In The Case Of A Proposal To Cancel. Part Of The Stabilisation Of Public Budgets.

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zruš. části z. o stabilizaci veřejných rozpočtů

Read the untranslated law here:

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.


The Constitutional Court

On behalf of the Republic of

The Constitutional Court ruled under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 31/09 on 9 April. January 1, 2013 in plenary

consisting of Chairman Paul Rychetského and Stanislav Bumpkin,

Vlasta Formánkové, Pavla Holländera, Ivana Janů, Vladimir Crust,

Jiří Mucha, Jan Musil (Judge-Rapporteur), Jiří Nykodýma,

Miloslav Excellent and Michaela Židlické on the draft regional court in Brno

the repeal of the provisions of Article XXIV, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll.

the public budget stabilization, as amended, with the participation of

1. the regional court in Brno, 2. The Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament

States and 3. Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, as participants


as follows:

The proposal is rejected.



Recap of the proposal

1. In the proposal, delivered to the Constitutional Court on 12 October. 10.2009, the regional court of

Brno, under the provisions of § 64 para. 3 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the constitutional

the Court, in the wording of later regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "law on the Constitutional Court")

and in accordance with article 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the United States proposed the abolition of

the provisions of Article XXIV, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll.

the public budget stabilization, as amended by later regulations (hereinafter referred to as

"the Act No. 261/2007 Coll."). For the regional court in Brno handed design

the single judge of the regional court. Jarmila Ďásková.

2. The present proposal has been filed in connection with the management, led by u

Regional Court in Brno under the SP. zn. 57 Ca 14/2009 of the administrative lawsuit

the applicant Mgr. l. s. z. (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") against the defendant

The regional authority of South Moravian region, the Department of Social Affairs. Action

is challenged by the decision of the regional office from day 1. 12.2008 No. JMK

155130/2008, SP. zn. S-JMK 51819/2008/OSV-Pr, which was rejected

the applicant's appeal against the decision of the Labour Office Brno-město, Department of

State social support of 17 May. 4.2008 No. 1388/8/BME/3, by which the

was granted State social support-parental allowance in

the amount of 7600.0-per month from 1 July 2002. 1.2008.

3. The applicants challenged the decision of the defendant of the regional office from day 1.

12.2008 in a situation in which her as mother of the minor daughter H. S., was

meted out parental benefit pursuant to the provisions of § 30 paragraph 2. 1 (b). (b)),

(a). d) of Act No. 117/1995 Coll., on State social assistance, as amended by

amended (hereinafter "Law No 117/1995 Sb.). The assessment of the

This entitlement to parental benefit pursuant to the revised version of the law

No. 117/1995 Coll. is a consequence of the wording of Article XXIV, points 4 and 5 of law No.


4. The new legislation of the right to parental benefit, and the determination of its amount

in accordance with Article XXIV, points 4 and 5 of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. is, in the opinion

the applicants in relation to the recipients of parental allowance to the already born

children in conflict with the constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms. The new legal

Edit supposedly contains the elements of an impermissible retroactive is a violation

the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty and is discriminatory.

5. In the draft of the regional court are cited objections to the applicant that

the regional court considered the logical and aligns itself with how their contents,

so even with their formulations. Therefore, the regional court of design summarizes the constitutionally

the relevant arguments of the applicant, which takes over in your proposal.

6. the applicant points out, in particular, the retroactive effect of the new legislation,

you see that the amendment of the Act was a major influence on the way

the claim and the amount of the benefit. The new law brings modes

various lengths of parental benefit and depending on the length of

also, different amount of parental allowance, both of which are associated with

the existence of the right to maternity benefit. Amendments to the law so directly

the conditions of entitlement to parents on parental benefits, which

can be considered as unlawful intervention of State power into the one already acquired

rights [to the petitioner refers to the finding of the Constitutional Court, SP. zn. PL.

TC 21/96 dated 4.2.1997 (N 13/7 SbNU 87; 63/1997)].

7. Violation of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, it is allegedly

illogical and non-system establishing the State social support benefits on

sickness insurance, which is, however, a voluntary discharge. By the time of

the effectiveness of the amendment to the Act there was no such link and applicant

could not reasonably be expected in the future to such link occurs, and

It will be in arrears apply to relations already incurred and acquired rights.

Such a procedure is, in the opinion of the applicant contrary to the conclusions of the award

The Constitutional Court, SP. zn. IV. TC 215/94 dated 8.6.1995 (N 30/3 SbNU 227).

8. the new legislation is based on the claimant and discriminatory. Neither

the explanatory memorandum to the law on the public budget stabilization does not, of

Why are parents of children who are entitled to parental

post on 1 January 2007. 1.2008, divided into three groups: while the uneven

two of the three groups of parents is determined by the amount of a fixed amount, for

the third group of paid mode, amended by Act No. 117/1995 Coll., new assessment

entitlement to parental benefits under other criteria, it was

the one that existed at the time of birth of the child, is discriminatory because it

as a result of the new conditions established by the text of the law adopted,

experiencing financial loss of legitimate parents.


The assessment of the admissibility of the

9. the Constitutional Court finds that the petition was filed by authorized body in

accordance with § 64 para. 3 of the law on the Constitutional Court and that this is a proposal for a

permissible (section 66 of Act 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by law

No 48/2002 Coll.). The proposal complies with the formal requirements of an application for annulment

the law.


Recap of the observations of the parties and the authorities of the respondent State


10. The Constitutional Court has taken in terms of the provisions of § 69 para. 1 of the law on

The Constitutional Court comments on the proposal from both houses of the Czech Parliament

States, as parties to the proceedings and representation of the Minister of labour and

Social Affairs.

11. In the representation of the Chamber of Deputies, signed by its President

Miroslava Němcová, States that a draft law on the stabilisation of public

budgets were at first reading by the House commanded by to discuss

the Committee for social policy, the Committee on health and budgetary

the Committee, with the Committee for social policy and the Budget Committee shall adopt the

the resolution, in which it recommended that the Bill be rejected. After detailed

the debate was on the Bill in the second debate, adopted a number of

amendments, which, however, did not concern the contested provisions.

The Bill as amended by the amendments was the Chamber of

the Chamber of Deputies on 21 February 2006. 8.2007 approved by the number of votes for the 101 against 99 of the

present 200 members. In conclusion, the chairwoman of the expressed

the Chamber's belief that the adopted Act No. 261/2007 Coll., that contains the

the contested provisions, in accordance with the Constitution of the Czech Republic.

12. the President of the Senate of Milan Štěch pointed out in its observations that it is a

the transitional provisions in which the procedure is modified to provide

parental allowance after the amendment of the Act on State social support,

made by Act No. 261/2007 Coll., by the introduction of the so-called. třírychlostního

the parental benefit.

13. the President of the Chamber referred to the contents of the observations sent by

The Constitutional Court in connection with the three proposals of the Group of members and

the Senators that were directed against other transitional provisions of the law,

governing the Constitutional Court dealt with already shortly after its adoption (case of proceedings

led by the Constitutional Court under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/07, pl. ÚS 1/08 and PL. ÚS

2/08). Because it is about the law, which the Senate has already expressed,

This refers to the expression of the Chamber to control the led under the SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

24/07 and saw no need to ship anything to it, as the Senate on the

a meeting of the Senate adopted a resolution, in which he showed the will of the draft law

to dwell on.

14. In conclusion, the President of the Chamber also pointed out in the conclusions of the constitutional

Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 2/08 of APR 23, 2008 (N 73/49 SbNU 85; 166/2008

Coll.), which dealt with the issue of social security in terms of

constitutionally the legal assessment of the amendments relating to the conditions of eligibility and the amount of

some State social security benefits, even in the area of changes

State social support benefits. He recalled that in the context of the question of the

failure to comply with the "legitimate expectations", the Constitutional Court concluded that the

the application is not in the area of social rights "entirely appropriate". In

the context of the examination of the proposal considered the President of the Chamber for the appropriate

point out the different views that are in the area of changes in the provision of

parental benefits occur in the decision-making practice of the courts. For example, the

a compelling argument of the alleged unconstitutional retroactive was dealt with in the judgment

The Supreme Administrative Court SP. zn. 3 Ads 111/2010-44 in connection with

cassation complaints relating to the granting of the parental contribution referred to in

the legislation made by the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. in the abovementioned judgment

the Supreme Administrative Court came to the conclusion that in the present case as to the

mocked-up the retroactive effect and the legislation in question in this respect fully

meet the theoretical and judikatorním requirements.

15. the Constitutional Court also received the proposal delivered by the Secretary

labour and Social Affairs Dr. Ing. Jaromír Drábek, in particular

the opposition opposes the intervener concerning amendments to the conditions of entitlement to

dose and stresses that the changes are only in the ways of drawing

the parental benefit, and the determination of its amount. The introduction of a "multi-speed

the structure of "drawing benefits in three areas laid down in hard

amounts (increased, basic and reduced) allows parents to taking into account the

specific circumstances himself chose for him the optimal Variant.

16. by the contested transitional provisions of Act No. 261/2007 Coll. Minister

He stated that they are necessary not only for the uniform legal regulation of the

issues, but also for the preservation of the principle of equality between parents

čerpajícími parental allowance. Since the new legislation abolishes the

existing legislation, parental allowance, and parents who have received

parental allowance under the earlier rules, they cannot choose

the method of drawing the right to parental benefits under the new legislation,

If the child has already reached such an age, which is already the law of the right option

and it isn't, it was necessary for these cases establish a rule that specifies the amount of

parental allowance so as to maintain equality between parents,

pobírajícími parental allowance calculated under different legal


17. In its observations, the Minister disagrees with the claim of the applicant that the

the changes introduced by the Act No. 261/2007 Coll., directly affecting the conditions

entitlement to parental benefit, since this batch has been and is

associated with only a single legal reality, which is caring for the child. On

a parent has the right to this benefit regardless of whether previously received benefits

sickness insurance associated with maternity or childbirth. The determinant

criterion for the childcare allowance is in addition to the timeout

personal day and proper care of the child's parents, and it's a full calendar

month. The concept of entitlement to parental benefit, and the determination of its

the above are so based on the relationship between the amount of relation, indirectly, parental

the post and the time of its receipt.

18. The above observations of the President of the Chamber of Deputies, the President of the

Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and the Minister of labour and Social Affairs

was sent to the eventual reply to the applicant. Regional Court in Brno

non-dated 4. 1.2013 that lingers on its arguments

contained in the proposal.


The abandonment of an oral hearing

19. After the above rekapitulovaném the course of proceedings, the Constitutional Court decided to

the conclusion that there is no need to hold an oral hearing in the matter, as it did not bring

For more or better and clearer clarification of things than how she

from the written acts of the applicant and the parties. Having regard to the wording of §

44 of the law on the Constitutional Court, in the wording of his amendment made by Act No.

404/2012 Coll., effective since 1. 1.2013, the Constitutional Court ruled without holding

the oral proceedings. That, in proceedings instituted before the entry into force of

This amendment to the Constitutional Court, with regard to the procedural practices, continue

According to the new rules, the Constitutional Court has notified all parties and

the general public in a communication of 18 August plenum 12.2012, which was

published under no. 469/2009 Coll., for completeness of the Constitutional Court at the same time, he adds,

that has not been done in the management of the taking of evidence and came out only from the content of the file

Regional Court in Brno, SP. zn. 57 Ca 14/2009 and from the written observations

the applicant and the parties.

In the.

The constitutional conformity of the legislative process

20. The legislative process of the adoption of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll. was Constitutional

the Court found constitutionally Conformal already in the award of 31 July. January 2008

SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/07, therefore, in the present proceedings it was not to be

to deal with.


The diction of the contested provisions

21. The contested provisions of Act No. 261/2007 Coll.:

' Article XXIV

-Transitional provisions

4. Parental allowance provided for by the specific provisions in the text of the

effective until the date of entry into force of this law, shall be from 1. January 2008

and in the base area to) 3 years of age the child if the youngest child in the

family giving entitlement to parental benefits 1. January 2008

achieve the 21 months of age, and after reaching 3 years old this child belongs

parental benefits at a reduced area to 4 years of age of the child,

(b)) at a reduced area of up to 4 years of age, when the youngest child in the

family giving entitlement to parental benefit after 31 December 2006. December 2007

reach 3 years of age 1. January 2008.

5. the right to parental benefit pursuant to article. XXIII, with respect to a claim to

parental benefits accruing to 31. in December 2007, according to the

Special regulations, in the version in force until the date of entry into force of

This Act, the State social support, the Office shall decide on the basis of the request

the parental benefits brought by that Office. "


Legal assessment of the Constitutional Court

22. the proposal is not, as regards the alleged unconstitutionality of the content of the contested

provisions, reasonable.

VIIa/. A summary of the substantive changes to the contested provisions produce

23. Act No. 261/2007 Coll., on the public budget stabilization, which was

at 31 December 2002. 12.2007 was amended to also Act No 117/1995 Coll., on State

social support was part of the large changes in the social field, which

the legislature followed the aim to reduce social spending. also in the payment of

the birth grant and the parental benefit. These measures, in accordance with the Government

presented by the explanatory memorandum should be prevented from deepening public

debt and increasing the deficit of the State budget of the Czech Republic.

24. New legislation, enshrined in the amended provisions of section 32

paragraph. 1 of Act No. 117/1995 Coll., introduces the mj. the so-called program. multi-speed

the structure of the parental benefit in three areas

laid down in fixed amounts:

-increased acreage (one and a half times the basic amount) shall be the amount 11


-the basic amount shall be the amount of 7600.0,-CZK

-reduced area (half the basic amount) shall be the amount of CZK 3800.0.

25. A parent under this new legislation may choose:

-the faster the parental benefit-after the financial assistance in

maternity, sickness or financial assistance provided in the context of

with the birth (all three of these doses are hereafter referred to only a shortcut

"PPM") belongs to a parent post in an elevated area within 24 months of age

of the child;

-"classic" parental benefit-after PPM belongs to a parent

post in the base area to 36 months of age of the child;

-the slower the parental benefit-after PPM or from birth

the child belongs to a parent post in the base area in the 18 months of age

of the child and in the reduced acreage to 48 months of age of the child.

26. The choice of time in receipt of parental allowance, and the amount and level of PPM

always refers to the youngest child in the family. Drawing option selected

It is not unchangeable, to apply retroactively (even when changing the parents

in receipt of the parental allowance). The parent who is not entitled to maternity benefits,

automatically receive parental benefits since the birth of the child in the mode

a slower drawdown of benefits. A faster drawdown may ask a parent,

If the amount of its PPM reaches at least 380.0 per calendar day and if

made a decision for the faster the parental benefit

at the latest when you reach 22 (31) weeks of life of the child. In this case,

belongs to a parent post in an elevated area (i.e., 11400.0). In

other cases, a parent must at 18 months of age to decide

for the "classic" or the slower the parental benefit.

27. in the case of disabled children in new entitlement legislation

the parental contribution to the age of 7, a child in the base area.

28. the new legislation on the right to parental benefit so the parent who

caring for a small child, should make it easier to decide if and how

time will receive the parental allowance and also how much will this

dose is provided. This is intended to allow the parent to better align their

parental responsibilities and professional role, depending on the specific situation

in the family.

29. An essential condition of entitlement to parental benefits is personal

full-day and parents about the proper care of the youngest child in the family. When you meet

This condition belongs to be entitled to parental benefits in several

variants with a choice of one of them the choice of the parents.

30. the conditions of entitlement to parental benefits are regulated by the provisions of the

section 30 of Act No. 117/1995 Coll. and the parental benefits provisions

§ 32 of the same law.

31. The previous law the parental benefit (prior to Amendment

performed by the Act No. 261/2007 Coll.) has been compared to the current edit different

in particular, on the following issues:

-parental benefits previously provided to the parent who cares for the whole

calendar month, at least one child aged up to 4 years of age, or up to 7 years

If the child is seriously disabled or long-term heavily disabled

the affected;

-If the parents belonged to the maternity benefit (financial assistance, or

sick leave granted in connection with childbirth), paid to the parent

post only, if it was higher than this financial assistance, in the amount of

the difference;

-the amount of parental benefit was derived from the average wage in

non-business sphere and amounted to 40% of the salary;

-still, if the parent is gainfully employed;

-the child giving rise to entitlement to the benefit could be placed in the Manger or

other pre-school facilities for a limited period of time;

-the family is provided (as according to the applicable legislation, now)

a parental allowance (only one of the parents), even when the parents

care for more children of the relevant age;

-If the child belonged, which gives rise to a parental allowance,

care allowance, parental allowance he belonged at half rate.

32. It must be held that the conditions for the ways of the parental

contribution and for his assessment, the newly introduced as a result of the transitional

the provisions of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll., affected employment,

lead for certain their constellation to the fact that some of the beneficiaries

parental benefit occurs, as opposed to the State before the amendment to drop

paid amounts. It admits even top cited

observations to the Minister of labour and Social Affairs, which States that

revised by modifying occurred "some restrictions in the area of social

Security ". The Minister, however, believes that "these restrictions fall short

such effort, which would be in conflict with the constitutional modification contained in the

The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms ("the Charter"), let alone that it would

the realization of social rights was concerned refuted ".

VIIB/. An assessment of the constitutional objections, contained in the draft

33. The Constitutional Court in connection with the proposed regional court in Brno

mainly notes that compliance with the Act No. 261/2007 Coll., on stabilisation of the

public budgets, with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and international

treaties in many aspects already dealt with in several of its findings [see

findings SP. zn. PL. ÚS 23/09 dated March 15. 5.2012 (245/2012), SP. zn.

PL. ÚS 54/10 of 24 July 2003. 4.2012 (186/2012), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 1/08 from

on 20 April. 5.2008 (N 91/49 SbNU 273; 251/2008 Coll.), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 2/08

of 23 December 2003. 7.2008 (N 73/49 SbNU 85; 166/2008 Coll.), SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

24/07 of 31 July. 1.2008 (N 26/48 SbNU 303; 88/2008 Coll.)].

34. Therefore, in the present proceedings, the Constitutional Court dealt with only those

ústavněprávními questions, which stated in its proposal, the applicant, and

that reflect even the opposition, the applicant relied on the prior administrative and

court proceedings.

VIIba/Objection impermissible retroactive and illegal intervention by State

power to the already acquired rights

35. in the view of the applicant's law, contained in paragraphs 4 and 5

Article XXIV of the transitional provisions of the Act No. 261/2007 Coll., the expression

impermissible retroactive, since the amendment of the Act touched just above

dose, but first in a straight way of entitlement. Reverse action

of the Act the applicant illustrates the conditions applicable to the time

before the effective date of the Act.

36. On the question of impermissible retroactive to the Constitutional Court expressed in the

a number of its decisions [such as the discovery of 15 July. 5.2012 SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

17/11 (220/2009 Coll.), the award of 4 April 2003. 2.1997, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 21/96 (see

above)]. In the latter finding Constitutional Court stated in General

prohibition of retroactive law right; This ban right

-retroactivity is one of the basic principles of defining a category

the rule of law. The ban is retroactive from the right, there are only

strictly limited exceptions. In connection with the definition of the difference between right

and mocked-up retroaktivitou, the Constitutional Court stated that "in General, in cases

time conflicts of old and new legal standards apply false;,

i.e.. from the effectiveness of the new legal standards and legal relations arising under

repealed by law, be governed by the new law. The emergence of legal relations,

existing before the entry into force of the new legislation, legal claims,

which of these relationships were formed, as well as legal acts carried out, shall be governed by

the repealed law (a consequence of the opposite interpretation conflict of laws

the standards would be right;) ".

37. In the case under consideration the transitional provisions of the new (intertemporální)

the law fixes the continuity, and the persistence of a right or a legal

relations entered into an earlier legal standard before the entry into force of the new

the legal standards. This intertemporální provisions depending on the nature of the

maintained relationships leave accrued rights or legal relations either in

the old mode of legislation, or vice versa to them applied a new legal

editing, usually under the sanctions the right or legal relationship.

The Constitutional Court has come to the conclusion that, in the present case, it is a

the retroactive effect to an identical conclusion counterfeit (and reached the Supreme Administrative

the Court in its judgment of 13 January 2005. 1.2011 No. 3 Ads 111/2010-44). Detailed

the argument for such a conclusion is identical to what is contained in the report

The Constitutional Court, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 17/11 of 15.5.2012 (220/2009 Sb.);

Therefore, it can be because of a brief reference. In the case under consideration this

False; does not constitute unconstitutional interference with the legal

certainty and acquired rights.

VIIbb/. Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations

38. the concept of legitimate expectations can be contacted in the case with the question

the admissibility of the false-retroactivity, as its essence is relevant

securities interest which falls according to its content under the protection of article 11

paragraph. 1 of the Charter and article 1 of the additional protocol to the Convention on the protection of

human rights and fundamental freedoms, concerning the right of everyone to the peaceful

enjoy your property [cf. closer finding the Constitutional Court from day 1. 7.

2010 SP. zn. PL. ÚS 9/07 (N 132/58 SbNU 3; 242/2010 Sb.) and the award of the day

15.5. 2012 SP. zn. PL. ÚS 17/11]. According to settled case-law of the European

Court of human rights, the concept of "assets", is contained in that article,

The additional protocol should be interpreted as meaning that the autonomous content that has

is not limited to the ownership of tangible assets and does not depend on formal

qualifications of national law (judgment of 22 June 1999. 6.2004 in case

complaint No 31443/96-Broniowski against Poland, paragraph 129).

39. the Constitutional Court in its findings, the majority expressed hesitation to

implementation of social rights enshrined in the Charter, as the title of the fourth's

is aware that the range of social rights (which include also

the provision of parental allowance) is limited by the State

budget, supported the results of the management of the State. It was only in the context of these

the options are applicable limits, the relevant articles of the Charter,

governing social rights. The assessment of the effectiveness and appropriateness of the

legal provisions in this area leaves the responsibility of the Constitutional Court

the legislature, which the Constitutional Court except in the cases identified

neústavnosti cannot intervene. It is about issues inherently

political. Conceptual feature of social rights is the fact that they do not have

unconditional nature and you can claim them only within the limits

applicable law [article 41 of the Charter). This lack of direct enforceability of the

manifested in buying their legal definition, which is then at the same time

condition specific realization of individual social rights (see findings

The Constitutional Court, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 8/07 dated 23.3.2010 (N 61/56 SbNU 653;

135/2010 Sb.), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 2/08 of APR 23, 2008 (N 73/49 SbNU 85;

166/2010 Sb.)].

40. Although the provisions of article 41 paragraph 2. 1 of the Charter allows for lawmakers

lay down specific conditions for the realization of social rights, their legal

the definition must not be contrary to the constitutional principles, in other words,

the laws that govern them, may not constitutionally guaranteed social rights fully

to deny or cancel. As in the case of fundamental rights and freedoms,

directly enforceable on the basis of the Charter, they must, in the case of social

the rights of the legislature respecting the rule referred to in article 4, paragraph 2. 4

Of the Charter, which States that when using the provisions on the limits of the fundamental rights of the

and freedoms must be preserved, the nature and the meaning of. Under consideration

the case reached the Constitutional Court concluded that the legislature these principles

complied with.

41. The Constitutional Court does not agree with the appellant that the new legislation

parental contribution represented a change in the conditions of entitlement to

This dose. The content of the amendments to the parental benefit is mainly in

following up on its size. The purpose of such treatment is also the participation of

decisions on the choice of time authorized parents, the way and the amount of pumping

This dose. The contested provisions intertemporální rationally

difference is justified objective, namely, to establish the rules for determining the amount of the parental

the allowance for those parents who have not yet received parental benefits

According to the law effective from 1. 1.2008 and they could not do

the choice of the right to parental benefits under the new legislation because of the

the age of the child, with which the law already claim option will not combine.

The existence of these rules is in the interest of compliance with the principle of equality between

his parents pobírajícími the parental contribution calculated according to the different


VIIbc/. The objection impermissible discrimination

42. The legal regulation of parental allowance before the effective date of Act No.

261/2007 Coll. did not permit overlapping of benefits of sickness insurance (cash

maternity benefit, financial assistance, or sick leave granted in the

childbirth) and parental allowance, and that at the time from the date of

the birth of the child. And new legislation on the overlapping of benefits of a partially

excludes, as admits receiving parental benefits in addition to the

maternity or sickness that is provided in the

childbirth only equal to the difference between the parents and children

the contribution of and between doses of sickness insurance. As in earlier

legislation is implemented by the legislature's intention to prevent the so

concurrent provision of maternity benefit to the mother and the provision of

parental allowance to the father of the child. This adjustment, though down

previous levels, with the terms of the Constitution is acceptable; can be

accept the thesis that the State social support benefits picked up only,

If the life situation of the individual cannot be addressed through the provision of benefits from

the first pillar insurance system, whose part is also the sickness

insurance, which in principle has precedence over the benefits

security, provided for the same reason.

43. Failure of the revenue associated with the birth of the child, due to the new adjustment,

at least in part covers the parental allowance as a social benefit

the aid. On this dose has a parent claim, regardless of whether earlier

He has already received health insurance benefits associated with maternity or childbirth.

Entitlement to parental benefit was not, and even now is not bound to

the existence of the right to maternity benefit, as it arises, even in

the situation in which the person is entitled to a maternity benefit.

44. přitakat navrhovatelově opinion that the new legislation

parental allowance and how some groups are pumping

parents ' discrimination against them. Act No. 261/2007 Coll. laid down the conditions for the

determining the amount of parental allowance so that both parents, which is

a child is born after 1. 1.2008, as well as parents, that the child was born before

to this date, are entitled to the same level of the parental contribution for the

provided that they meet the conditions for entitlement to parental benefit in

a specific amount.

45. The Constitutional Court concluded that the adoption has been contested in any way

a provision in some cases to reduce the previously achieved levels

social rights, it was not for the above reasons for such action, which

would be violated as a result of their nature and purpose.

46. in the light of the foregoing, the Constitutional Court of the regional court

in Brno under the provisions of section 70 para. 2 of the Act 4. 182/1993 Coll., on the constitutional

the Court rejected.

The President of the Constitutional Court:

JUDr. Rychetský in r.

Related Laws