146/2014 Sb.



FIND



The Constitutional Court



On behalf of the Republic of



The Constitutional Court decided under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 35/11 on March 13. may 2014

the plenary consisting of the President of the Court, Pavel Rychetský and Stanislav

Ass-Bag, Louis David, Jan Filip, Vlasta Formánkové, Ivana Janů,

Vladimir Crust, Jan Musil, Vladimir Sládečka, Radovan Suchánka,

Catherine Šimáčkové, Milady Tomková (Judge Rapporteur) and Jiří

Zemánka on the design of the circuit court for Prague submitted pursuant to article 3. paragraph 95.

2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic to repeal the provisions of Section 250a of Act No 99/1963

Coll., the civil procedure code as amended by Act No. 151/2002 Coll., for the participation of

The Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament and the Senate of the Parliament

The Czech Republic as the parties,



as follows:



I. proposal for the repeal of the provisions of Section 250a of the Act No. 99/1963 Coll., the civil

the judicial code, as amended by Act No. 151/2002 Coll., is rejected.



II. A participant in a proceeding under Section 250a of paragraph 1. 1 of Act No 99/1963 Coll.,

Code of civil procedure as amended by Act No. 151/2002 Coll., is also the State

(Czech Republic), where the dispute has been the subject of administrative procedure

resulting from relations governed by private law, in which the administrative authority

assessed shall be entitled to compensation for assets left in 1945

citizens of the Czech Republic of Carpathian Ruthenia.



Justification



(I).



1. The Constitutional Court was on 14 June 2004. December 2011 served the district

Court for Prague 3, which is the President of the Senate, Dr. David Vláčil,

(hereinafter as the "petitioner") on abolition of the provisions of section, paragraph 250a. 1 and 2

Act No. 99/1963 Coll., the civil procedure code, as amended

regulations, (hereinafter ' the contested provisions ').



2. the applicant has filed the proposal then, what in the context of its

the decision-making activities (case SP. zn. 16 C 96/2011) in accordance with the provisions of the

article. paragraph 95. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") came to the

the conclusion that the contested provisions are contrary to the constitutional order.



II.



The progress of the proceedings before the administrative authorities and courts of the General



3. Action, in which the defendant was identified as the party of the Czech Republic-

The Ministry of finance, the plaintiffs (the five natural persons) seek the return

compensation for immovable property left by their legal predecessor on

The Transcarpathian Ukraine (mostly just "Carpathian Ruthenia") that

The Ministry of Finance of the nedatovaným by decision No 44/10366/2008-908

the replacement nepřiznalo. Degradation of submitted against this

the decision of the Minister of Finance decided on 30. April 2009 under the No.

908/6270/2009 so that the contested decision confirmed. Applied legal

law was the law No 42/1958 Coll., on certain rights and obligations

related to the reunification of Transcarpathian Ukraine with Ukrainian

Soviet Socialist Republic, and the implementing regulations issued by the

This law.



4. The claimant was referred to the District Court for Prague 1,

which the action was originally delivered and who expressed his local

lack of competence. According to the District Court for Prague 1, were the only

the participants in the proceedings before the administrative authorities of the applicants. It was under

the opinion of this Court on the adversarial proceedings, but of the proceedings before the

the administrative authority for any other legal question arising from the civil

relationship within the meaning of the provisions of § 244, paragraph. 1 of Act No 99/1963 Coll.,

Code of civil procedure, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "about.

with the line "). In a situation where the decision issued in such proceedings shall take

legal power, may be the same thing on a proposal discussed in the civil

proceedings under part five of the s. l. Participants of court proceedings as referred to in section

paragraph 250a. 1. l. are the applicants and those who were participants in the proceedings

before the administrative authority, which are within the meaning of the second definition of the participants

According to the (now defunct) § 94 paragraph. 2. s. l., only those which the law

for the participants. Czech Republic or administrative authority which

the decision issued, because the participants in the opinion of the District Court for the

The threshold of 1. In a situation where any of the parties to the proceedings before the

administrative authority should be imposed the obligation to carry out, not for the

the findings of the local jurisdiction apply to § 250, paragraph. 1 (a). and o. s.), l.,

but the provisions of § 250, paragraph. 1 (a). (b)) a. s. l., from which it is locally

the competent ordinary court participant, on whose design was the proceedings before

the Administration started. Under section 11 (2). 2. s. l., if the control

at the request of more participants and given the local jurisdiction

several of the courts, the proceedings may take place at any of them. Since neither

one of the applicants is not in the circuit the circuit court for his residence, Prague 1

This Court expressed in resolution No. j. 21 C 16/2009-62 of 21 April 2004. September

2010 local jurisdiction and the case advanced the circuit court for the

Prague 3, since it is the General Court of the first applicant. This resolution

It was subsequently confirmed by the municipal court in Prague, as the Court of appeal.



5. After the matter was referred to it, the applicant addressed the circuit

Parties to the proceedings, and came to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 250a.

lines that should be applied, is in conflict with the constitutional order.

The applicant therefore lodged the present proposal now on cancellation

provisions within the meaning of § 64 paragraph. 3 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the constitutional

the Tribunal, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the law of Constitutional

the Court ") and filed a lawsuit.



III.



Recap of the proposal



6. The contradiction of the contested provisions with constitutional order sees

the appellant in that it does not allow for the participation of the "defendant" in judicial proceedings,

Therefore he is as impossible for the plaintiffs to pursue effectively their

rights. Compulsory in the case would be represented by the Ministry of

the Treasury, which, of course, in the administrative procedure nevystupovalo in the role of a participant

control, but in the decisive role of the administrative authority. The contested

According to the appellant's second provision corresponds to the definition of the intervention,

which are parties to the proceedings the appellant (the plaintiff) and the law

for the participant expressly designates. As the appellant submits, the administrative authority

that decision, in private law matters, a participant in the proceedings referred to in

the fifth section of the code of civil procedure, since it

the participant expressly indicates. As well as this body of logic

things cannot be a participant in the administrative procedure, which is in front of him

led. In the present case, neither the Finance Ministry nor the Czech

as the participants in the proceedings before the applicant stand out

they cannot. As yet the only participants in the administrative proceedings were

prosecutors, lacking in legal proceedings the body which could process

correct way to act on the part of the defendant, and to defend the interests of so

State in a given dispute.



7. The application of the contested provisions in the circumstances "excludes

the possibility of a fair trial in a case concerning the fundamental right to

judicial and other protection, i.e. the rights guaranteed in particular in article. paragraph 36. 2

Of the Charter [fundamental rights and freedoms] as plaintiffs, who are not against

[-] to obtain a decision on the requests, and state that

is not entitled to act as a participant in the dispute proceedings and make

they filed the lawsuit to defend ".



8. According to the applicant, in the application of the contested provisions in the management

absentovala a person whose rights and obligations to be in control

treated. If the Court planned to claim to meet, then he should state

the obligation to pay financial. Under the current approach, however, would

not to deliver its judgment, the State would be denied the right to have it

review before the Court of second instance and the applicants would be nedomohli performance

the decision, as it would against the Czech Republic had qualified the enforcement

the title.



9. the applicant thus deduces that the contested provision is also in violation of the

with the article. paragraph 38. 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (the "Charter"),

because it used the expression "his thing" is to be interpreted as meaning that the Charter

requires that each of the rights and obligations to be in court

the management of the branch, had the opportunity to participate in this proceeding and comment to

all carried out by the evidence. According to the applicant, the contested provision is also

contrary to the article. 14 paragraph. 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and

political rights, from which it follows that everyone has the same right to be

fair and public hearing by an impartial and independent court, which

decides about his rights and obligations. A similar right has the result from

article. 6 (1). 1 to the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. According to the

the petitioner is denied this right not only the State but also the applicants,

who effectively cannot be enforced against the debtor to his allegation of their

claims.



10. Finally, the applicant considers that the text of the law is so

uniquely, it does not constitutionally Conformal interpretation, through

that could be the circuit parties expanded.



11. For these reasons, therefore, the District Court for Prague 3 proposes the contested

provision, with de lege ferenda would the legislature had other

the definition of abetting in Section 250a of the s. l. replace the third definition, according to the

which the parties were the appellant and all those whose

rights and obligations to be in control of the branch.



IV.
Representation of the parties



12. The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as

"Chamber of Deputies") in the comments to the draft of 3 October. February 2014,

signed by the Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies, Jan Hamáčkem, stated that

the draft Act No. 151/2002 Coll., amending certain laws in the

connection with the adoption of the administrative judicial procedure, which has been revised

the fifth part of the code of civil procedure (and which was to the civil

the order of the components of the contested provisions), also submitted to the Chamber of Deputies

the House of the Government of the day 1. October 2001. The Government Bill was circulated

members as the house printing No 1081/0. The Chamber of Deputies discussed the

the Government's draft law no 151/2002 Coll. in the first reading on 25. October 2001 and

She ordered it to consider constitutionally the legal Committee to draft

adopted amendments in which was contained the contested

the provisions of § paragraph 250a. 1 and 2 of row in the detailed debate in the framework of the

the second reading amendments were submitted, which the contested

the provisions were not related. In the vote on the draft law at the end of the third reading

from the present 149 159 deputies voted in favor of the proposal and none against

the proposal. The draft law was adopted by the Chamber of Deputies and 25 July.

February 2002 was sent to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as

"The Chamber"). 28 June. March 2002 a law signed by President of the Republic. In

The collection of laws was promulgated on 17. April 2002.



13. in a statement to the Senate proposal of 27 June. January 2014, signed

the Chairman of the Senate of Milan Štěchem, said that the provisions of section, paragraph 250a. 1 and

2 has been included in the code of civil procedure in connection with the adoption of the

new arrangements of administrative justice, and Act No. 151/2002 Sb.

the law has been revised the whole section of the fifth row, from 1. January

2003 effectively regulates the proceedings in the matters of which it was decided another

authority. From that date, the effectiveness of the code of civil procedure was subjected to

several dozens of changes, yet not without prejudice to the provisions of Section 250a, and it

or a major amendment, adopted in the context of the new codification of the private

(performed by the law No. 293/2013 Coll., amending Act No.

99/1963 Coll., the code of civil procedure, as amended, and

some other laws). As well as the minor exceptions-

changed the whole part of the fifth row.



14. The Bill was delivered to the Senate 25 October. February 2002 and legal

outline discuss the Constitutional Committee (which was at the same time the Committee

guarantee) and the Committee for territorial development, public administration and the

environment. Both committees recommended by the Senate to approve the Bill as amended by the

transferred the Chamber of Deputies. 21 June. in March 2002, the Senate expressed the

will the draft Bill does not deal, in the applicable vote, the present

43 senators voted in favor and 38 for one. The Senate, in its representation of the

within the limits of the Constitution provided for advanced competencies and constitutionally prescribed

in a way.



15. As regards the substantive assessment of the draft Act No. 151/2002 Sb.

he stepped out for the Government the Minister of Justice. Jaroslav Bureš, who

among other things, stated that the fifth part of the code of civil procedure is to allow

judicial review of decisions of administrative authorities competent for civil

claims, and is designed to guarantee the constitutional protection

the rights and obligations of persons who are referred to practices. The proposal for a

the rapporteur also expressed the guarantee Committee. Dagmar

Lastovecká, which pointed to the two questions, which has been in

constitutionally-legal Committee conducted discussions, none of them, however, did not cover

the contested provisions of section, paragraph 250a. 1 and 2 of line in the end expression

so, it is concluded that the Senate nor its authorities question

the proposal, the constitutional provision of section konformitu paragraph 250a. 1 and 2

Code of civil procedure have not challenged.



16. the statement of the Government and the Ombudsman has not been requested (cf..

the communication of the Constitutional Court No. Org. 72/12 of 18 April. December 2012, point 3;

posted under no 469/2012 Sb.).



17. the statement in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate was sent to the applicant on the

consciousness and to any replica. The appellant the day 6. February 2014, the constitutional

the Court said that the law does not use the replicas.



In the.



The abandonment of an oral hearing



18. The Constitutional Court did not expect from an oral hearing, further clarification of the matter,

therefore dropped from him according to the provisions of section 44 the first sentence of the law on the constitutional

of the Court.



VI.



The diction of the contested provisions



19. The provisions of Section 250a of the Act No. 99/1963 Coll., the code of civil procedure, in

the text of Act No. 151/2002 Coll., added:



Section 250a



The participants in the proceedings



(1) the parties are the applicant and those who were participants in the proceedings

before the administrative authority.



(2) When the Court finds that the proceedings do not participate in someone who is referred to in

paragraph 1 of its resolution it shall bring in the participant in the proceedings. Against the

This resolution is not appealable.



VII.



Assessment of the competence of the Constitutional Court for consideration of the proposal, and the active

the appellant's evidence



20. The Constitutional Court had to consider whether the particular are filled with procedural

the conditions for the consideration of the application of the proposal; in this context, the focus

initially the question was whether the District Court for Prague 3 to submit a proposal

actively legitimován.



21. In accordance with the provisions of article. paragraph 95. 2 of the Constitution, if the Court concluded that the

the law, which is to be used in solving the case, is in contradiction with the constitutional

policy, shall refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. This further developed

the provisions of § 64 paragraph. 3 the law on the Constitutional Court, according to which a proposal for the

repeal of the law or its individual provisions is also entitled to

the Court in the context of its decision-making activities referred to in article. paragraph 95. 2

Of the Constitution.



22. the kinds of discussion of such a proposal is the fulfillment of the

article. paragraph 95. 2 of the Constitution, in the sense that it must act on the Bill, which has

be used when solving things, IE. Act or its provisions, which is

proposed to cancel the plaintiff are to be directly applied in the

the solution of a particular dispute. From the case-law of the general courts (see, for example.

the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court No. 9 As 4/2007-68 dated February 14.

in June 2007, the Special Senate confirmed findings for decision-making

some of the conflicts in its resolution No Msg 6/2012-9 of 27 June.

September 2012) that the decisions of administrative authorities for the granting of the refund

for property left on Carpathian Ruthenia is a decision in the matter of

private law. The one who feels to be this decision, without prejudice to the

their rights, is therefore entitled to claim the protection of their rights

through action by the fifth section of the code of civil procedure. In

under this procedure, the courts are obliged to deal with also circuit

the parties to proceedings, to whose definition is used, the provisions of Section 250a of the row in the

thing the appellant interrupted due to the submission of the present now

the proposal, to be applied directly to the contested provisions.



23. The Constitutional Court therefore finds the condition of direct application of the contested

provisions for filled. The appellant is actively legitimován to a submission

the proposal to repeal the contested provisions.



VIII.



Review of the procedure of adoption of legal provisions under review



24. The Constitutional Court, how he stores provisions of section 68, paragraph. 2 of law No.

182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48/2002 Coll.

Subsequently, it was examined whether the contested provisions adopted within the limits of the Constitution

established competence and constitutionally prescribed way. Came out from

on těsnopiseckých reports and cited from the representation of both Chambers

Parliament.



25. From the těsnopisecké message from 46. the Chamber of Deputies held a meeting day

February 15, 2002, the Constitutional Court found that the Act No. 151/2002 Sb.

adopted by the Chamber of deputies in the third reading vote no. 596, with

of the 159 MPs voted for the proposal, against 149 members

the proposal did not vote no member.



26. From the těsnopisecké message from the 15. Senate meeting held on 21. March

2002, shows that the Senate has expressed the will to draft Act No. 151/2002 Sb.

to dwell; in a vote no. 95 of 43 senators present for this

step 38 senators voted in favor and 1 against the Senator.



27. The Constitutional Court stated that Act No. 151/2002 Coll., which is

the contested provisions included, was accepted and published in the limits of a constitutionally

established competence and constitutionally prescribed way.



IX.



A substantive review of the proposal



28. after the examination of the constitutionality of the procedure of adoption of the contested act is

The Constitutional Court focused on its substantive compliance with the constitutional order. The constitutional

the court first dealt with the question of whether the contested provisions, as

interpreted by the appellant, is in conflict with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.

In the case of a positive response will be on the Constitutional Court to examine whether coming

into account the interpretation of the contested provisions constitutionally conformal, or whether it is

the only solution to its derogation.



29. According to the interpretation of the petitioner, the contested provision does not allow participation

the State in judicial proceedings, since the State, although this is subject to

which of the parties the applicant claimed the claim, was not a participant in the

the proceedings before the administrative authority and in the matter of the crucial administrative authority

a participant in the court proceedings under part five of the row can be.
30. In accordance with the provisions of article. paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter may be the one who claims that the

was truncated on its rights by a decision of a public authority, contact

on the Court, to review the legality of such a decision, unless the

the law otherwise. From the jurisdiction of the Court should not be precluded the examination of

decisions concerning fundamental rights and freedoms.



31. According to the article. 11. 4 of the Charter is the expropriation or compulsory restrictions

ownership may be in the public interest, on the basis of the law and for

replacement. If, therefore, it was decided by the administrative authority on the law of the applicants '

on the compensation for property left in Carpathian Ruthenia, about which the plaintiff

they came as a result of the Treaty between the Czechoslovak Republic and the Union of

Soviet Socialist Republics of the Transcarpathian Ukraine and Protocol

to this contract, proclaimed under no 186/1946 Coll., or in accordance with the agreement between the

The Czechoslovak Republic and the Soviet Socialist Republics

about the final settlement of property and financial issues associated with the

the reunification of Transcarpathian Ukraine with Ukrainian Soviet Socialist

Republic, proclaimed by Decree of the Minister of Foreign Affairs No. 1/1958

Coll., this decision of 30 March 2004. April 2009 in a specific range

the fundamental rights and freedoms under the Charter.



32. The protection of the rights concerned by this decision is the legal order

guaranteed by the fifth section of the code of civil procedure. From

the point of view of fundamental rights is not sufficient, however, if the rule of law

a right only theoretically guarantees, but it is necessary to

an individual could realistically be enforced this right also. If, therefore, in the framework of the

the proceedings before the administrative authority has decided on the entitlement of claimants to the

compensation for the property, but in the subsequent proceedings the Court should subject that has

This compensation to provide, could not be party to the proceedings, it would

to the violation of article. paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter. The Court is unable to award to the

meet and the reimbursement of them admit, since it cannot store

the obligations of a person who is not a party to the proceedings. The plaintiff would so real

no option to achieve the award.



33. The Constitutional Court therefore agrees with the applicant that the contested

the provisions in the above described interpretation could lead to violations of the constitutionally

guaranteed rights.



34. The Constitutional Court on whether it is possible to the contested provisions,

where appropriate, the provisions of this provision related to land, so that the

the plaintiff, after which the procedure under section 244 et seq.. o. s. l. seeks

a particular implementation (i.e. the State), he was a participant in the court proceedings.



35. It is clear that the contested provisions as unconstitutional, may appear to be

not in all its breadth, but only in specific cases, when

subject to the preceding administrative procedure are rights and obligations

the State, which in this administrative procedure acts in position in case

the determining of the administrative authority. The Constitutional Court therefore focused on

These specific cases, and concluded that the position of the State in

These administrative proceedings allows its participation in subsequent proceedings

According to the fifth section of the code of civil procedure, and even while maintaining

the contested legislation.



36. The claim asserted against the State under Act No. 42/1958 Coll. (according to § 1

paragraph. 1 in this Act "the Czechoslovak State-reimbursement-")

private nature corresponds to many other claims on the estate

the refunds, which are applied to the State on the basis of other legal

regulations. The specific feature of the claim pursuant to Act No. 42/1958 Coll. is the fact

the State authority (under section 3 of the Ministry of Finance) is gifted with the powers of

the dispute may decide. This feature, however, does not alter the fact that the State is

at the same time by a body which is in accordance with § 1 (1). 1 of law No 42/1958 Coll.

where appropriate, be required to right the petitioners (plaintiffs) in compensation for assets

to satisfy (the State is therefore de facto by the respondent at the same time). As his opponents

then is the right to be a participant in the administrative procedure, in which the plaintiff

the refund claim.



37. In this direction can be in the absence of special legislation

abetting in law No 42/1958 Coll. (and its reference in section 3 of the administrative

in the alternative, order) point out the provisions of section 141, paragraph. 3 of the administrative code,

which replaced the procedural regulation, according to which followed the administrative

the authority, which provides that the parties to the proceedings, in which resolves disputes

arising from civil-law relations, the petitioner and the respondent.

At this point, the Constitutional Court notes that despite the opinion of the District Court for the

Prague 1, the procedure for compensation for assets left by deciding on the features

the dispute, despite the specific position of the State in this proceeding. Indeed, in the

Law No. 212/2009 Coll., which mitigate property injustices citizens

The Czech Republic for the immovable property which they left on the territory of the

Carpathian Ruthenia, in connection with the contractual forwarding Association

of Soviet Socialist Republics, which in the case of the newly activated claims

replaced from 1. 10.2009 Act No 42/1958 Coll., already is the status of the State

as a participant in the administrative procedure explicitly enshrined (the provisions of section 4 of the

paragraph. 2), even if this has occurred to the amendment made by Act No. 121/2012

SB. Due to the complicated definition of the position of the State in these proceedings,

that, after all, led to the filing of the appellant's present proposal,

Yet, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court cannot be an express definition of the State

as a party to the proceedings pursuant to Act No. 212/2009 Coll. understood that

If a participant in a special State law marked does not, a participant in the

It can't be, but on the contrary, as proof of the logical conclusion resulting from the

the nature of the administrative procedure and the provisions of section 141, paragraph. 3

of the administrative code.



38. The State therefore belongs to the status of a party to proceedings pursuant to the provisions of section

250a o. s. l., neodvíjí from his position as in case

the determining of the administrative authority, but from the position of the participant

of the administrative procedure. A similar interpretation, moreover, can be found

and in the case-law of the general courts. To the same conclusion already reached, e.g..

The Supreme Court, which in its resolution SP. zn. 21 Cdo 1385/2011 from 9 June.

August 2012 in relation to the proceedings on the application of the employee satisfaction

payable wage claims under the Act No 118/2000 Coll., on the protection of

workers at the employer's insolvency and change

Some laws, he said, that this procedure is involved in not only

the applicant, but also one who is obliged to-regardless of whether it has otherwise

the position of administrative authority, within the meaning of the provisions of § 244, paragraph. 1. s. l.

-satisfy his right.



39. For the above reasons, it is possible to conclude that, in the cases

When it is in the administrative proceedings against the State claimed a claim arising

of relations governed by private law, with the organizational component, which is

the State Act is at the same time in case the administrative authority is crucial, for

the purposes of the provisions of Section 250a of the s. l. should be considered as cost per participant

the proceedings before the administrative authority. The State therefore belongs to the position of the participant and the

in the subsequent proceedings under part of the fifth code of civil procedure.



40. That interpretation is not only constitutionally conformal, but corresponds to the will of the

the legislator, who clearly did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his right

Sue in court their right to compensation for the property on the heritage left

Carpathian Ruthenia or limit State (acting in the role of private

the body) in his or her right to participate in the proceedings in which the decision is taken to its

rights and responsibilities. The intention of the legislature, by contrast, expressly manifested

amendment to Act No. 212/2009 Coll., that the right of a State to be a participant in

the procedure for compensation for assets on the heritage left Carpathian Ruthenia.

Despite minor differences in procedures under Act No. 42/1958 Coll. and act

No 212/2009 Sb. would not be justified the conclusion that the legislature intended

for the management and follow-up of the proceedings the Court define a completely different circuit

participants.



41. Obiter dictum, the Constitutional Court adds that the decision of the general courts in the

the issue of compensation for assets left in the Transcarpathian Ukraine dealt with

already in the find sp.. I. ÚS 2050/11 of 26 October. June 2012 (N 125/65

SbNU 615), which considered it beyond doubt that the State was a participant in the

the proceedings before the general courts, in proceedings on constitutional complaints in the

accordance with the provision of section 76, paragraph. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the constitutional

the Court, due to the position of the intervention. The Constitutional Court also

recalls the obligation of general courts to take into account adjustment contained in the

Law No. 212/2009 Coll., along the lines of the cited award SP. zn. (I).

TC 2050/11.



X.



The conclusion of the



42. The Constitutional Court from all of the above reasons, the application for revocation

the contested provisions of the rejected and joined the interpretative statement

to ensure the constitutionally Conformal definition of circuit parties according to the

the fifth section of the code of civil procedure.



The President of the Constitutional Court:



JUDr. Rychetský in r.



Different opinion, pursuant to section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,

as amended, took to the statement (II) decisions of the plenum

judge Vladimir Suchánek Sládeček and Radovan.