185/1997.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
1. According to the article. 11 (1) 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms "law may
also provide that certain things can only be owned by citizens
or legal persons based in the Czech and Slovak Federal
Republic "(in accordance with article 42, paragraph 1, of the Charter and article 1, paragraph 2,
Constitutional Act No. 4/1993 Coll., this is the country of citizenship of the Czech
States and territories of the United Kingdom). Article. 11 (1) 2 of the Charter is therefore
the special provision applicable to the constitutional principle of the equality of all subjects
regarding the acquisition and protection of property rights (an example of his
projected into the rule of law is the provision of section 17 of the Act No. 219/1995 Coll.
the foreign exchange law). It is just the article. 11 (1) 2 of the Charter, which establishes a
for the legislature's constitutional space restriction beneficiaries in
restitution legislation.
2. the International Covenant on Civil and political rights, the principle of equality
edits in the article. 2 (2). 1 and article. 26. Equality as the first of the cited
provisions incidental in nature, i.e. it applies only to equality in
the Pact enshrined rights, while the right to ownership by virtue of them
It is not. Article. 26 first, enshrines equality before the law and, secondly, the exclusion of
discrimination. In the demonstrativním enumeration of reasons excluded uneven
access is not contained the nationality.
The UN Committee for human rights has repeatedly expressed the view when permitted by
application article. 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and political rights
inequality only exclusion of arbitrary power, or if this
based on reasonable and objective distinguishing character (reasonable
and objective criteria). As such in the present case, the Constitutional Court
It considers the implications resulting from the article. 11 (1) 2 of the Charter, as well as the objectives of the
the restitution legislation and finally legislation of citizenship
According to the article. (II) Act No. 88/1990 Coll.
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court decided on 4 April 2006. June 1997 in the plenary on the proposal, j. d., filed
together with the constitutional complaint, the cancellation provisions expressed in section 3 of the
paragraph. 1 of law No. 87/1991 Coll. on out-of-court rehabilitation, as amended by
amended, the words "if it is a citizen of the Czech and Slovak
Federal Republic "and to repeal provisions expressed in section 3 (2).
4 of the same Act the words "if they are citizens of the Czech and Slovak
Federal Republic Of "
as follows:
The proposal is rejected.
Justification
(I).
The appellant filed a constitutional complaint against the judgment of the District Court in
Prague of 30 May. January 1996 No. 20 751/95-44, in conjunction with the
the judgment of the District Court of Prague-West 4. October 1995 No. 4 C
352/95-27, which was rejected by its action on the issue of House No. 363,
building plot no. 459, garage construction parcel No. 460, and
Garden No. 462, everything in the cadastral territory, on the grounds that
the complainant did not establish state citizenship of the Czech Republic and has not so
one of the conditions of Act No. 87/1991 Coll. on extra-judicial rehabilitation,
in the wording of later regulations. At the same time, the complainant filed a motion to
cancellation provisions expressed in section 3 (2). 1 of law No. 87/1991 Coll., on
as amended, the words "if it is a citizen of the Czech and
Slovak Federal Republic "and provisions expressed in § 3 para. 4
of the Act the words "if they are citizens of the Czech and Slovak
The Federal Republic ".
In support of its application for annulment of the cited provisions of the law on
extrajudicial rehabilitation stated that the Constitutional Court has already in the award of the day
July 12, 1994, which was in the law No. 87/1991 Coll., as amended by
amended, revoked the condition of permanent residence, concluded
that of the words of the preamble of the Act cannot be inferred "space for the exclusion
certain entities from the circle of those characters in any restitution
the title filled with ", including for the exclusion of persons without citizenship.
Likewise, States the complainant, shall continue to apply to the Constitutional Court's conclusion that the
"between the definition of an authorized person in accordance with § 3 (1). 1 and 4 of the contested
the law and the text and meaning of his preamble is not consistent ", since,
the complainant continues to make the text of the law has actually been the fulfillment of a preamble,
should be deleted and a condition of citizenship. Furthermore, in its constitutional
complaints admitted that article. 11 (1) 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms
(hereinafter referred to as "the Charter") enables the law stipulated that certain things
they can only be owned by citizens or legal entities established in
Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, with a resident, according to the article.
paragraph 42. 1 of the Charter means a citizen of the Czech Republic, this restriction
does not apply in General, but only in respect of certain specified goods in the Act.
In the event of a conflict between such a modification, puts forth the complainant and
the most serious claimed the will of the State to redress the injustices of the regime must
be in a State that claims to be for the rule of law, the remedy
committed wrongs. In this context, he pointed out in particular article. 1 of the Constitution
The Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"), and equality in the rights pursuant to art. 1
Of the Charter. In the other outlets of its proposal, pointed out that the persons to whom the
the condition of citizenship participation on the restitution of their property
they came in the same way as a person satisfies the conditions of the law, when in
both are about the same injustice. Each distribution has then according
the complainant, discriminatory and contrary to. 3 (2). 1
Of the Charter. Referred to discriminatory provisions of the contested parts is
According to the complainant, the obvious, in particular from the fact that de facto the only difference
between persons, which according to the current regulation are entitled to restitution, and
those that do not have this right, it is just what country these
persons themselves or their parents to live after the left Communists
-controlled Czechoslovakia. Moreover, in its constitutional complaints dealt with
the problems of our citizens living in the United States, where obtaining a
citizenship of the United States of America is linked to the loss of citizenship
the former, which is according to the complainant, in a democratic State the unthinkable
to ascribe to the detriment of the persons concerned. In this context, also pointed out the
the importance of the Czechoslovak exile living in the United States, which he called the driving
the power of both the war odbojů, including financial assistance. Then, in your
a constitutional complaint pointed out that his family in the time of danger
Republic, Nazi Germany adopted a patriotic attitude, which resulted in
1942 to prevent its assets and then subsequent
postwar recovery. As far as the issue of unconstitutionality
the contested provisions, the complainant later divorced, that this condition is
as well as the condition of permanent residence, in breach of article. 14. 1
Of the Charter, since it ignores the freedom of residence and movement. In conclusion, he pointed out again
on the contradiction of the contested provisions with article. 1 of the Charter, which guarantees all
equality in the rights of the people, and with the article. 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the Czech
the Republic is the rule of law, based on respect for the rights and freedoms of man,
which affected the law by excluding certain categories of persons from the options to seek
with the return of their original assets.
Under the provisions of section 74 of law No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, the
together with the constitutional complaints filed the proposal to repeal the law or other
legislation or their individual provisions, which
application of the occurrence of the event which is the subject of a constitutional complaint,
If according to the complainant's allegations are inconsistent with the constitutional law
or international agreement under article. 10 of the Constitution, where appropriate, by the law,
in the case of other legislation.
According to § 78 para. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., the Constitution has been set up, together with the
complaints filed the proposal to repeal the legislation under section 74, the Senate
proceedings and the proposal to repeal legislation will advance the plenary to
decision under article 9(1). 87 para. 1 (b). a) or b) of the Constitution.
II. the Senate's Constitutional Court primarily dealt with the question of whether they are
the conditions of the cited provision of section 74. It concluded that the proposal
the cancellation provisions expressed in section 3 (2). 1 of the law on extrajudicial
the words "If the rehabilitation is a citizen of the Czech and Slovak
Federal Republic "and to repeal provisions expressed in section 3 (2).
4 of the same Act the words "if they are citizens of the Czech and Slovak
Federal Republic "was filed in accordance with the provisions of section 74, for
its application has led to the decision of the regional court in Prague this
complaints so far. Therefore, in its resolution of 30 March 2004. October 1996, SP. zn. II.
TC 159/96 Senate proceedings on constitutional complaints and proposal to repeal
provisions expressed in § 3 para. 1 of the law on extrajudicial
the words "If the rehabilitation is a citizen of the Czech and Slovak
Federal Republic "and to repeal provisions expressed in section 3 (2).
4 of the same Act the words "if they are citizens of the Czech and Slovak
Federal Republic of "advanced by the Constitutional Court for decision to the plenary
According to the article. 87 para. 1 (b). a) of the Constitution. Due to the fact that the judge
the rapporteur did not find reasons to reject the application for annulment of the Act, was
the proposal delivered to the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom pursuant to § 42
paragraph. 3 and section 69 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll. and section 28 para. 1 of the Act,
Although laws, whose partial annulment is sought, have been issued
The Federal Assembly of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic,
Therefore, the Parliament of the Czech Republic succession derives from article.
3 (2). 1 the Constitutional Act of the Czech National Council No. 4/1993 Coll., on the
measures associated with the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federal
Republic, the Constitution of the United States.
The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic-President Ing.
Miloš Zeman-in its observations that the Czech and Slovak
The Federal Republic was the only Eastern bloc State,
that he went to the solution of the problems of compensation for property and
other grievances arising in the earlier period, as noted in
the explanatory memorandum to the contested law. The difficulty of addressing the issue of
compensation is not only showed when discussing the draft
law, but also in having its amendments. Also stated that by its nature
It is a law of exceptional and one-off, that was based on the principle of at least
partial mitigation arising from injustices that have occurred in the period from 25.
February 1948 to 1. January 1990. It was based on the validity of
regulations in that period, and if some of the disturbed, not to interfere with the
effect from the very beginning, but from the effective date of the revoking
provisions. The aim was, according to the Chamber of Deputies, only
remove the consequences of the use of the provisions in the relevant period. From
for these reasons, therefore, you cannot talk about a return to the previous state or of
the issue of expropriated things. Because the purpose of the Act was the removal of all
grievances, but only their mitigation, it was possible to make them only in such
to the extent that the internal debt of the State of neprohloubila. From this
the proposed compensation only Czechoslovak State
citizens, which corresponds, according to the Chamber of Deputies and international
Customs. Furthermore, it is in the Chamber of Deputies indicated that
can't believe that the condition of nationality would be contrary to the
our legal system no longer, therefore, that any person who did not want to lose
their property, the law allowed the recovery of citizenship in long enough
the time limit. This fully corresponds to the provisions of article. 3 (2). 2 of the Charter,
According to which everyone has the right to freely decide on their nationality.
In addition, when the Constitutional Court in its finding of no 164/1994 Coll. of the referee
interpretive significance of the preamble to the definition of beneficiaries of
the provisions of § 3 para. 1 and 4 of the law on extrajudicial rehabilitation,
to the conclusion that it was narrowed down to the legal space for the circle of beneficiaries,
If it was determined the condition of permanent residence, as above
provision is not in line with the meaning of the preamble, however, Constitutional Court
It was based on and from article. 11 (1) 2 of the Charter, which provides for the possibility to act
limits the acquisition of certain things into the possession of the citizens or
legal entities established in the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic
(Czech Republic), while article. paragraph 42. 1 of the Charter the term citizen
means the State of a citizen of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic (Czech
the Republic). From these findings, the Chamber of Deputies, inferred that the deletion of
conditions of permanent residence was given sufficient legal room for
those eligible to claim their restitution claims and that the cancellation
the conditions of citizenship would, in effect, be contrary to the
our rule of law. At the end of then States that the legislative
the Corps acted in the belief that the law is adopted in accordance with the Constitution and
our legal order, and that it is up to the Constitutional Court, in the context of
the examination of the proposal to assess the constitutionality of the contested parts of the provisions of the Act
No. 87/1991 Coll., as amended, and the relevant
decision.
The Constitutional Court first examined under § 68 para. 2 of law No.
182/1993 Coll., the contested act was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution
set out competences and constitutionally prescribed way. At the time of
the laws were dictated by the provisions of the legislative bodies competence article. 29 and
seq., and article. 102 et seq. Constitutional Act No. 143/1968 Coll., on
the Czechoslovak Federation, in wording of later regulations. From the submitted
Council prints the Federal Assembly and the reports of 13. joint meeting of the
The House of the people and of the House of peoples, which the Constitutional Court has taken in
the Office of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, it was
found that the meeting, to which the law voted, attended
a sufficient number of members, the law was adopted by the requisite number of votes, was
signed by the respective constitutional officials, and was duly promulgated in the collection of
laws. Individual provisions of the Act, which proposes to cancel the complainant,
has become a valid part of our legal system and how
follows from article. 1 (1). 1 the Constitutional Act of the Czech National Council No. 4/1993
Coll., yet.
II.
The Constitutional Court is ústavností definition of entitled persons in the Act on
extrajudicial rehabilitation in its finding in the case conducted under the
SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/94 (CS CZ: collection of findings and resolutions-volume 1 (C).
Beck Prague, 1994, pp. 279-290). At the beginning of their argument, while
assess the importance of interpretation of the preamble of Act No. 87/1991 Coll., as amended by
amended, from which it is apparent that the aim of the law on extrajudicial
rehabilitation is "an effort to mitigate the consequences of certain property and
other grievances "that occurred in the period from 1948 to 1989. The first question
by the Constitutional Court in this connection was that "mitigation"
the consequences of "certain" wrongs, having regard to the principle of equality to understand
only in relation to the circuit and the intensity of equity interventions, in particular in the
ownership of the citizens during the relevant period or whether it is possible in it
See also the legal space for the narrowing of the entitled subjects with
regard to their permanent residence. On that question, the Court replied in the negative,
in finding that the space for the exclusion of certain entities from the circuit
those characters in any of the restitution of the title, from the
the wording of the preamble of the Act cannot be inferred. Beyond the possibility of limiting circuit
authorised persons is, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court, given only to the provisions of
article. 11 (1) 2 of the Charter, according to which the law may provide that certain things
they can only be owned by citizens of the Czech Republic. From this
the provisions of the then concluded that the Charter "in the provision without authorising
the legislator to determine the other terms of the acquisition of property (whether in the
the restitution process, or in General) ". Conversely, therefore,
article. 11 (1) 2 of the Charter empowers the legislature to determine the conditions
citizenship on the acquisition of ownership in the context of restitution
process [while heading the things provided for by law, subject to
entitled to release things with the beneficiaries of the State
citizenship (Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, the Czech
the Republic), as defined in § 6 of the law on extrajudicial rehabilitation]. On
elsewhere in the preamble to the Constitutional Court in case finding, pl. ÚS 3/94
consistently States that the condition of permanent residence is "in breach of article. 11 (1)
2 of the Charter, which empowers the legislature merely laid down that certain things
they can only be owned by citizens or legal entities established in
Czech and Slovak Federal Republic ".
Following up on the conclusions contained in the Constitutional Court, from
even in the present case, the Constitutional Court has no reason to derogate, to
include the following:
According to the article. 11 (1) 2 of the Charter, "the law may also provide that certain things
they can only be owned by citizens or legal entities established in
Czech and Slovak Federal Republic "(in accordance with article 42, paragraph 1,
Of the Charter and article. 1 (1). 2 constitutional law No. 4/1993 Coll., this is the
State citizenship of the Czech Republic and the Czech Republic). Article. 11 (1)
2 of the Charter is therefore a special provision applicable to the constitutional principle of equality
all bodies with regard to the acquisition and protection of property rights (an example of a
its projected into the rule of law is the provision of § 17 of the Exchange Control Act
No. 219/1995 Sb.). It is just the article. 11 (1) 2 of the Charter, which creates for
the legislature's constitutional space restriction beneficiaries in
restitution legislation.
The aim of the restitution legislation was not only alleviate some of the
property-related injustices committed by the Communist regime, but also the understanding of the
the restitution as one of the forms of privatization. In the condition of citizenship
It therefore reflected the legislature's attempt to make restitution if and only if it is
given the presence of the restituenta, and thus the likelihood of proper care
the householder of the restituovaný property. Article. (II) Act No. 88/1990 Coll.
is amended and supplemented the rules on the acquisition and loss of the Czechoslovak
citizenship, in time to allow, from 29. March 1990 until 31 December 2006.
December 1993 any restituentům just the communication of their interest in the
the Czechoslovak (or from the date of 1 January 1993 of the Czech) citizens
is back with ex tunc effects. This was created by the national law
sufficient space for the assertion of claims under the law on restitution
extrajudicial rehabilitation for persons who did not meet the condition
of citizenship.
However article. 11 (1) 2 of the Charter establishes the constitutional room for restrictions
proprietary rights of stateless persons, the Czech Republic, should be
to interpret the terms of article 1. 4 (4). 4 of the Charter, i.e.. with regard to the
the requirement of minimization of each constitutionally acceptable limits
the fundamental right or freedom, strictly. In the wake of the legal
the construction of the law on extrajudicial rehabilitation (upřednostňujícího
the release of things and, secondarily, in the case of impossibility to release zakotvujícího
the provision of financial compensation) is therefore the task of the Democratic
the legislature to seek space for mitigation of some of the
property-related injustices committed by the Communist regime, even for people without a State
the jurisdiction of the United States.
In assessing the constitutionality of the contested provisions of the legislation
The Constitutional Court examines their compliance not only with the constitutional laws, but also with
the international treaties referred to in article. 10 of the Constitution.
In this context, in particular, on the compliance of the contested provisions of the law on
extrajudicial rehabilitation with the article. 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and
political rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Covenant") and article 6(2). 14 of the Convention on the protection of
human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention").
The UN Committee for human rights in Geneva, in its decisions of 19.
July 1995 No. 516/1992 (Simunek) and of 23. July 1996 No. 586/1994
(Adam), concluded that in the case of Act No. 87/1991.
There is no reason that would justify the decision of the legislature
to distinguish between the victims of konfiskování in respect of citizenship. Condition
citizenship, therefore, shall be deemed to be incompatible with the prohibition of discrimination according to the
article. 26 of the Covenant, which according to the Committee, does not require completely equal treatment,
However, it requires that there was sufficient reason for a different approach.
The European Commission of human rights in Strasbourg, on the contrary, in the decisions of
on 4 April 2006. March 1996 No. 23154/93 (Brežný v. Slovak Republic), dated
11 April 1996 No. 28571/95 (von Pezold v. Czech Republic), of 13 December.
May 1996 no 23899/93 (Nohejl v. Czech Republic), and of 13 September. may
1996 # 23063/93 (Jonas) that you don't have to interfere with the right of ownership
There was a time when the Czech Republic (or Czechoslovakia)
take over guarantee for the respect of human rights. Further stated that the
by Convention, there is no right to restitution of property, and because
discrimination pursuant to art. 14 of the Convention is possible only in connection with a violation of
one of the other substantive rights guaranteed by the Convention, cannot be inferred in
If the conditions of citizenship and permanent residence according to the restitution
the laws of the violation of the prohibition of discrimination. Therefore, if by Convention
There is no right to restitution of property, are, according to the Commission restitution
completely in the hands of the State as a sovereign default.
The Constitutional Court in its decision interpreted the content of the constitutional principle of
equality. To associate himself in them (especially in the findings on matters
conducted under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 16/93 (CS CZ: collection of findings and resolutions-
Volume 1, c. h. Beck, Prague, 1994, p. 205-206), pl. ÚS ÚS 36/93 (the Czech Republic:
A collection of findings and resolutions-volume 1, c. h. Beck, Prague, 1994, p. 179),
PL. ÚS ÚS 5/95 (CR: a collection of findings and resolutions-volume 4 c. h. Beck
Prague 1996, p. 218), pl. ÚS 9/95 (CS CZ: collection of findings and resolutions-
Volume 5 c. h. Beck Prague, 1997, p. 137) with the understanding of the constitutional
the principle of equality, as expressed in the Constitutional Court of the Czech and Slovak
Federative Republic (ČSFR, 1992, TC R 11): "it is for the State to
the interest of the security of their functions, decided that a certain group will provide less
benefits than others. Even here, however, must not proceed completely arbitrarily. If
the law determines the benefit of one group and at the same time provides a disproportionate
the obligations of the other, can happen only with reference to the public
values. "
The Constitutional Court rejected the absolute understanding of the principle of equality, and
also noted: "equality of citizens should not be understood as a category
abstract, but as a relative equality, as they have in mind all
the modern Constitution "[PL. TC 36/93 (CS CZ: collection of findings and resolutions-volume
1 c. h. Beck Prague, 1994, p. 179)]. The content of the principle of equality by
in the field of constitutional law, the concept shifted the aspects of differentiation
bodies and rights. Aspect of the first sees in the exclusion of arbitrariness.
Second, it is apparent from the legal point of view expressed in the report in case
conducted under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS ÚS 4/95 (CR: a collection of findings and resolutions-
Volume 3, c. h. Beck, Prague, 1995, p. 209): "inequality in social
relations, in order to affect the basic human rights must reach the
intensity, casting doubt, at least in a certain direction, already the very essence of
equality. This is usually done when there is a violation of the equality
linked to violations of other fundamental rights, for example. the right to own
assets according to the article. 11 of the Charter, one of the political rights according to art. 17
and subs. Of the Charter, etc. " [same PL. ÚS ÚS 5/95 (CR: a collection of awards and
resolution-volume 4 c. h. Beck Prague, 1996, pp. 217-218)]. Aspect of the
Second, when assessing the unconstitutionality of the legislation establishing
Therefore, this inequality is based one of the fundamental rights concerned and
freedoms.
The Pact governs the principle of equality in article. 2 (2). 1 and article. 26. Equality according to the
the first of the cited provisions in the nature of ancillary, or by
only on the equality of the rights enshrined in the Pact, with the right to
ownership is not included among them. Article. 26 enshrines both equality before the
the law and non-discrimination. In the enumeration of reasons demonstrativním
exclusive unequal access is not contained the nationality.
The UN Committee for human rights has repeatedly expressed the view when permitted by
application article. 26 Pact inequality only exclusion of arbitrariness,
or if this is based on reasonable and objective distinguishing
character (reasonable and objective criteria). As such the Constitutional Court
It considers the implications resulting from the article. 11 (1) 2 of the Charter, as well as the objectives of the
the restitution legislation and finally legislation of citizenship
According to the article. (II) Act No. 88/1990 Coll.
As regards the complainant alleged a violation of article. 14. 1 of the Charter,
must be stated that the nationality condition in the law on
extrajudicial rehabilitation is not a restriction on freedom of movement and residence [and it
Unlike the conditions of permanent residence, which was the finding of the Constitutional Court
in case conducted under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/94 (CS CZ: collection of findings and resolutions
-Volume 1, c. h. Beck, Prague, 1994, p. 291) cancelled]. This freedom is
nationals of the Czech Republic guaranteed not only at the level of constitutional,
but also at the level of the statutory law (and in particular the provisions of section
231, 232 and 233 of the tr code, Act No. 216/1991 Coll. on travel
documents and travelling abroad, as amended by Act No 150/1996 Coll.).
Of all the reasons given by the Constitutional Court for annulment of the provisions of
expressed in section 3 (2). 1 of law No. 87/1991 Coll., as amended
regulations, the words "if it is a citizen of the Czech and Slovak Federal
Of the Republic "and to repeal provisions expressed in § 3 para. 4 of the same
the words "Act if they are citizens of the Czech and Slovak Federal
The Republic "rejected.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
III.
Different views
A different opinion of the judge. Iva Brožová
In the matter of the constitutionality of the terms of citizenship, I consider that it is for
of the State, whether or not it will issue prescription claims. When he's on the
but the issue, he must do so constitutionally Conformal manner. It is therefore necessary to
consider whether the existence of only a relative equality, that is not protected
by itself, but only in connection with a violation of other fundamental rights
or freedom (SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/95; SP. zn. PL. ÚS 4/95), and that the State
allows in the interest of ensuring their functions, decided that a certain group of
provides less benefits than others, however only with reference to the public
values, or only in justified cases (find TC CSFR SP. zn. PL.
TC 11/92; the findings of the CS CZ SP. zn. PL. ÚS 16/93; III. TC 36/94),
the condition of citizenship, a narrowing range of subjects according to Cust. No.
87/1991, in breach of article. 1 of the Charter, prohibiting discrimination, or
not. Because Cust. No. 87/1991 Coll. is as restitution law
a specific effort to deliver an opinion on the value of our totalitarian
the past, when public value is the principle, or the principle of moral and
ethical basis, that wrongs are to be odčiněny, then you can't than
noted that, from the point of view of this fundamental are all subjects
the restitution laws of equal, and it committed wrong. On the other side
I admit that it is not quite possible absolute Atonement committed
grievances, both in terms of the philosophical, legal, therefore, are also
permitted modifications, however, only from the perspective of substantive, which the legislature
expressed in the preamble of the Act. No. 87/1991 Coll. words that the mitigation
some of the grievances. This impossibility full Atonement thus does not allow for intervention
the subjects of equal look by selecting done's between them, because
such a system would mean multiplying grievances for those
the legislature of the restitution. In so doing, it cannot be overlooked that
beneficiaries are according to Cust. No. 87/1991 Coll., of the natural person. It is also
on the spot in this context to refer to the conclusions made already
unconstitutionality of the conditions of residence and contained in the report under the sp.
Zn. PL. ÚS 3/94, which expressly states that the space for the exclusion
some of the subjects of the preamble does. In a situation where the public
the value is the remedy of grievances, it is therefore not permissible to state specific
the group, IE. citizens, to atone for the wrongs committed by the totalitarian
the regime admitted and another not, did not infringe article without. 1, art. 3 (2). 1
Of the Charter, but also article. 1 of the Constitution, in which the Czech Republic declared
the democratic rule of law, based on respect for the rights and freedoms of man
and the citizen. In other words, from the perspective of the Act. No. 87/1991 Coll., seeking
correct injustices, I have not found any rational or reasonable grounds,
that would justify the exclusion of those persons who today are not our
nationals, since this has occurred due to reasons relating to the behavior of the
our State at the time of totality, and it often is those former
citizens whose acts were and are indispensable in terms of building
our new identity. In that nothing can change, that it was not in the
the determination of the conditions of citizenship on the part of the legislature to the will, as
the absence of arbitrariness does not mean sufficient reasonable grounds for
a different approach. Made the conclusion on infringement of the principle of equality under article 5(2). 1 and
article. 3 (2). 1 of the Charter cannot be questioned or referring to equality as a
the relative category that is protected only in connection with a violation of
Another fundamental right or freedom, because this binding on other
a fundamental right, the right to own pursuant to art. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter, is given by
due to the fact that the restitution according to Cust. No. 87/1991.
not only from the unlawful interference with property rights, where the main heading is
the right to own, but also giving precedence to the principle naturálního, all while
an attempt to bail out within the constitutional principle of the right to own, that
He was trampled under the totalitarian regime. As has already been předesláno, therefore, you cannot
in the analysis of the constitutionality of the terms of citizenship neshledat bind to the
the right to own pursuant to art. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter. Also the article. 11 (1) 2
Of the Charter, which States: "the law stipulates that the assets necessary to
securing the needs of the whole society, the development of the national economy and
the public interest may only be owned by the State, municipalities or intended
legal entities; the law may also provide that certain things can be
only owned by citizens or legal persons based in the Czech Republic and
Slovak Federal Republic ", and similarly article. paragraph 42. 1
Of the Charter, which provides: "If the Charter uses the concept of a citizen, the
the State citizen of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic ", is not in the
things are not relevant, and it's for this reason that the Cust. No. 87/1991 Coll., as
restitution is a prescription prescription viewers to correct injustices and to
to cope with the past, while the Charter in article 6(2). 11 (1) 2 expresses the
certain strategic interests for the future, with the result that the bearer of those interests,
may also be a citizen. Indeed, the Constitutional Court has already in its finding under SP. zn.
PL. ÚS 3/94 in finding that the nature of the restriction within the meaning of article 87(1). 11 (1) 2
Of the Charter lies not in the fact that the article has accentuated the condition of the State
citizenship, but that limitation refers to certain things,
as defined by the law. Likewise, I consider that in the context of
considering the unconstitutionality of the conditions of citizenship cannot be relied upon the efforts of the
the legislature to ensure the presence of the restituenta care and diligence,
When left alone in this direction by the legislature of his inconsistency, as is apparent from the
the adjustments contained in another restitution Act, IE. in the Cust. No. 403/1990 Coll.
that the condition of citizenship has not stipulated. In addition, this care of the proper
householder far better to ensure the condition of permanent residence, which
The Constitutional Court, regardless of the intent of the legislature, this respected today
set aside. Also article. (II) Act. No 88/1990 Coll., according to which it can be United
citizens with just 29 at the time of the communication. 3. until 31 December 1990. 12.1993
back, nothing on the discriminatory nature of the conditions of citizenship does not change, because it is
referred to by law only created space, as this is discriminatory
condition to avoid. In other words, the possibility of discriminatory condition bypass
the procedure under the Act. No 88/1990 Coll. does not alter its discriminatory
the nature of the. From předeslaných reasons I have therefore considered that it was on the site
the condition of citizenship, for cancel its contradiction
-with article. 1 of the Constitution, which declares the Czech Republic under the rule of law,
based on respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen
-with article. 1 of the Charter, guaranteeing the equality of rights,
-with article. 3 (2). 1 of the Charter, prohibiting discrimination in the area of
fundamental rights and freedoms,
-with article. 11 (1) 1, y in which regulates the right of everyone to own
asset.
Completely outside the framework of a different opinion, and that's because the Czech Republic
shall be subject to the jurisdiction of both the United Nations Human Rights Committee (who found
condition of nationality contrary to article. 26 of the Covenant), the European
Commission on human rights to oppose her honour's opinion, if the
It found the condition of nationality to be compatible with the Convention, with the
on the grounds that the intervention (inequities) occurred before the takeover of liabilities
arising from the Convention, and that, therefore, that although there have been strikes before
acceptance of the obligations arising from the Convention, however, the subject of the investigation was the
the current legislation, and not the previous acts.