The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court ruled on 9 April. December 2008 in the plenary in the composition of Stanislav
Package, Francis Skinner, Vlasta Formankova, Turgut Güttler, Ivana Janů,
Vladimir Crust, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jiří Mucha, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodým,
Pavel Rychetský, Miloslav Výborný, Elisabeth Wagner and Michael April
to decide on the proposal provided by the municipal court in Prague under art. 95 para. 2
The Constitution of the United States to declare the unconstitutionality of the provisions of § 105
paragraph. 1 third sentence of Act No. 235/2004 Coll., on value added tax, in the
the text of the amendments made to the law before no 296/2007 Coll.
The provisions of § 105 para. 1 third sentence of Act No. 235/2004 Coll., on income tax from
value added tax, in the version prior to the amendments made by law No.
296/2007 Coll., and the text of the "Declaration of bankruptcy with tax management
does not cut, and after the Declaration of bankruptcy are refunded, calculated excess
deduction, if does not have tax arrears incurred prior to the Declaration after
Declaration of bankruptcy "was in breach of article. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter
fundamental rights and freedoms.
The definition of things and a recap of the proposal
1. The Constitutional Court was delivered on 19 December. 6. the 2006 proposal for a municipal court in
Prague to repeal the provisions of § 105 para. 1 third sentence of Act No. 235/2004
Coll., on value added tax, as amended, the text
"The Declaration of bankruptcy of the tax proceedings does not cut, and after the Declaration of
bankruptcy is meant to be refunded the excess forward, if there is no tax
arrears incurred prior to the Declaration after the Declaration of bankruptcy. " (hereinafter
also known as ' the contested provisions ').
2. the applicant did so after in the context of its decision-making
activities in accordance with art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as
"The Constitution") came to the conclusion that the provisions of § 105 para. the third sentence of
Act No. 235/2004 Coll., on value added tax, as amended
regulations to be in solving things SP. zn. 11 Ca 253/2005 applied,
It is in breach of article. 11 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (hereinafter referred to as
3. In that case, SP. zn. 11 Ca 253/2005 is the municipal court in Prague
decided on the action. Jiřina Lužové, administrator bankruptcy
the bankrupt, O.S.A., spol. s r. o., against the decision of the tax authority for the
Prague 7 of 9 June. 8.2005 No. 76204/05/007914/3,347, which this
rejected the claim by the applicant against the decision of 18 February 2004. 7.2005 No.
j. 69719/05/007914/3347. This decision, the Tax Office for Prague 7
decided to transfer the excess of the bankrupt, O.S.A., spol. s r.o., on
value added tax (hereinafter ' VAT ') in the amount of CZK 3.668, reported to the
Day 18. 7. in 2005, to cover the outstanding balance of the company concerned on
income from employment and functional benefits
reported on 18 September 1981. 7.2005 in the amount of 1.825.711,-CZK. The applicant in the
submitted the proposal argues that the overpayment, which was created after the Declaration of
bankruptcy is the material value belonging to the bankrupt estate and
financial authorities are obliged to follow the provisions of section 14 of Act No.
328/1991 Coll., on bankruptcy and settlement, as amended
(' the law on bankruptcy and settlements "or" ZKV "), and to respect the
the fact that the set-off of the assets belonging to the bankrupt estate is not
4. the municipal court in Prague when discussing things took the view that the
the provisions of § 105 of the third sentence of paragraph 1 of Act No. 235/2004 Coll., on income tax from
value added tax, as amended, and this text: "certificate
bankruptcy tax proceedings does not cut, and after the Declaration of bankruptcy of the
Returns the calculated excess deduction to the payer, if does not have tax arrears
incurred prior to the Declaration after the Declaration of bankruptcy ", whose use in the
the case is contrary to the constitutional order of the Czech Republic,
specifically with article 11 of the Charter, and therefore handed the proposal to repeal this
the provisions referred to in article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution, since it is this provision
5. in the preamble to its proposal, the municipal court in Prague argues findings
The Constitutional Court, SP. zn. I. ÚS 544/02 [find of 7.4.2005 (N76/37
SbNU75)] ^ *, which implies the conclusion that, if the General Court proceeded in
contrary to peremptory norm [section 14, paragraph 1, point b i) the Bankruptcy Act
the settlement] and did not respect the goal of this law, unjustifiably so
one of the favored creditors, i.e. the State represented by the tax authorities.
At the same time the Rapporteur recalls that the relationship of the receiver and
tax authorities in tax proceedings is governed by the relationship. Therefore, also
the question of whether the receiver has or does not have the right to return
overpaid tax, or how to be loaded with the vratitelným
overpayment scam, can be judged and rozhodována just from the points of view and by
the legislation of the public rather than those that govern the
private law relations. Also the overpayment within the meaning of the provisions of §
64 of Act No. 337/1992 Coll., on administration of taxes and fees, as amended by
amended (hereinafter referred to as the "law on the administration of taxes and fees" or
"ZSDP"), is the legal concept of public law. At the conclusion of the design City
a court in Prague summarizes, referring to constant decision-making practice
The Constitutional Court that the wrong application of the standard simple rights that
in the case of unjustified advantage allows the State as
one of the lenders, would be in violation of the constitutionally guaranteed rights (article.
11 of the Charter) and therefore proposes that the Constitutional Court, the contested provisions
the law on VAT, set aside a day to be fixed in the award.
6. in the course of the management of the municipal court in Prague suggested within the meaning of the provisions of §
63 of the law on the Constitutional Court and section 95 para. 1 of Act No 99/1963 Coll.,
Code of civil procedure, as amended, changing the original
the proposal, to the Constitutional Court held that the provisions of § 105 para. 1
the third sentence of Act No. 235/2004 Coll., on value added tax, as amended by
1. 1.2008, IE. in the version before the amendments made by law No.
296/2007 Coll. (hereinafter the "Act No. 235/2004 Coll. ' or ' the law on VAT '),
It was in breach of article. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter. Its proposal for a municipal court
Prague was motivated by the fact that the contested provision was of the law
296/2007 Coll., amending Act No. 182/2006 Coll., on bankruptcy and
the ways of its solution (insolvency law), as amended
regulations, and some laws in the context of its adoption (hereinafter referred to as
"Law No. 296/2007 Coll."), canceled, revoked, however, does not alter the
the fact that the contested provisions shall continue to be applied to the legal
relations arising in the period of its validity and scope.
Recap the essential parts of the representation of the parties
7. Pursuant to § 42 para. 4 and section 69 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,
as amended by later regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "law on the Constitutional Court"),
posted by the Constitutional Court of the present proposal to the parties-Of
the House and Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
8. In its observations of 13 January 2004. 6.2007 the President of the Chamber of Deputies
Parliament of the Czech Republic-Ing. Miloslav Vlček States that legislation
the return of excess in § 105 of the law on VAT was taken into law
from the previous Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on value added tax, as
is listed in the explanatory memorandum to the Act. When approving the contested
the provisions of the legislature was based on the fact that tax control is
realization of the rights and obligations of the tax subject to the State
represented by the tax. The relationship of the tax authority and tax Manager
that the rules of tax proceedings, is based on inequality,
with a view to tax legislation is the recovery of the tax from being truncated
the revenue of the State. An excessive deduction of the value added tax when
exceed the deductible tax on output, is conceived as a payment of tax,
that is the tax administrator used to cover tax obligations pursuant to § 59
paragraph. 5 of the law on administration of taxes and fees, or to pay for any
balance on other tax or other tax authorities under the
terms and conditions. The legislature, which the law No. 235/2004 Coll.,
He acted in the belief that the law is adopted in accordance with the Constitution, the constitutional
policy and our legal system. It is up to the Constitutional Court, in the context of
with the examination of the proposal to repeal the provisions of § 105 para. 1 sentence of third law
No. 235/2004 Coll., to assess the constitutionality of that provision and has issued a
the relevant decision.
9. In the observations of the Czech Senate from day 14. 6.2007
its Chairman MUDr. Přemysl Sobotka recalls that the Senate to
the issue of adjustments contained in § 105 para. 1 of the law on VAT has already expressed his
in its statement No. 10390/06 of 17 February. October, 2006 in the matter of SP. zn.
PL. ÚS 12/06 [find of 2008 (competition no. 342/2008 Coll.)].
Further notes that the argument of the applicant, relying only on the earlier
decisions of the Constitutional Court, SP. zn. Even TC 544/02 (see above), does not seem to be
convincing, because section 105 of the law on VAT already explicitly, as opposed to
the legal status of the force to 30. April 2004, during which amount has been issued
the decision contains in essence the exemption from the scheme of the Act on
bankruptcy and settlement. The amendment of the Act on bankruptcy and settlement No 27/2000
Coll., effective since 1. in May 2000, he gave the legislator clearly indicate that
will no longer be privilegovat State regarding its claims against úpadcům,
with a privileged position, it took almost a decade and the State concerned
not only are the claims of tax (went further on the charges, duties and contributions to
social security, if not more than three years prior to the Declaration
in the course of bankruptcy and bankruptcy), but the adoption of the new law on VAT
as if this position were revised and agreed together with the new law, that
in the case of an excessive deduction of value added tax to the State with the
other creditors "divide". The Constitutional Court is to assess whether the
the exemption provided for in § 105 para. 1, third sentence of the law on VAT, which
ensures the State of fiscal reasons "more demanding" to satisfy his
the claims than the other lenders involved in the bankruptcy, is the
by modifying the Constitutional Court within the meaning of decision SP. zn. Even TC 544/02
considered editing the constitutionally Conformal and defend.
The diction of the contested legal provisions
10. The provisions of § 105 para. the third sentence of Act No. 235/2004 Coll., on income tax
value added tax, in the version prior to the 1. 1.2008, IE. before the amendments to the
carried out by Act No. 296/2007 Coll., added: the Declaration of bankruptcy, the tax
management does not cut, and after the Declaration of bankruptcy are refunded, calculated
excessive deduction, if does not have tax arrears incurred prior to the Declaration
even after the Declaration of bankruptcy.
11. The amendment made by Act No. 296/2007 Coll. question sentence
the third to the first paragraph of section 105 of the VAT Act repealed with effect from 1. 1.
Assessment of the Act in respect of its acceptance and release of the constitutionally prescribed
12. The Constitutional Court, in accordance with the provisions of § 68 para. 2 of the Act on the constitutional
the court first assess whether the law, which has raised the unconstitutionality of
the contested provisions (in the version in force at the date of issue of the action
the contested decision of the tax authority, i.e. on the day of the 9. 8.2005), was
adopted and published within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and constitutionally
in the prescribed manner.
13. the Constitutional Court, the law No. 235/2004 Coll., has been approved
The Chamber of Deputies on 26 April. on 27 February 2004. the meeting, which of the
187 members of Parliament present voted 94 members and 93 against. On 12 June 2006.
3.2004 was the Bill sent to the Senate, which approved it on 1 May. 4.
2004 at its 14. the meeting of senators present for him 73 votes
37 senators and 31 against. The President did not sign the law and returned it to the
The House of representatives, which voted on its 30. meeting on 22 November.
April 2004. Of the 184 votes for, 101 against, was 83.
The law was promulgated in the collection of laws under no. 235/2004 Coll., on 23 December 2005. 4.
2004, its effectiveness there was 1. 5.2004.
14. The Constitutional Court therefore finds that the law has been duly adopted and issued in
the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and constitutionally prescribed way.
Assessment of the competence of the Constitutional Court to hear the application and
locus standi of the applicant
15. The Constitutional Court had to first answer the question of whether he is entitled
discuss the merits brought by the proposal, when the provisions of the law on
VAT, whose cancellation and then with the change of the design of speaking
unconstitutionality, the appellant sought an amendment to the law was carried out
296/2007 Coll. with effect from 1 January. 1.2008 cancelled. The contested provisions in the
the text of the amendments made to the law before no 296/2007 Coll., however, was in the
the case applied, even in the filed application will need to be
the application of this provision by the applicant should be reviewed.
16. Under section 67 para. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court is given by reason
termination of the proceeding, if the law, other legislation or their
individual provisions, whose annulment is sought, shall
force before the end of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. However, as the constitutional
the Court held in the award already SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/06 [find of 6.2.2007
(promulgated under Act No. 84/2007 Coll., available at http://nalus.usoud.cz)]
According to the legal opinion of the award SP. zn. PL. ÚS 33/2000 [find
of 10.1.2001 (N5/21 SbNU 29; declared under no. 78/2001 Coll.], it is
The Constitutional Court pursuant to art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution, competent to examine the merits
the constitutionality of the contested provisions, even though it was already cancelled (changed), and
It provided that the addressee of the alleged reason of unconstitutionality is
public power and not the body of private law. Due to the fact that, in
the matter in addressee is tempered because of the unconstitutionality of the public authorities,
they are in the context of the cited the legal opinion expressed in case SP. zn.
PL. ÚS 38/06 the conditions for substantive projednatelnost administered
17. now the employment the claimant has complied with the conditions of article 81(3). 95 para.
2 of the Constitution, since it seeks to give the unconstitutionality of the provisions of §
paragraph 105. 1 third sentence of the law on value added tax, which is related to the
his decision-making activities, and, therefore, is this Court authorized
by the applicant pursuant to article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution.
18. According to the provisions of § 44 para. 2 of the Act on the Constitutional Court may by the constitutional
the Court, with the consent of the participants from the oral proceedings to refrain from cannot be
This meeting to expect further clarification of the matter. Due to the fact that
the appellant in the paper of 29 May. 5.2008, the President of the Chamber of Deputies
Parliament of the Czech Republic in its observations of 13 January 2004. 6.2007 and
the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in the paper of 22 November. 5.2008
They expressed their agreement with the abandonment of the oral proceedings, and
the Constitutional Court considers that, since the meeting cannot be expected for more
clarification of the matter, it was from the oral proceedings in the case dropped.
The existing case law of the Constitutional Court relating to the assessed
the issue of
19. The Constitutional Court is no longer the issue of the admissibility of a set-off of tax
overpayments to the value added tax on the payment of tax arrears in
If the tax body is bankrupt, on whose property was declared
audition, dealt with the Senate in a number of their findings, for example. in the findings of sp.
Zn. I. ÚS 544/02 (see above), II. TC 35/05 [find dated 20.12.2005 (N
232/39 SbNU 457)], III. TC 648/04 [find of 28.7.2005 (N 144/38
SbNU 135)], III. TC 41/05 [find of 18.1.2006 (N 19/40 SbNU 147)],
IV. TC 408/05 [find dated 31 July 2006 (N 144/42 SbNU 177)]. The proposal for a
The Supreme Administrative Court to cancel the provisions of § 37a of the law No.
588/1992 Coll., on value added tax, as amended
(hereinafter "Law No 588/1992 Coll.), § 105 para. 1 third sentence of Act No.
235/2004 Coll. and § 64 para. 2 of the law on administration of taxes and fees is then
The Constitutional Court of the issue in question extensively in plenary
finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 12/06 (available at http://nalus.usoud.cz).
The conclusions to which the Constitutional Court considered in the above-cited findings can be
applied to the matter under consideration now.
20. the Constitutional Court first noted that from the article. 11 of the Charter cannot be
any interpretation of the inferred increased protection rights of the State as the owner of
in tax matters, represented by the tax, which would, in the cases
the renowned auditions led to his advantage and gave him a
a privileged position in relation to other creditors in bankruptcy
with regard to the offsetting tax overpayment to the payment of the tax
21. The question of set-off private and public options
accounts receivable, i.e.. whether the provisions of § 14 para. 1 (b). I) the Bankruptcy Act
and as the provisions of the settlement private anchor
inadmissibility of such a set-off of receivables in addition to private law
the claims raised by the plaintiff and the public, in the now, as assessed
things, the Constitutional Court dealt with in detail in the above mentioned award SP. zn.
III. TC 648/04 (see above). How in this finding of the Constitutional Court States, it cannot be
from existing case-law of the Constitutional Court in this regard to draw generalizations
regarding the exclusion of netting for private and
public claims. Assessment of the admissibility of such a set-off
depends on the particular pozitivněprávní edit, and you can in this
the context to refer to the legal opinion contained in the report of the Supreme
Administrative Court of CZECHOSLOVAKIA of 14 July. October 1932 No 15.605 (Boh. And 10072/32),
According to which "in order to institute legal kompensace, introduced in
Law Act, could also be used in the field of public law, it is
need a special legal regulation ". On the question of whether such a
special legislation that includes not only compensation inadmissible
private law, but also private and public
claims can be considered as well as the provisions of § 14 para. 1 (b). ZKV, came out I)
The Constitutional Court from finding that in case of conflict the two modifications
the simple rights of the same degree of legal force, which are not in the nota bene
relationship of inclusion, but a overlaps, you determine that is by editing the
General and special, given by the subject of the procedure (which is defined by
procedural proposal). General legislation is, therefore, that from the perspective of law
the proposal defined the subject it regulates.
22. In that finding SP. zn. III. TC 648/04, as well as in the plenary
finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 12/06 (see above), the Constitutional Court, on the basis of
the principle of the priority of a simple law constitutionally Conformal interpretation,
came to the conclusion, according to which the provisions of § 14 para. 1 (b). I) ZKV is
specific legislation guaranteeing compensation inadmissible not only
private law, but also private and public
claims. As such, therefore, the provisions of § 14 para. 1 (b). I) ZKV in
the position of special finishes prefer before you edit is contained in the General
the provisions of § 59 paragraph 1. 3 (b). (e)), section 40 para. 11 and § 64 para. 2 ZSDP,
While the interpretation of these provisions, constitutionally Conformal occurs
the fulfillment of the purpose and objectives of the Act on bankruptcy and settlement.
The content of the contested legal provisions compliance with the constitutional order
23. After the recap of existing case-law went to the constitutional
the Court to assess the content of the contested provisions with regard to its compliance with the
the constitutional order of the Czech Republic [article 87, paragraph 1 (a)) of the Constitution].
24. the aforementioned Senate findings and award of the Constitutional Court the plenary to
set-off of tax overpayments on the value added tax to be treated
the issue of protection of property rights in question of bankruptcy creditors
the protection of the rights of the State against a beneficiary as the owner in a position
bankruptcy creditors in terms of earlier rules of value added tax
the values provided for by Act No. 588/1992 Coll., the proposal under consideration Now
refers to the legislation on value added tax established by the downstream
Act No. 235/2004 Coll., effective since 1. 5.2004. A later question
legislation the provisions of § 105 para. 1 third sentence of the law on income tax of
value added compared to the previous legislation specifically stated that
"the Declaration of bankruptcy of the tax proceedings does not cut, and after the Declaration of
bankruptcy is meant to be refunded the excess forward, if there is no tax
arrears incurred prior to the Declaration after the Declaration of bankruptcy ".
The legislature and for the period from 1. 5. until 31 December 2004. 12.2007 (i.e. in the amendment to the
made by Act No. 296/2007 Sb.) edited by set-off of tax overpayment
to the payment of the tax arrears of the mandatory standard neponechávající administrators
Another possible tax procedure
Secundum et intra legem
before imposing the contested provision, i.e.. established the obligation of tax administrators
return after the Declaration of bankruptcy of the payer, calculated the excess deduction only
If this does not have tax arrears incurred prior to the Declaration after
a declaration of bankruptcy.
25. the contested provision was of the legislator, with effect from 1. 1.2008
in connection with the adoption of Act No. 296/2007 Coll., which were
In addition to the law on VAT were also insolvency law, the law on the
the administration of taxes and fees and some other laws. In the explanatory memorandum to the
amend the draft law No. 296/2007 Coll. to the amendment of the VAT Act
States that builds upon the changes reflected in the text of the draft amendment to the law on
the administration of taxes and fees, and the changes to the explanatory memorandum
characterised by the need to define the tax arrears for the purposes of
the insolvency proceedings. Annulment of the contested provisions of the law on VAT
Law No. 296/2007 Coll. is an explicit expression of the intention of the legislator with
. In connection with the cancellation of the contested provisions, which occurred
After the submission of the proposal under consideration to the Constitutional Court, changed the municipal court
Prague, its initial proposal and proposed a vote of unconstitutionality now
derogovaného of the provision.
26. The essence of the proposal is to the claimant's contention that with regard to its
the linking of the law, and consequently, the contested provision cannot, for the period
the validity and the scope of the provision to protect property rights
bankruptcy creditors with regard to the privileged position of the State as
one of the bankruptcy creditors and therefore considers the contested provision in
contrary to the article. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter.
27. In connection with the plaintiff's purported neústavností contested
the provisions of the relevant provisions should be addressed in its mutual
relation to the provisions of § 14 para. 1 (b). I) as ZKV arises from
navrhovatelova belief that the unconstitutionality of the contested provisions
lies in its application to the case of the bankrupt subject to be tried by mode
the Act on bankruptcy and settlement. The Constitutional Court in assessing mutual
the relationship of the above legal provisions are mainly of a constitutionally
enshrined fundamental rights, as this is consistent with the requirement of respect for the
rights and freedoms of man and citizen, as a basis for the rule of law (article.
1 (1). 1 of the Constitution). The primacy of individuals against the State (article 1 of the Charter) is
to be respected even in the face of fundamental rights with the general interest of the State.
28. The right of ownership as the right base, whose protection is contested
without prejudice to the provisions, is protected by article. 11 of the Charter. According to the first sentence, and
the second to the first paragraph of that article of the Charter, everyone has the right to own
the property and ownership of all owners has the same statutory content and
the protection. From the above mentioned provisions of the Charter, no interpretation
increased protection of the rights of the State inferred as the owner. In the present case
However, the application of the contested provisions necessarily such unjustified
advantage and the provisions of the State as a de facto State,
represented in tax matters, gave the tax administrator
a privileged position compared to other bankruptcy creditors. On the other hand
the abrogation of the contested provisions, which approached the legislature
by law No. 296/2007 Coll., State, not neznevýhodnila, because in
provided the proper application of its claims under the provisions of § 20 ZKV
for him there is no more significant injury or injury not greater than
other bankruptcy creditors. The Constitutional Court in this conclusion matches
with its earlier findings made in the above-mentioned findings, on
the argument for brevity it refers to.
29. The Constitutional Court does not see any reason to deviate from its conclusions
adopted in these findings, nor with respect to the complainant alleged
the belief that the question of rebates on value added tax may
be judged and rozhodována just from the points of view and under the legislation of
of public service. In that finding, SP. zn. III. TC 648/04 (see above)
The Constitutional Court came to the conclusion, according to which the provisions of § 14 para. 1 (b).
I) ZKV is special legislation in relation to the provisions of the law on
the administration of taxes and fees, guaranteeing not only compensation inadmissible
private law, but also private and public
claims and, as such, is therefore in the position of a special edit precedence
before you edit the General, contained in the aforementioned provisions of the law on
the administration of taxes and fees (see previously carried out so far recap
the case-law). Specified arguments can come to a similar conclusion in
now the present case, as regards the relationship of the provisions of § 14 para. 1 (b).
I) and the contested provisions of § ZKV 105 para. 1 third sentence, of the VAT law.
30. The Constitutional Court in its established case law has repeatedly stressed the
take precedence over constitutionally Conformal interpretation of legislation or its
individual provisions before its cancellation. In the proposal under consideration
the contested provisions of § 105 para. the third sentence of the law on VAT represents
mandatory modification that you cannot bridge the constitutionally Conformal
interpretation, since its categorical nature does not allow the addressee
(the tax authorities) depart from this edit, without being acted
31. On the basis of the above arguments, the Constitutional Court decided in
the present case concluded that the provisions of § 105 para. 1 sentence of third law
No. 235/2004 Coll., on value added tax, in the version prior to the amendments to the
carried out by law 296/2007 Coll., did not allow the general courts of honor
their responsibilities in the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of bankruptcy
creditors in the review of the decision of the tax authorities of a tax credit
overpayment to the payment of tax arrears in the administrative judiciary, which
represents the non-respect of principles enshrined in article. 11 (1) 1
Of the Charter. The Constitutional Court therefore design the applicant pursuant to article. 95 para. 2
The Constitution upheld, with the terms of article 1. 89 para. 2 of the Constitution are
consequences of unconstitutionality identified by the public authorities are required to
incorporated into its decision-making practice, therefore, in addressing the specific
cases cited provisions do not apply.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
* URPozn.red: collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, Volume 37, find
# 76, p. 75