and the maximum
the price of diabetes on the basis of § 1 (1). 6 of Act No. 526/1990 Coll., on prices,
to address the extraordinary market situation,
-the openness of the entire system for other sugar manufacturers on the basis of their
request for allocation of a specific individual quotas,
-self-financing export support with the help of its own financial reserves
individual producers in the amount of Czk 1 950 per tonne of produced sugar,
-compensatory forms of State assistance (provision of professional advice,
a survey of the sugar market, the provision of export options, assistance in
ensuring the buying-in of sugar).
The Ministry also said that the State expresses in this regulation only
support in maintaining the stability of the sector reached sugar and diabetes
in particular the grower to diabetes and sugar manufacturers. Proposal for a regulation of the Government was
After several months of training has been submitted to the discussion in the period corresponding to the
the beginning of agricultural sowing periods of diabetes. Left unchecked, the situation in the commodity
sugar-diabetes would ultimately could lead to overproduction and to
the collapse of the whole market in sugar and the failure to fulfil the commitments which the Government of the Czech
the Republic gave the EU. Government regulation is another step towards the solution of the system
the critical situation on the sugar market in the Czech Republic and follows on from the
the protection measures taken in August 1999 to imports of sugar into the United
Republic (Decree-Law No. 212/1999 Coll., laying down protective
measures on imports of sugar).
In the opinion of the Ministry is an organization of the sugar market by introducing
production quotas in the EU, the standard rule for more than 30 years. Regulation
society was observed growing interest in stabilizing
sugar beet and sugar production in the Czech Republic, without preference for natural
or legal persons, since kvotace touched on all existing
sugar manufacturers, without exception. However, the regulation does not prohibit anyone sugar
In reply to the observations of the Government of the appellant to continue to insist on
the opinion that the Government of the contested regulation in many ways exceeded the bounds of the
the provisions of § 2 (2). 1 of law No 249/1997 Coll., in its opinion, the
the Government could adopt regulations separately only in the field of "building
conditions for a stabilisation of the market in agricultural commodities ", in
However, such conditions cannot be regarded as definitely determining the so-called.
strategic sugar manufacturers. To admit such a freedom of interpretation of what
means creating conditions for price stabilisation, would mean that the
all in the provisions of § 2 of the law on agriculture would be completely unnecessary. According to the
appellant's view is not sugar production in agriculture, though the law itself
recognizes the concepts of "Agriculture" and "food", while paragraph 2 gives a clear
clear that it seeks only to support agriculture.
Further, the appellant stated that the observations of the Government absolutely does not indicate how
the Government motivates the rest of the producers (non-strategic) to reduce the production of
sugar. Unlike the Government, the appellant believes that the provisions of §
10 of the contested regulation, their penalty has, in conjunction with the provisions of section
11, for if someone produced even a single kilo of sugar in excess of the
quota that is allocated to him, then as a sanction, the withdrawing State aid
provided under section 6 to 8 of regulation of the Government. The appellant also does not share
views expressed in the observations of the Government that the regulation does not
set other obligations than those laid down in the Act. In this
context, drew attention to the obligation to provide extensive each month
the amount of information to the Ministry of agriculture (section 9) and the obligation to create
a financial reserve and use it (§ 4). Also stated that the Government actually
admits that choice to favour large producers who
have invested considerable resources to their development. However, to do
the appellant added that the information from which the Government relied on were
completely inadequate, since for example. in the case of the appellant, no survey
intentions and investments carried out was not. However, once the appellant has asked for
Special individual quota, have had to suffer the komisionální tour
sugar refinery, to answer to the Commission a substantial amount of questions and prove the amount of
data ordered by the Ministry of agriculture, although the contested regulation
the Government does not mention anything about this procedure.
Last but not least, then, the appellant added that in the meantime announced
kvotace on milk just confirm the severity of the problem, and notify you when
a dangerous trend of restricting the right to freely conduct business.
At a hearing on 14 June 2005. 2. the representative of the Government then presented the 2001 process
observations, which the Constitutional Court has been served on the day before the hearing.
In particular he said that after the formal constitutional complaint should be
rejected as inadmissible pursuant to section 75 para. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll.
Since the appellant does not exhaust the procedural means to protect their
rights. The contested act Department of agriculture considers the Government for administrative
the decision, which could and should be challenged by decomposition according to § 61
administrative code, administrative action, as appropriate. If so, the appellant
failed to do so, the judge-rapporteur, the complaint should be rejected. Not having done so,
such a decision should be taken by the plenary. As regards the substance, said
representatives of the Government, that this is a crucial decision. In the Czech Republic
the contract of the Association committed to creating a level playing field for all
investors from countries in the EU-15, and is therefore required to adapt and
obligations arising from the so-called. the common agricultural policy. In the EU countries
are the obligations deriving from article. 39 of the EC Treaty
catered primarily to sugar quotas and milk. Uttered so
opposition to the appellant's argument that the quota in
property rights, and to refer to the jurisprudence of the European Court of human
the rights to these issues. Further stated that the Government is convinced that the law No.
252/1997 Coll. can be interpreted in a way that suggests that
When you issue the Government Regulation No 51/2000 Coll. progressed within the limits of this
At the hearing, the Minister of Agriculture stated that at a time when Government
Regulation decision, could take into account only the sugar factories, which at that
the time of producing the white sugar, and a benchmark for the allocation of quotas was taken
the last five years of their production. Similarly, the Act in the past and
States of the EU. The appellant is one of the companies into the system
wanted to join up after it is created, and therefore believes that the adopted
cukerního system is fair. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court
decided to annulment of the contested regulation, it would be in terms of stability
market desirable to do so with effect from 1 January. October 2001, as the
meantime, the new regulation will be ready for Government follow up already on the new
the law on the State agricultural intervention fund.
The appellant's representative referred to additional observations on the Government responded
so, that challenged the view that the letter of the Minister of Agriculture of the two sentences,
that has no formal requirements for an administrative act can be considered
an administrative decision, which would have to be first to challenge the way
that, the Government says. He stressed that the purpose of the proposal is not a fight against quotas
as such, but the effort to make access to all producers on the market was
level and for certain conditions. If, however, the annex to the contested
Regulation enumerated 8 producers and their quotas, then this section is not
not a normative act, but the Act of an individual, because it is not intended to
an indefinite number of operators, and even in this direction is therefore unconstitutional. Only
a very small part of the quota was left for the nevyjmenované bodies and for
its distribution has not been established at all. He remained so in the
the entire range of the filed design.
The Constitutional Court has considered the proposal submitted as follows:
When it comes to additionally raised the objection that a constitutional complaint, and therefore
the proposal brought with it, it was necessary to refuse from the ground of inadmissibility, namely
for the main legal remedies, it is necessary to state the following.
In finding an established under Act No. 244/1999 Coll., the Constitutional Court expressed the principle,
that any claim that the complainant has not exhausted all process
resources law to protect its rights provides, cannot
The Constitutional Court accepted, in the case of a complaint that its significance
substantially exceeds the own interests of the complainant. It is not disputed that, in the
the case is so, which, moreover, is supported by the observations of the participant
proceedings of the severity of the issue. It is thus clear that the
the terms of section 75 para. 2 (a). a) Act No. 182/1993 Coll., therefore, the constitutional
the Court only notes that does not share the party about the possibility of
appeal in administrative proceedings or administrative action.
in the case, without this necessary its disagreement on
divorce and justify, since it is obvious that the matter would be referred to in
the said provisions of the Act on the Constitutional Court is empowered to act, even in
the situation that actually occurred due to legal remedies.
If this is the case, the Constitutional Court considered itself as follows:
In particular, the Court found that the contested regulation is derived, and the Government intended to
the implementation of § 2 (2). 1 of law No 249/1997. this Act is referred to in section 1 of the
for the purpose of:
and) creation of conditions for ensuring the ability of the Czech agriculture
to secure the basic nutrition of the population, food security, and the necessary
non-food raw materials;
(b) creating the conditions for support) non-productive functions
Agriculture, which contribute to the protection of the environment as
land, water and air quality and to the maintenance of populated and cultural landscape;
(c) provide for the obligation of compensation for injury) for persons damaged přikázanými
management modes arising out of legal restriction.
In section 2 (2). 1, provides that the State shall contribute to the creation of conditions for
maintaining the productive potential of agriculture indirect aid, direct
support support programmes and creating conditions for price
stabilisation of the market for agricultural commodities, in particular through the
skladištních bills, futures, certified public
stores of grain, and the support of the functioning of commodity exchanges. The following
paragraph 2 then States that support programs and indirect support
at the same time, the Chamber of Deputies approved the law on the State budget.
According to § 2 (2). 3 the State supports the support programmes as well as non-productive
the functions of the protection elements of the environment
as the soil, water, air, and activities contributing to the maintenance of
landscape. Under paragraph 4, then the State creates the conditions to support the less
favoured areas and to adopt programmes of assistance. Paragraph 5 of the
provides that support programs to support those measures and criteria
for their assessment lays down the Government.
Government Regulation No. 51/2000 Coll., section 1 States that the subject of this regulation
is the adjustment of the share of the State in the creation of conditions for ensuring and maintaining the
diabetes and the sugar production and stabilization of the sugar market within the territory of the United
of the Republic. Of the other provisions is important, in particular, section 10, which
provides that sugar produced in excess of individual or special
individual quotas cannot be placed on the market in the Czech Republic or on the market in
countries where imports of sugar from the United States is not allowed or is
limited by international agreement, which the Czech Republic is bound.
Annex 1 to this regulation, then the individual quota indirectly fix
for "strategic sugar manufacturer" (total of 8 companies).
The Constitutional Court held that it has no reason to deviate in the assessment
his proposal, submitted by the relevant case-law.
Above all, it is about finding pl. ÚS 17/95 promulgated under no. 271/1995 Coll.
in which he stated that, according to article. 78 of the Constitution, the Government is authorised to issue
Regulation for the implementation of the law and within the limits, therefore does not need an explicit
the delegation of the relevant law, regulation cannot, however, diverge from the statutory
limits-cannot therefore be praeter legem. In other words, they must keep in
the limits of the law, that are either defined explicitly or result from
the meaning and purpose of the Act. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court stated that generally speaking, the
completely free account executive never has, as always, is limited by the Constitution,
international treaties and General legal principles.
In finding pl. ÚS 32/95 announced under no 112/1996 Coll., Constitutional Court
the Court held that the rights referred to in the title of the fourth Instrument called
"Economic, social and cultural rights" are specifically defined explicitly
to applicable law and on the basis and within the limits it is possible to
These rights and freedoms relied upon. The Constitutional Court has stated that such rights
does not act immediately (unlike the rights emanating directly from the human
being, as is the right to life, physical integrity, personal liberty
etc.), but they require to its realization of synergies of other factors.
These rights, it is stated in the report, according to art. paragraph 41. 1 of the Charter
relied on just within the limits of the law, which implement these provisions. According to the
the same principles, the Constitutional Court ruled in finding pl. TC 35/95 announced
under no 206/1996 Coll., when uttered, that the obligations of the legal definition of
content, scope and manner of provision of the Basic Law (in this case,
the right to free health care), the legislature cannot get rid of this,
that authority must authorize the Executive to issue standards less legal force than
the law, which would have marked the, instead of the law, the limits of those fundamental rights
From the point of view of the constitutional authorities with legislative powers are entitled to and
required to legislate in a form that is intended for them. In the form of
prescribed by the Government pursuant to article. 78 of the Constitution of the regulation. In accordance with this
the provisions of the Government may issue regulations to implement the law, and in his
the limits. Therefore, the existence of the law, just within it, however, there must be
space for the legislative activity of the Government. It does not change the fact
that in some cases the legislature to issue a government regulation explicitly
empowering. The Government must then move "secundum et intra legem", not
outside the law (praeter legem). To put it simply, if according to the law
It is for the Government to be X, lay down that has to be X 1, x 2, x 3, ..., not whether or not,
that has to be Y.
From a theoretical point of view is the regulation put the requirement that
General and therefore reaches for an indeterminate group of addressees, as the Constitution
empowering legislation, rather than to the issue of individual administrative
of the Act. Before the excesses of the Executive then protects the barrier of things dedicated to
regulate only the laws (the so-called "reservation).
Consequently, the constitutional definition of the derived standardisation of the Executive
is based on the following principles:
-Regulation must be issued to authorized body,
-Regulation cannot interfere in the Affairs of the reserved Act (cannot, therefore,
determine the primary rights and obligations),
-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).
According to the article. 26 paragraph 2. 1 of the Charter, each guaranteed the right to do business and
engage in other economic activities, while paragraph 2 assumes
that the law may lay down the conditions and limitations for the exercise of certain professions
or activities. It is thus clear that it is a fundamental right which in
the meaning of those findings while not active immediately and be
relied on just within the limits of the law, on the other hand, however, for any
the limits of that business or activity reservation exists.
There is no doubt that the regulation contains a number of provisions that
in the field of free enterprise. If the Government continues its derives
permission to do so by law No 249/1997, in particular the
the contested regulation introduces implementing regulation to § 2 (2). 1 of this
the law, then, however, the Constitutional Court shall respect the above-mentioned principle
even the relationship between law and regulation, when the constitutionality of a priority
Regulation considers its compliance with a sense of purpose and the act as a whole, it is
forced to conclude that grammatical or logical, systematic interpretation,
even in the largest extent of extensive access, there is no indication that the
from the said provisions of the Act, it was possible to deduce the regulation of production,
that on Agriculture establishes, or restrict the application of manufactured items
in a particular market.
If the Constitutional Court in finding an established under Act No. 206/1996 Coll. said
that the legislature cannot edit relations area intended for modifying the law
delegate to the Executive, and give up on your
a legislative obligation, the more you can the right to executive power
such modification can monopolize itself, citing a law that clearly has
other purpose and meaning. The law on agriculture is heading to the region clearly
the so-called. primary production, and if the Government empowered to issue the regulation, is completely
clear that adaptation directed to other areas. If
the legislature wanted to empower the Executive to regulate business in the form of
production quotas, undoubtedly would have done so expressly, as it
made in the provisions of § 2 (2). 5, § 3 para. 3 and 4, respectively, in § 5 para. 3.
In summary, that the contested regulation infringes the Act Government entered a reservation
provided for in article. 26 paragraph 2. 1 of the Charter, and by way of regulation restricts the free
business in a way that the law is not expected nor generally does not regulate.
In other words, if the Constitutional Court to cancel the contract or
regulations on the ground that the limits created by the legislature for legislative
the activities of the Executive Branch are uncertain, must do so in an area
where a legislative initiative the Government is not expected to act at all. This
blip is that is sufficient grounds for annulment of the contested legislation,
without the need to explore other objections and arguments
the appellants and the party to the proceedings.
The Constitutional Court is of course aware that in the meantime, the law became effective
No. 257/2000 Coll., on the State agricultural intervention fund and amending
some other laws (the law on the State agricultural intervention
the Fund), which regulates, among other things. production quotas, and in
the provisions of § 12 para. 3 empowers the Government to issue a regulation laying down
These quotas and their terms and conditions. However, this does not change anything on the
the fact that Government Regulation No. 51/2000 Coll. was released outside the limits of the law,
When in the original Act No. 472/1992 Coll. on the State Fund of market regulation
in agriculture, (abolished by Act No. 257/2000 Coll.) was not for the determination of
production quotas support.
Of all the reasons given by the plenary decided by the Constitutional Court for cancellation
Government Regulation No. 51/2000 Coll., for his conflict with the article. 4 (4). 1 and 2 and with
article. 26 paragraph 2. 1 and 2 of the Charter, as well as with the article. 2 (2). 4 the Constitution Day
publication of the finding in the journal of laws when the reasons for the postponement did not
enforceability of the decision.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.