In The Matter Of An Application For Annulment Of Decree-Law No. 51/2000 Sb.

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zrušení nařízení vlády č. 51/2000 Sb.

Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=51123&nr=96~2F2001~20Sb.&ft=txt

96/2001 Sb.



FIND



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,



as follows:



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stabilisation of the market in sugar shall be repealed on the date of publication of this finding in the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.



Justification



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

illegal.



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

the restrictions.



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 proposal.



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

produce.



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

the law.



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

or freedoms.



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.