On The Proposal That Repeal Of Section 2 Para. 1 Of Law No. 243/1992.

Original Language Title: on the proposal to repeal § 2 para. 1 of Law no. 243/1992.

Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=44163&nr=121~2F1996~20Sb.&ft=txt

121/1996 Coll. the Plenum of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic on behalf of the Czech Republic The Czech Constitutional Court ruled on 26 March 1996 at the session: on the proposal of the Regional Court in Brno it annul § 2 para. 1 of Act No. 243/1992 Coll., that regulate certain issues related to law No. 229/1991 Coll., that regulate the ownership of land and other agricultural property, as amended by Act No. 93/1992 Coll., as amended by Constitutional Court judgment no. 29/1996 Coll. as follows: The petition is denied. REASONING AS WELL. On 29 December 1995, the Constitutional Court received a petition from the Regional Court in Brno, seeking the annulment of article 2 para. 1 of Law No. 243/1992. The Senate 30 Ca in the appeal proceedings, MD. VK against the decision of the District Office in Znojmo District Land Office, dated 22 August 1994, ref. No. PU 5521/92-Ha in the matter at the Regional Court in Brno, under file. REF 30 Ca 61/95 II within the meaning of Article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic to the conclusion that the provisions of § 2 para. 1 of Law No. 243/1992. It is in conflict with Art. 11 paragraph. 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, under which according to § 109, para. 1 point. (b)) of the CPC. stayed the proceedings and referred the matter to the Constitutional Court. In the case decided by the Regional Court in Brno, in the context of an appeal against a decision of an administrative body lost its legal predecessor beneficiaries assets within the meaning of § 1 para. 1 point. and the Presidential Decree) No. 12/1945. as a person of German nationality, regardless of nationality. The Regional Court in Brno in its proposal said that to enable the petitioner in administrative proceedings and in the proceedings before the general court, and could be considered as a beneficiary under § 2 par. 1 of Act No. 243/1992 Coll., Would have had its legal predecessor inter alia, regain citizenship by the Act No. 194/1949 Coll. or Act No. 34/1953 Coll. , if it has not already constitutional Presidential Decree No. 33/1945. In this context, it pointed out that the re-acquisition of citizenship should logically be preceded by the loss of backward acquiree citizenship, while it can be that a citizen II of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, which did not lose citizenship (and therefore regained not backwards) should not be considered within the meaning of § 2 para. 1 of Law No. 243/1992. as a beneficiary. Brno Regional Court rejects this possibility.MP3 of the contested provisions of Act No. 243/1992 Coll., Under which condition the acquisition of citizenship the reverse is true even in cases where the authorized person did not acquire citizenship back, for example, on the ground that it undergo the loss of citizenship had never occurred. According to the court, such an interpretation would mean the negation of the statutory conditions laid down for applicants for restitution in terms of their status as beneficiaries and claims resulting from this. In favor of his opinion also states that the mitigation of certain property injustices does not apply to all persons who lost property under Presidential Decree No. 12/1945. or by Presidential Decree No. 108/1945 Coll., among others, but only those of them who lost their citizenship and according to certain laws of citizenship gained it back. Brno Regional Court therefore concludes that the Act No. 243/1992 Coll. does not apply to persons of German nationality who, though lost property on the basis of the presidential decrees, is to not lose their citizenship and therefore did not acquire Norwegian back. Said the court considered a later consequence in conflict with Art. 11 paragraph. 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms because of the ownership rights of German nationals who have lost property on the basis of presidential decrees, but they also do not lose their Czechoslovak citizenship, in defiance of such a law, other restitution German nationality (ie. those who lost their citizenship and subsequently acquired back) Act denied. II. According to § 42 par. 3 and section 69 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll. Constitutional Court sent the petition to the Chamber of Protect. In its statement of 13 February 1996, the President of the Chamber of the Czech Parliament Protect of Milan Uhde Dr. confirm, in accordance with the requirements contained in § 68 para. 2 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., That the law No. 243/1992 Coll., were approved by the necessary majority of protect of the Czech National Council of 15 April 1992, he was signed by the authorities is constitutional, and duly promulgated. In a statement by the Chairman of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is former belief in accordance with the provisions of the contested constitutional laws and international treaties under Art. 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic. Notes in it while the fact that the condition of re-acquisition of nationality by Act No. 245/1948 Coll., Act No. 194/1949 Coll., Act No. 34/1953 Coll., Respectively. under the constitutional Presidential Decree No. 33/1945. the legislatures in accordance with the purpose of the Act No. 243/1992 Coll. (section 1), which is to mitigate the consequences of some other property injustices resulting from the use of force or some special legislation or on other grounds in the Czech Republic. According to § 42 para. 2 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll. Rapporteur requested as documentary evidence of the Chamber of protect the respective printing (No. 628, CNR, VI. Electoral period 1992) and record discussions Czech National Council Act No. 243/1992. III. 1. Pursuant to the provisions of § 2 para. 1 of Act No. 243/1992 Coll., As amended, the locus standi for claims under that law is determined by the citizenship or the loss of property under Presidential Decrees No. 12/1945. or no 108/1945 Coll., neproviněním against the Czechoslovak state and re-acquisition of Czechoslovak citizenship under the Law No. 245/1948 Coll., Act No. 194/1949 Coll., Act No. 34/1953 Coll., respectively. under the constitutional Presidential Decree No. 33/1945. In examining the legal claims under the Act No. 243/1992 Coll., As amended, persons who do not lose their Czechoslovak citizenship and therefore assume the back must first answer the question of whether this group of people ever existed, respectively. the exists. According to § 1 para. 1 point. and the Presidential Decree) No. 12/1945. It was confiscated agricultural property, which was owned by all persons of German and Hungarian nationality, regardless of nationality. Group of persons of German and Hungarian nationality defined by § 2 of the Presidential Decree by subscribing to the German or Hungarian nationality in any census since 1929 and membership in national groups, formations or political parties, memberships, German, respectively. Hungarian nationality. Similarly, the set of all movable and immovable property of persons of German and Hungarian nationality Presidential Decree No. 108/1945 Coll. in § 1 para. 1 point 1. On the basis of § 1 para. 1, 2 Constitutional Presidential Decree No. 33/1945. Czechoslovak citizens of German or Hungarian nationality lost their Czechoslovak citizenship, either by acquisition of another citizenship under the regulations of a foreign occupying power, or the date on which that constitutional Presidential Decree came into force (ie. on 10 August 1945). They lost their citizenship only those citizens of German and Hungarian nationality who, in times of increased threat to the Republic (§ 18 of Presidential Decree No. 16/1945.) Signed the official report for the Czechs and Slovaks (§ 1 para. 3 of the Constitutional Decree 33/1945 Coll.), as well as those who have demonstrated that they are not guilty of anything against Czechoslovakia and participated in an active anti-fascist resistance or suffered under fascist or Nazi terror (§ 2 para. 1 of the Constitutional Decree No. 33/1945). . And presidential decrees no. comparison 12/1945. and no. 108/1945 Coll. constitutional decree No. 33/1945. It suggests that a new group of people of German and Hungarian nationality who do not lose their Czechoslovak citizenship, but where was the confiscation of their property. 2. With regard to the assessment of the restitution claims of persons who do not lose their Czechoslovak citizenship and therefore assume the back, the provisions on condition of re-acquisition of citizenship contained in § 2 para. 1 of Act No. 243/1992 Coll., As amended, allows in its application of double interpretation: the first based on the argument, and on the other, the other on the basis of an argument and minori ad maius. The argument to the contrary, on the basis of interpreting the provisions of § 2 para. 1 of Act No. 243/1992 Coll., As amended, the Regional Court in Brno, inevitably leads to the conclusion that the failure to re-condition of the acquisition of citizenship has resulted in lack of locus standi for claims according to the Act. The argument from the smaller it larger, however, and the conclusion it leads opposite (according to this argument, if provided, standard permissions associated with a smaller part of its rationale, the more it gives when there is a more serious frame). Constitutional interpretation of the provisions of § 2 para. 1 of Act No. 243/1992 Coll., As amended, is considered the context of the Constitutional Court already addressed, in proceedings on constitutional complaints. In its judgment dated October 4, 1995 SP. zn. II. US 22/94, the Constitutional Court stated that "when the returning under Act No. 243/1992 Coll., The property of those who have lost it by decree and were deprived of their citizenship and then regained, must a fortiori be returned to those who were not Citizenship must be returned as a result of their particular behavior at all lost their citizenship. Any other interpretation would completely contradict the principles of restitution laws, which seek to redress it partially and not to the compensation for loss of citizenship. "Consistently interpreted the provisions of § 2 para. 1 of Law No. 243/1992. The Constitutional Court in its judgment of 12 October 1995 sp.. III. US 39/95, when the interpretation, excluding persons of German and Hungarian nationality who lost their Czechoslovak citizenship of restitution claims under Law No. 243/1992. as "discriminatory" and "contrary to the intention of the legislature as expressed in section 1 of the Law No. 243/1992.". The Constitutional Court when assessing compliance provisions of § 2 para. 1 of Act No. 243/1992 Coll., As amended, with constitutional laws and international treaties under Art. 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic remains the opinion expressed in the case law of the Constitutional Court in this matter with its reasons, ie. the opinion that the opposite interpretation of § 2 para. 1 of Act No. 243/1992 Coll., as amended, would be discriminatory and inconsistent with the purposes of the Act. In a situation where a legislative provision allows two different interpretations, while one is in accordance with the constitutional laws and international treaties under Art. 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, and the other is in conflict with them, there is no reason it to repeal this provision. When the application is for the courts that interpret the provisions in a constitutional manner. Given the above reasons, the Constitutional Court, the Regional Court in Brno, seeking the annulment of article 2 para. 1 of Act No. 243/1992 Coll., As amended, pursuant to section 70 para it. 2 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll. dismissed. Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. Kessler vr