The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic held on 4 December 2002. December 1996 the plenary about
draft m. m.-f. and l. m.-r., administered along with constitutional complaints
cancellation of part of the provisions of § 5 para. 5 of law No. 87/1991 Coll. on
The provisions of § 5 para. 5 of law No. 87/1991 Coll. on extra-judicial
rehabilitation, as amended, referred to in part a
the last sentence by a comma, sounding "within one year from the effective date
This Act is repealed on the day ", publication of the finding in the journal of laws.
The appellants have submitted with reference to the provisions of section 74 of the Act No. 182/1993
Coll., on the Constitutional Court, along with a constitutional complaint against the judgment
The regional court in Pilsen on 2 December. May 1996 No. 12 199/96-76
proceedings pursuant to the provisions of § 64 para. 1 (b). (d))
of the Act. Its proposal to repeal the provisions of § 5 para. 5 of law
No. 87/1991 Coll. on extra-judicial rehabilitation, in the sections that follow
the last sentence by a comma, sounding "within one year from the effective date
This Act ", justify its contradiction with article 1 of the Charter of fundamental
of rights and freedoms ("the Charter") to guarantee the equality of rights,
as determined by the factual inequality of authorized persons and permits the
the same claims were authorized persons met differently. In the opinion of
the appellants ' Act now has the form of odnímající to him the logical sense. Builds
Indeed, formally all beneficiaries on the same level and also contains
specific provisions on the right of those authorized persons who exercised their
claims later, to seek the release of part of the case against those who in
the intervening period has already been issued. In the case of persons entitled to due to the
the constitutional award, published under no. 169/1994 Coll., however, this cannot be
the provisions, as successfully applied in their case law provided by the
the period ended before they started to run. The present text of the Act
impeaches the sense of the law on extrajudicial rehabilitation,
because it leads to a doubling of the redress of grievances. Once in the form of issue
real estate "in natura", then for the second time in compensation provided by the State
those eligible persons, which had de facto property cannot be issued.
This procedure would be detrimental to the State and citizens as taxpayers.
The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in its observations of 22 October.
October 1996, signed by its Chairman ing. Milos Zeman stated that
compliance with the constitutional guarantee of a lawful solution to the fundamental rights and freedoms is
be assessed in particular with regard to the period in which the law was adopted.
Legislatures have acted in the belief that Act No. 87/1991.
adopted in accordance with the Constitution and our laws and is on the Constitutional
Court to examine the constitutionality of this law and issued the relevant
From the file pl. ÚS 3/94 of the Constitutional Court, it was found that Act No. 87/1991
Coll. was approved by the required majority of the members of the Federal Assembly
on 21 February 2006. March 1991, was signed by the respective constitutional officials, and was
properly declared. The cited law, whose contested provisions of § 5 para. 5
It has not been amended accordingly, so he was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down
competency and constitutionally prescribed manner (section 68 (2) of law No.
Of the plenum of the Constitutional Court finding of 12 October. July 1994, SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
3/94 (No. 165/1994 Coll.) The Constitutional Court found that, by 1 January 2006. November
1994 were cancelled
1. in article 3, paragraph 3. 1 of law No. 87/1991 Coll. on extra-judicial
rehabilitation, as amended by laws to changing and supplementing, part of a sentence
for a (second) with a comma in the words "and has a permanent residence on its territory", and in the
the provisions of § 3 para. 4 of the same Act, as amended by the laws to the changing and
supplementary (prior to effect of Act No. 116/1994 Coll. is listed as the
paragraph 2), part of the sentence in the words "and have a permanent residence on its territory",
2. in the provisions of § 5 para. 2 (a). 4 of law No. 87/1991 Coll. on
out-of-court rehabilitation, as amended by the laws to the changing and
additional, the words "from the effective date of this Act".
Judgment of the Constitutional Court, therefore, without prejudice to the provisions of § 5 para. 5
Act No. 87/1991 Coll., according to which, where the matter has been issued, the person
the claims within the time limit referred to in paragraph 2 have not been
met, these claims in court against persons, to which the case was
released within one year from the effective date of this Act. Thus
the situation of the persons to whom it was referred to Constitutional Court granted
status of authorized persons, they can no longer claim arising from
the provisions of article 5(3). 5 of the Act to apply, whether against the obliged entities under
the provisions of § 5 para. 2 of the Act, as well as in the courts against persons who have been
the thing released (§ 5 para. 5 of the Act). In other words, the extension of the categories of persons
eligible to claim the assets according to the provisions of § 5 para. 5 of law
No. 87/1991 Coll. has changed nothing on the discrimination against those persons whose entitlement
can no longer be met because of the time limits referred to in that
As regards the question of the cancellation deadline, which in the present case
It is the Constitutional Court, the arguments contained in the award of the full
The Constitutional Court of 13 July. 1995 SP. zn. PL. ÚS 8/95. How to get in
This finding notes "If the existence of the rights associated with the deadline, in the
the case of a finding that the law was limited institutional manner, it is necessary to
remove the obstacle that would prevent its constitutional application ". In
this context, however, the Constitutional Court considers necessary to eliminate
with the question of the so-called. acquired rights, as well as the question of retroactive. It
Therefore, the persons to whom the case was issued, are not identical with the compulsory
persons under section 4 of Act No. 87/1991 Coll., as it is in fact about
beneficiaries whose claims have already been met. The law No.
87/1991 Coll., as amended, in the provisions of the section thus counted
5 (3). 5 with the possibility of a collision of interests more beneficiaries, whose
the essence is that only some of the claims of persons authorised under
This Act will be met, while the claims of other persons met
they will not be. This collision between the constitutionally guaranteed equality, and the fact of the matter
has already been released some of the authorized person, the law fixes the
the express permission of unmet by authorized persons
your claims against uspokojeným entitled persons to the Court, in
one-year limitation period. Also satisfied beneficiaries find themselves
in the process, the application of that act completely neodvratitelně in a position
the expectation that, in the case of that collision will be subjected to considerable
risk reduction in the extent of their uspokojeného already, claim. The fact that
the legislature authorized persons are satisfied that risk deliberately issued,
in the opinion of the Constitutional Court is entirely appropriate, since this is done completely
in accordance with the purposes of the Act, to monitor the mitigation of property and
other grievances from the years 1948-1989, and the tendency to give vent to the constitutional
the principle of equality and to allow all eligible persons to meet their
claims to the extent which by law it is for them, and it doesn't matter that the
some of them were already a thing. The mentioned purpose and tendency to Act No.
87/1991 Coll., as amended, are significant enough
landmarks that, in the light of their appeal to the acquired rights or principles
retroactive, and it's also due to the already mentioned positions expected
settled by authorised persons, issued by law for them to inclement
the risk of collision with the interests of the beneficiaries, unmet, it appears as
inappropriate. If it would be at all considered in this context.
acquired rights, because conceptually it is more about the rights of the newly constituted power,
new because it is done primarily on the basis of other substantive
regulations, then there is probably no need to answer the argument that at the time of their
the Constitution of the rights of these qualified people because of the possibility
Law predicted collision with the interests of other parties to the "risk"
the subtext, in other words, these beneficiaries had to necessarily count on
the consequences referred to in the provisions of § 5 para. 5 of the Act. Therefore, by analogy,
does not hold water either, since the claims-retroactivity claim settled
authorized persons when the existence of the cited provisions of § 5 para. 5 of law
were granted for "assistance" to the legal conditions that the extent of satisfaction
these entitlements will be reduced in the event of a collision with a claims
The Constitutional Court therefore considers that the proposal to repeal § 5 para. 5 of law No.
87/1991 Coll. on the part referred to in the last sentence with a comma, sounding "to
one year from the effective date of this Act ", it is reasonable for vytýkaný
conflict with the provisions of article 1 of the Charter guaranteeing equality in rights.
In the opinion of the Constitutional Court, however, is the proposal reasonable and conflict with the
Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which declares the Czech Republic for the
the rule of law based on respect for human rights and freedoms, article 3
paragraph. 1 of the Charter prohibiting discrimination in the field of fundamental rights and
freedoms, with article 4, paragraph 2. 2 of the Charter establishing the principle that the limits
fundamental rights and freedoms can be under the conditions laid down by the Charter of
modified only by law, with article 4, paragraph 2. 3 of the Charter, determining that the
legal restrictions of fundamental rights and freedoms must apply equally to all
cases meeting the conditions laid down, as well as for other reasons
konstatovaných in the plenum of the Constitutional Court findings, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/94 and
PL. ÚS 8/95.
Of all of the above reasons, the Constitutional Court upheld the proposal and the provisions of § 5
paragraph. 5 of law No. 87/1991 Coll. on the part referred to in the last sentence
comma, sounding "within one year from the effective date of this Act",
According to the provisions of § 70 para. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the day set aside
publication of the finding in the journal of laws.
Cancellation of already established under the provisions of § 5 para. 5 of law No.
87/1991 Coll. are still unmet beneficiaries opens the path to the
exercise of the right enshrined in this provision. It is on the
lawmakers to put legislation to such a State that the
clearly, that right may exercise only those persons to whom it
repealed part of the cited provision still did not allow, provided a new
This finding of the payment of the period and allowed to deal with situations
what you are experiencing as a result of the fact that in the intervening period since the release of things to
There is currently no longer to transfer or gradient things on other people.
The President of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
Different opinion of judge JUDr. Zdeněk Kessler
Find reasons to eliminate the inequality between the parties
the restitution process and allow the person to whom the constitutional
Court pl. ÚS 3/94 (additionally) granted the status of an authorized person,
applied in the newly established time limit his claims against the person to whom the matter was
previously (in the period from 1992) released.
That is directed against the principle of inequality (discrimination) between the original
and the new (additional) konstituovanými beneficiaries, questioned
find other overlooked the basic principles of the rule of law, both
the principle of stability and the protection of property rights. The legislature in ust. § 5 para.
5 of law No. 87/1991 Coll. on extra-judicial rehabilitation, provided
(probably for reasons of administrative technical) one-year limitation
the period from the effectiveness of the law, in which he could claim in court
the one whose claims were met, to which it has been
the thing is released.
The expiry of this one-year period was renewed or new ownership (
is fixed and the owner constituted) was entitled to all of the goals with the
proprietary right associated (transfer, conversion, demolition, installation of
etc.). Unable to identify with the justification for the finding that the provisions of section 5 of the
paragraph. 5. No. 87/1991 Coll. has a "risk" the subtext and that it is therefore possible to
property rights, to whom the case was issued, or at any time in the
future hit to the inequality of the participants.
Restitution laws, including law No. 87/1991 Coll. on extra-judicial
rehabilitation, trying to mitigate the effects of certain wrongs (§ 1 (1).
1 the Act. No. 87/1991 Coll.). In cases where it is not possible in kind
restitution, to payment of compensation laws govern financial compensation
by the State. However, this finding rejects on the grounds that it was "on
injury to the State and citizens as taxpayers and lead to a doubling of
redress of grievances ".
This view is, however, contrary to the conclusion of recital award, in which the
requires lawmakers to allow editing of the law "to deal with the
situations, which occur as a result of the fact that in the intervening period since the release of things
until now there has been no longer to transfer or gradient things on others ".
Such additional adjustment would likely require even cases where the thing
lapse (demolition, redevelopment) or reconstruction of the lost original character
and the thing was new.
Find-when challenging the principle of stability of the rule of law, the protection of
property rights-reliable principles on restitution laws and the will to
While the legislature formally claim their entitlements to persons
complying with the additional condition of authorized persons to those to whom the case was
previously released, but until the new adjusted above
cases (transfer, transition, the disappearance of things, etc.) will not be possible, such
the right to decide.
Different opinion of judge JUDr. Vladimir Paula
Conclusions relating to the period in § 5 para. 5 of law No. 87/1991 Coll.,
on extrajudicial rehabilitation, are not convincing and do not allow the current
the legal status of the mark to be unconstitutional. Therefore, do not provide a basis for
the decision about the necessity and justification of the annul the contested provisions of the Act.
The main weight of argument to justify repealing the decision of the constitutional
the Court is based on the article. 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms that its
a general characteristic of the notes that people are equal in the
dignity and in their rights. This text is then used in such a
in a way, as if from the award should arise that equality in rights means
in the same position for all of the same benefits of all or the same application
beneficiaries in the context of restitution law, as in this particular
case. Completely neglects the fact that such constitutional principles are in
the present case, given concrete form and applied in the individual, at the Institute of
successive laws and specify the specific rights and obligations
citizens. It generally applies to other principles covered by the preamble to the
relied on, whether it's about the article. 3 (2). 1, art. 4 (4). 2 and 3, of the Charter of
fundamental rights and freedoms or article. 1 of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC.
Such are instantiating the restitution laws that have been in the Czech Republic
(CSFR) issued and is in force. However, they stress that it is only
to mitigate the damage and wrongs that have been unlawfully caused by citizens in
over the past 50 years. Their aim was not, according to the intention of the legislators in
the law expressed, to replace the entirety of the damage suffered, but
to establish criteria for the implementation of the restitution in specific cases
specific terms and conditions. In these circumstances, to invoke the equality of people,
which assets were withdrawn, it is unimaginable. The legislature had
undoubtedly the right to edit questions of restitution in a way whose implementation
He considered possible. The State as a member of the international community was and is
the possibility of taking into consideration the fundamental political and economic changes
nepřikročit at all for restitution when State-owned assets, as, indeed, do the
even some of the States that they found themselves in a similar situation. As well as for him
does not imply an obligation to pay any damages and returned unconditionally to all
assets that its predecessor in recent years illegally gained and
It follows that the legislature had the opportunity to lay down the criteria and extent of
restitution differently for certain circuits of the beneficiaries and the scope of
obligations for the taxable person, which also has made. He admits it and find
The Constitutional Court of CZECHOSLOVAKIA (SP. zn. PL. ÚS 22/92 of 8. 10.1992, no. 11 Collections
resolutions and findings of the Constitutional Court of CZECHOSLOVAKIA), which States that for certain
scopes can special standards lay down specific criteria equality that
from the general principle of access or because the application of the principle of equality
There are so precise limits to avoid any any free
at the discretion of those who apply. This finding further stresses that, when
the relative equality, as they have in mind all the modern Constitution, does not have the
an individual right that the State has removed all the factual inequalities,
but, within the limits of its capabilities, eliminate unjustified differences.
In the case of the restitution laws, however, the rights of individuals not
konstituována on the principle of equality, on the contrary, in themselves, restitution laws
highlight that are geared just to alleviate the effects of some of the grievances,
occurred in earlier historical stage, and thus declare that persons
that these laws shall be applied on the basis of certain claims, such
claims met by the State, which took over the management of public affairs after
the "Velvet Revolution", only to the extent prescribed by law, within the range of options
State and according to the specific conditions of the case. The equality of people, applying the
claims, it does not follow from the law and taking account of the above reasons,
Neither the result nor could not, could not, and the reasons for the differences in the
meeting the demands of the beneficiaries then vice versa from the laws clearly
This would have been possible to end this different opinion because it is not
doubt that the unconstitutionality of the contested provision is not given and a proposal for
its cancellation had to be rejected.
However, you cannot forget that the deletion of the words "within one year from the date of
the effectiveness of this law "from § 5 para. 5 of law No. 87/1991.
deep intervention in the rights of citizens. It is necessary to mention at least some of the
them, which represent the reasons against the cancellation of the said provisions of the Act:
1. justification for the award is based on the interpretation of the provisions of § 5 para. 5 of law No.
87/1991 Coll., in its original form, which underwent changes as a result of
Constitutional Court of the CZECH REPUBLIC of 13 October. 12.1995, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 8/95:
"If the case Was issued, persons whose claims within the time limit
referred to in paragraph 1. 2 have not been met, these claims in court against the
persons to whom the case was issued, within one year from the effective date
This Act. "
In this interpretation, it is recognised that, in the above text is enshrined privileges
unmet beneficiaries their claims against the uspokojeným
eligible persons to the Court, in a one-year limitation period. In
Next comes to nothing, however, unfounded conclusions, that are satisfied
authorized persons find themselves in the process of the application of Act No. 87/1991.
(that is, at any time, regardless of the limitation period) in neodvratitelně
the position of the expectation that, in the case of a collision between the constitutionally guaranteed equality and
the fact that the thing was released some of the beneficiaries, they will be subject
considerable risk of reduction of the extent of their already uspokojeného the claim.
Supposedly the legislator are satisfied beneficiaries issued this risk
intentionally, in order to give vent to the constitutional principle of equality and mitigate
the wrongs of that law specifies. It is therefore postulated, but
due to the aforementioned limitation period completely unreasonable that the rights
authorized persons had settled in a "risk the subtext", IE. These
the person had to necessarily count with the consequences referred to in the provisions of § 5 para.
5 of the Act, and denies the objection, as well as claims-retroactivity
authorized persons have been settled when the existence of this statutory
the provisions allegedly granted for "assistance" to the legal conditions that the scope
satisfaction will be reduced in the event of a collision with unmet claims
The cancellation of the cited provisions of the law, however, has produced effects which
the preamble itself is not. The person to whom the restitution
items released since 1991, respectively, from the efficiency of the restitution laws
in the meantime, they were built into a situation where their ownership for
the lack of legal regulation and the incompleteness of the reasoning is now called into question,
Although it was acquired on the basis of the law and in good faith. ;
the award was in the preamble is considered pointless and, therefore, due to the
the purpose of the restitution law and for a minor, without
regardless of the legal security of the citizen. The principle of "end justifies the means"
still no use.
2. Reasoning fails to deal with the legal issues that the above
the said section 5 para. 5. No. 87/1991 Coll. has brought.
First of all, it should be assumed that the things in this case
real estate, which have been duly issued pursuant to that Act, authorized
to a person, that person has acquired the property pursuant to section 47 of the civil code
the legal power of the registration written contract. There has been a transfer of
ownership of a final judgment pursuant to § 161 CCP intabulací, respectively.
According to the amended.
This person whose entitlement to restitution was satisfied, she became
the owner and the law has other provisions from which showed that its
the position of the owner may be in any way compromised, unless
a compulsory purchase order for the replacement, in the public interest. Not from § 5 para. 5 of the Act in
the original version, it cannot be inferred that the person whose claims have not been met,
It may require a court release stuff already released, but is spoken by only about
a claim against the person to whom the case was released, therefore probably
the right to compensation, but not on the issue, and this application Additionally binds
on the one-year limitation period.
In connection with that the limitation period was undoubtedly the interpretation,
that creates a kind of temporary ownership, conditional, provisional
or some equivalent legal Institute hereditas iacens. Even if the
restitution laws are rightly regarded as leges speciales and govern
for specific cases or even termination of ownership please consider,
changing the content of the concept of ownership to the extent of being referred to the interpretation and
they get into conflict with the article. 11 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Therefore, if the preamble talks more generally worded and the prima facie
risk reduction uspokojeného the claim, have not taken the above legal problem
3. In the preamble, in its construction of the inequality of authorized persons
to respond to the application of § 71 para. 4 of law No. 182/1993 Coll., on the constitutional
the Court, according to which the rights and obligations of the legal relations arising from
the abolition of the law remain unaffected.
Such legal relationships are no doubt all registered contracts,
concerning the issue of the case or the decision of the courts about their issue and cannot
be listed in question a mere assumption of the existence of the risk reduction
the extent of one already uspokojeného.
4. The legislator in restitution laws respecting the ownership of the
property of natural persons, which it acquired in good faith from the State
assets not in an unlawful manner. Such a person has not been
obliged entities within the meaning of the Act and in such cases was not property
issued by the original owner, and he was granted a refund for example. pursuant to section 13
the law on out-of-court rehabilitation.
In this context, particularly stands out the inadequacy of the current award,
because the law itself provides for cases in which the State unlawfully obtained
assets will not be possible to issue, whether it was installed, reconstructed or releases
otherwise be prevented, for example. the provisions of nevydávání of the land under the
holiday villages, etc.
Therefore, it is protismyslné in the life of legislation that introduces
retroactive application of the law and may in practice as unconstitutional,
When the law itself has provisions to deal with such cases.
5. The preamble has appealed the findings to the Constitutional Court plenum SP. zn.
PL. ÚS 3/94 and PL. ÚS 8/95 (collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court of the CZECH REPUBLIC,
SV. 1., no. 38 and St. 4., no. 83), but has not responded to the fact that when
some provisions of the contested section 5 plenary Constitutional law sense.
the Court concluded that the arbitration procedure has on the content you need to change anything. In
this connection, you cannot rely on it as the justification that
repeal of section 5 of Act No. 87/1991 Coll. was proposed. According to § 78 para. 2
in the context of § 64 para. 5 of law No. 182/1993 Coll. on the management can
repeal of the law or its part launched the plenary of the Constitutional Court, if
in the context of ruling on a constitutional complaint comes to the conclusion that the
provisions of the law or its individual parts, which
There was a relevant fact is inconsistent with the constitutional law.
It is to be inferred rather than nevnímavost or inattention to constitutional
Court, but the fact that the Constitutional Court, when analysed in detail in § 5
sentiment for the need of the former Act, the decision did not find its contradiction with the
article. 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, and therefore not to discuss such
issues already agreed.
6. Finally, it should be noted that the preamble does not include compelling
the reasons that the constitutional complaint was interference with the rights of the complainants
the title of the application of the order under the Act, and that reason is given to
the plenary of the Constitutional Court to annul the contested provisions of the proposal at all
It addressed. Access to significant overlap of the importance of a constitutional complaint
over its own interests as the complainants in this case because of the discussion
finds no support in the law. The decision of the General Court structure reflect the the legal
the State of things and if it would not be legal, and contained the conclusion that cannot be
issue, had its sequel already predestined in the restitution law,
specifically, in section 13 of the Act. No. 87/1991 Coll., which with such cases throughout the
lead time of the restitution of the Act counted and still counts.
Different opinion of judge JUDr. Vlastimila Ševčík
Materie, find the Constitutional Court deals with in this case, it is similar,
If not in important respects identical with the one that was previously
the subject of the decision of the Constitutional Court in matters of PL. ÚS 3/94 (publ. in
The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic: a collection of findings and orders. 1, no. 38) and
PL. ÚS 8/95 (publ. in the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic: a collection of awards and
resolution, of St. 4, no. 83); because against the findings made in these matters
I expressed their different views and because in the meantime there have been
such circumstances which forced me to change the view to his former
justification referring and with reference to what has been said previously,
Justification for the majority adopted the opposition is trying to award retroactive
findings of the established, or the opposition of interference with the rights already acquired,
bridge the interpretation, whose center of gravity lies in the somewhat indeterminate
distinction of rights acquired and of the "rights of the newly konstituovaných"; from this
the design for the "risk the subtext of the" newly acquired rights for the
"assistance" to the statutory reduction arising from issued by an authorized person (and no longer
acquired ex lege) things, reverse the consequences resulting from the award. This
the construction gives the impression, as a result of the award should be considered
entitlement to benefits in kind, IE. apparently entitled to the perfect
a co-ownership share to a real estate the parties which in the decision-
the General Court-constitutional complaint has been made.
As indicated by the construction, as well as her justification for constitutionally do not regard the
First of all-in terms of "the rights of the newly constituted power", of which the find as of
basis-there is reasonable cause for such a bland
the distinction, and among other things, that (i) the rights (based on other
substantive law) "newly constituted power" cannot be in the
context-understood as rights (really) acquired,
with all the consequences that go with it, and without regard to any
"risk the subtext" or "assistance legal conditions". The authorized person,
If the mode of Act No. 87/1991 Coll., the case was released, without
any restriction to the stuff (ex lege) acquired the right to ownership,
among other things, also because of another (whether the swap, be subject to a condition
limited) way of acquisition of ownership to released things under consideration
mode or the law, or do not know the doctrine; Therefore, you cannot-in my
beliefs and in accordance with a different opinion of JUDr. Paula-claims
unmet (and otherwise authorized) people to understand otherwise than as a claim
the Act, moreover, the reasonably necessary requirement of legal-
Security-limited by the short limitation period (finding now repealed)
the justification for and the circumstances in which it was adopted, I laid out in the
the previous different opinions; It seems to me, therefore, the reference in the preamble
the award to the constitutionally guaranteed equality in rights as a nepřípadný and find
himself-especially for a breakthrough to legal relationships established before today
some time ago the law and-also the reasons set out earlier-as
Not only for the reasons set out in a separate opinion in PL. ÚS 8/95
I also appeal to the legislature that is contained in the last paragraph of the award
also problematic, currently also for considerable legislative
pressure on socially significant problems; You can therefore worry that, moreover,
the practice will be loaded with new general courts complex (in the agenda
cases, to stop real estate, their alienation, conversion, etc.),
which problems can be difficult to balance.
I have, therefore, considered that the proposal in this matter brought by the complainants in
the context of the general constitutional complaint against the decision of the Court was to be
Different opinion of judge JUDr. Paul Varvařovského
Find, in terms of the cancellation period, the argument contained in the
plenum of the Constitutional Court the award of 13 April. 12.1995, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 8/95.
Due to the fact that I have already applied for this award is different
opinion and I don't find the reasons for his change, I have before
again, its essential points.
The Mission of the Constitutional Court is to review the constitutionality of, which means that the
The Constitutional Court has only disturb unconstitutional legislation, where appropriate, their
part of his job, but is not reparovat the consequences of the fact that there is this ongoing
to cancel the unconstitutional conditions for entitlement. Otherwise, the
The Constitutional Court building to a role that is not for him and rather well even
the responsibility cannot. If the preamble of the Constitution and article 1 declared
The Czech Republic as a democratic legal State, then this policy,
at least according to my judgment, requires that the Court respected the status
the legislation Act. In a modern State can accept a certain
how the individual components can, in no case, however, cannot
break the balance between them. The task of the Constitutional Court, therefore,
should be to maintain this balance as nejúzkostlivěji dbal.
Interference-limits policy undermines the rule of law, and in particular by
significantly interferes with the legal guarantees of natural and legal
For the above reasons I have therefore considered that, similarly as in the case of PL. ÚS
8/95, that the proposal to repeal part of the provisions of § 5 para. 5 of law No.
87/1991 Coll. on extra-judicial rehabilitation, should be rejected.