The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the United States
The plenary of the Constitutional Court in the composition of Stanislav Duchoň, Franz, Package
Vlasta Formankova, Pavel Holländer, Vladimir Crust, Jiří Mucha, Jan
Musil, Jiří Nykodým, Pavel Rychetský, Miloslav Výborný and Eliška
Wagner decided to draft the regional court in České Budějovice, Czechoslovakia-
the branch in Tábor on the repeal of the provisions of § 26 para. 3 and 4 of law No.
449/2001 Coll., on game management, as amended, as follows:
I. the proposal to repeal the provisions of § 26 para. 3 of the law no 449/2001 Coll., on the
hunting, as amended, is dismissed.
II. Proposal to repeal the provisions of § 26 para. 4 Act No 449/2001 Coll., on the
hunting, as amended, is rejected.
Recap of the proposal
1. Submission sent to the Constitutional Court of 27 June. 1.2006 suggested the County
the Court in České Budějovice-branch in Tábor (15 in the composition of the Senate:
the President of the Senate. Robert Ožvald and the judges. Marcel P and
JUDr. Libuše Vorlíčková) with reference to the article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the United
Republic and according to § 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
the Court ") to the Constitutional Court to annul the provisions of § 26 para. 3 and 4 of law No.
449/2001 Coll., on game management, as amended by laws No. 320/2002 Coll., no 59/2003
Coll. and no 444/2005 Coll. (hereinafter referred to as "the law on hunting"), as they are
in his opinion, contrary to the constitutional order, namely with article. 1, art.
4 (4). 3 and 4 and article. 11 (1) 1, 4, of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms
(hereinafter referred to as "the Charter").
2. In civil proceedings, kept by the District Court in Pelhřimov under
Zn. 1 C 106/2005, the plaintiff seeks payment of $ 8.077, 50, as
"compensation for the forced restriction of property rights", which should occur by
Although the defendant through the membership ended its Honebním Guild
Kamenice on Lipou 31. 12.2002, his estate, with which to
the Fellowship entered, are still honebním the community to exercise
hunting rights taken. Although (according to the applicant) requested "refund"
should be granted "read-across for use" section 30 paragraph 2. 2 of the law on
hunting, the Court of first instance dismissed the action, arguing that it lacks
the legal basis; the use of this provision, in his view, is not an option
into account, since the competent authority of the State administration of the affiliation of the concerned
the defendant decided to wild hunt real estate. On the appeal of the plaintiff
the applicant decides, and the appeal is based on his proposal, which
the amount was specified.
3. the appellant in the first place that generally shares the objections
the unconstitutionality of the law on hunting which are incorporated into the design of the Group
MPs and Senators on the abolition of certain of its provisions, which is
The Constitutional Court is kept under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 34/03. He argues that
the right hunting constitutes ownership of the individual
owners of real estate, on which this right is exercised, as in
his performance there is a use of a foreign land, farming on them and
getting their benefits. The right of hunting, as defined in section 2 (a). (h))
law, according to the applicant includes not only protection of the animals, but the entire
a variety of other activities, which represent the interest, sports or
economic activity, which infers that the public interest in limiting
ownership of the owner of the property "over his disapproval
to the exercise of the right of hunting "is not given. Therefore, you cannot přitakat, lists
the applicant, the interpretation of the application made by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 7 September 2004. 10.
2002, SP. zn. 22 Cdo 3006/2000, that it is a limitation of ownership rights in
the meaning of section 128 paragraph 1. of his/her identity. Cust.
4. The contested provisions "creates a situation", contrary to article 11 (1) 4
Of the Charter, which is the owner of the real property against his will is limited in its
the right to use your property, as to them shall exercise the right to
hunting "different person from him, which is not and does not want to
to be ". If the honebního Fellowship in accordance with § 26 para. 3 of the law
about hunting from this fellowship, is not allowed to create a
other (custom or company) of hunting ground and remains in relation to
legislation the rights of hunting the so-called. "the dispossessed"; on the one hand already
It is not a member of the honebního community, on the other hand, however, its
real estate remain part of the hunting ground, which is the Fellowship holder.
5. As an important "from the point of view of constitutional rights" regards the appellant, that the law
about hunting "does not provide any refund for such owner
the land, which they continue to be used for the exercise of the right of hunting ",
the affiliation of the land (and) according to § 30 para. 1, 2 the law on
hunting in his opinion cannot be considered; "performance" from honebního
the Fellowship "has no bearing on the existence of private hunting grounds" and real-estate
former member shall remain a part of it. (The contested Law § 26
paragraph. 4) "fixes" only the claims associated with the membership (of the settlement),
"compensation", which, in this case, however, the applicant seeks, "the provisions at issue
§ 26 para. 3, 4 the law nezakotvují ".
6. the appellant considers the status when, after the resignation of members of the honebního
communities remain its land still part of hunting ground "for
the problematic "; in this case, the termination of membership should lapse
"as well as the rights and obligations arising from it" (article 4, paragraph 3 and 4, article 11, paragraph 2.
4 of the Charter), or it should be "able to accept jurisdiction
Government wildlife management-affiliate with (the land) to another Wild Hunt ", with
but the law also does not count. Otherwise, the owner of the hunting grounds of the land,
that got out of the honebního community, should "against other owners
land-members of honebního communities-different, legally worse
position, because it logically cannot exercise the right of hunting ", and on the
such a different position is not based on the claimant no reasonable
the reason or the public interest. The petitioner expects that the question of legal compliance
Edit the affiliation of the hunting grounds of the land with the constitutional order will also be
evaluated by the Constitutional Court when hearing an application maintained under zn.
PL. ÚS 34/03 (see below).
Representation of the parties
The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
7. The Chamber of deputies in particular stated that the legislature acted in
discussions about hunting in accordance with the prescribed procedure and in
the belief that the adopted law is not contrary to the Constitution of the Czech Republic.
The law on hunting does not deny or exclude any basic human rights
all guaranteed by the Constitution of the Czech Republic and the Charter of fundamental rights and
8. The legal opinion of the appellants, the Chamber of Deputies "appears
Special-purpose "; as well as the proposal in case the Constitutional Court, SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
34/03 calls into question the basic principles of the forestry law and is expressed
to the matter before the Constitutional Court decided on this proposal.
In its opinion "should not change the law on hunting for
a unique and often personally distinctive mezilidským relations between the members of the
honebního communities. "
9. The Chamber of deputies also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of
17 May. 10.2002, SP. zn. 22 Cdo 3006/2000, pursuant to which the law on the
hunting its provisions limited rights of owners of hunting grounds land
"in the interest of protecting hunting". Restrictions no longer occurs at the moment when
been recognized by the company hunting and hunting community was formed.
The law does not associate with the owner of the land from the honebního honebního
communities of "removing" this land from the hunting ground, and therefore the owner,
that is no longer a member of the honebního community, shall be obliged to acquiesce to the
his land was exercised the right of hunting, "and it must of
because of compensation ".
Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
10. in its observations the Senate said that the problem of the lack of compensation for
the use of hunting grounds land owner dealt with when discussing the amendment
hunting Act (No. 59/2003 Coll.). Resolution then returned
The Chamber of Deputies the draft referred to amendments inter alia with
the proposal, which suggested that the owners of the class included
hunting grounds land who are not members of honebního communities, belongs to the
replacement. However, the Chamber of Deputies approved the amendments to the law in the original
the text which was referred to the Senate.
11. As in the case of the answer to the notice served under SP. zn. PL.
TC 34/03 Senate stated that when assessing the contested provisions in the
context of the whole Act on hunting is a crucial issue definition
public interest founding for the implementation of the rights of hunting the legitimacy
specific restrictions of property rights of owners of hunting grounds land.
Senate doubts that the need to protect the beasts so that they could be
to each, in accordance with art. 35 para. 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms,
guaranteed the right to a favourable environment, represents the public
12. the right of hunting both in terms of its historical development and
the perspective of the current arrangements, the Senate is characterised by a compact summary of the
the respective rights and obligations in its implementation of mutually
is consistent and that it is therefore to be considered in their mutual
The opinion of the Ministry of agriculture
13. The Constitutional Court according to § 48 para. 2 and § 49 paragraph 1. 1 of the law on the constitutional
the Court called on the Ministry of agriculture to commented on the submitted
14. the Ministry of agriculture with the legal opinions of the claimant does not agree;
the management of honebními land, which are not owned or
company hunting, regulates § 30 paragraph 2. 1, 2 the law on hunting,
While the law does not distinguish between what was the cause of "induction of this relationship".
Therefore, if the owner of the land honebního according to § 26 para. 3 of the law
stop being a member of honebního communities, its lands remain
in the Wild Hunt, but they cannot stay included hunting land
the existing communities and the competent authority of the State administration
hunting the Wild Hunt attributed to pursuant to § 30 para. 1 of the law on
15. the Ministry of agriculture, therefore, dovodilo that, in deciding the case,
on the basis of which the applicant has submitted the present proposal to repeal section 26
paragraph. 3 and 4 of the law on hunting, the first Government authority
hunting has committed errors, when after their owner membership
honebního property in the honebním Guild has not made the affiliation of this
the land to the existing wild hunt within the meaning of § 30 paragraph 2. 1 of the law on
hunting, to the owner of the honebního land has prevented to exercise the right
According to § 30 para. 2 of the law on hunting, i.e.. on the compensation for the affiliation.
It is therefore not appropriate, concluded the Ministry of agriculture, to change the law on the
hunting only with regard to the "unique bad procedure first instance
Government authority of hunting ".
The abandonment of an oral hearing
16. given that the applicant and the Senate of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
They agreed to drop from the hearings and the House explicitly
the House of silence (section 63 of the Act on the Constitutional Court, § 101 (4) CCP), and
The Constitutional Court considers that, since the meeting cannot be expected to further clarification
things, the conditions were met to the Constitutional Court in the case decided without
that said the oral proceedings (article 44, paragraph 2, of the law on the constitutional
of the Court).
Locus standi of the applicant
17. Standing to the submission of the proposal under consideration in the policy
the petitioner from article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution, according to which, if the Court
to the conclusion that the law to be applied in solving the case, is inconsistent with the
the constitutional order, refer the matter to the Constitutional Court (cf. also section 64 (3)
the law on the Constitutional Court, or § 109 paragraph. 1 (b). c) CCP). Whether
It is given in a particular case depends on the subject matter of the dispute and its legal
qualification (see pl. ÚS 57/04 (unpublished decision)).
18. With regard to the provisions of the specification, which is designed to cancel
and to the subject matter of the proceedings, from which the proposal is based on, as well as related parts
the preamble of the proposal, the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicant pursues
above all, the removal of the "gap" in the law, which lies in the absence of express
editing the "revaluation" consequence of termination of membership in the Guild honebním
the person whose hunting grounds continue to be used for the performance of hunting Fellowship
the rights of hunting.
The constitutional conformity of the legislative process
19. The Constitutional Court has not addressed the question of whether the law, whose provisions are
challenged, was accepted and published within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and
constitutionally prescribed manner (section 68, paragraph 2, of the law on the Constitutional Court),
since they have already been assessed in the framework of the proposal of the Group of members and
the senators (SP. zn. PL. ÚS 34/03 (find declared under no. 49/2007 Sb.))
as well as on the proposal of the District Court in Břeclav (SP. zn. PL. ÚS 73/04
(find declared under no 60/2007 Sb.)).
The diction of the contested provisions
20. The entire provision the applicant attacks the part, reads as follows:
Membership in the Guild honebním
(1) converts the Member honebního the Fellowship title to honebním
the land, which are part of the company hunting ground, his membership in the
honebním Guild shall cease; the purchaser of the land becomes a member of the
honebního Fellowship, if within 30 days from the date of its
title notifies honebnímu Guild, that with
membership does not match.
(2) membership in the Guild honebním on lapses in the event that the administrative
the Office authorized to do so under this Act, said land in
the ownership of a member of the honebního Fellowship for nehonební.
(3) a member of the honebního Guild may terminate your membership on the basis of
written notification; membership shall cease on the last day of the calendar year,
in which the notification was made.
(4) a person whose membership has been terminated in the honebním community, is entitled to
the settlement amount. The amount of the share, or the method of its calculation shall designate
(5) the co-owners of the hunting grounds, which are part of the
company class, need to agree which one of them will perform the
the rights of a member of the honebního community, or may designate a common
the monitoring trustee.
(6) the owners of the hunting grounds land which government authority hunting
affiliated to the company hunting ground, they become full members of the honebního
the Fellowship, if within 30 days from receipt of notification of affiliation
notifies the honebnímu Guild that insist on membership. "
The applicant requests the annulment of paragraphs 3 and 4 of this provision.
Reviews of the Constitutional Court
21. in most common plane of the appellant criticizes the law on hunting
arguing that the right of hunting, as edits, constitutes
proprietary rights of individual property owners, to which this
rights are used (as in his performance there is a use of foreign
land, farming on them and getting their benefits) that is not
justified because of the public interest, and concludes that a constitutionally
relevant reason to limit ownership rights the exercise of hunting "over the
the opposition "is not given by the owner.
22. this conclusion-at least with regard to the subsequent case law of the constitutional
Court-does not hold water.
23. Legal rights by editing the hunting and game management and its evaluation of the
the view of the constitutional guarantee of the Constitutional Court dealt with mainly in the already
While the award of 13 April. 12.2006, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 34/03 (see above),
in which it stated that its essence is the protection of the animals, as well as
protection of wildlife management as a national cultural heritage. "In terms of the
The United States are hunting and hunting and the right to social
aprobovanými State activities for the protection and development of one of the folders
environment-animals. The law on hunting does not represent a modification of
hunting as a leisure activity, but basically as a purposeful and
regulated activities for the protection and development of wildlife ". In the evaluation of
the essence of the legal regulation of hunting, as is apparent from the foregoing, the constitutional
the Court came to the conclusion that this is an activity that is used to implement the
constitutionally enshrined the task State (article 7 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic). "The performance of
constitutional obligations cannot therefore have a task in the General, or
even in the public interest ". A summary of the liberty of the Constitutional Court
say the basic principle applicable even when assessing the present
things, namely that "the implementation of the rights of hunting and wildlife management in General
the plane of legitimate restrictions of property rights ".
24. Similarly, the applicant adversely--marked finding Constitutional
the Court held, and other partial reservations, which joined the criticism,
Therefore, to design a group of MPs and denied the senators, namely to
modify the exercise of the right of hunting on "foreign" plots, respectively, to the Institute
the affiliation of the land to the wild hunt. Where reference is made to the claimant here
infringement of article 81(1). 1, art. 4 (4). 3 and article. 11 (1) 1 and 4, of the Charter, then the question
the constitutionality of legal provisions, in general position has already been evaluated by this
findings, and the Constitutional Court has no reason from the previously adopted conclusions
25. However, the above-mentioned lists tied to the applicant, since the
These objections clearly embarrassing the limits not only of your own design, but also
its claims of privilege (evidence), which are předznačeny the above
the quoted Article 95 para. 2 of the Constitution. From the preamble of the proposal is
obvious that the appellant not only (Sung) criticizes anyone those provisions
the law on hunting, which proposes to cancel, but (in part)
his argument also lacks any binding on the proceedings, which, as a
the Court of appeal.
26. According to the finding of TechCrunch.com. PL. ÚS 38/2000 (a compilation of findings and resolutions
The Constitutional Court, volume 20, usn. No. 39) the condition of the design permission
the Court expressed in the article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution, in order to request the cancellation of the law
against this, "which is to be used when resolving the matter", it is
met, "If this is about the law, or its individual provisions, which
the application has to be immediate-", or" it is necessary
the inevitable application and not just a hypothetical use, or other
the wider context-"(cf. also SP. zn. PL. ÚS 20/05 (find competition
No 252/2006 Sb.)). In other words, of the purpose and the meaning of checks the constitutionality of
law means that the law to be applied in solving the things "
There is only one (that of its provisions), which gets in the way, in order to achieve
desired (constitutionally consistent) results; If it has not been deleted, it would be
the result of the dispute different.
27. From that part of the proposal that has a content link to the context of that
the definition of a design, the evidence shows that the appellant sees
nezdůvodněnou inequality in their capacity as owners of land who hunting grounds
of the honebního communities have not spoken, and of those to whom the membership procedure
pursuant to section 26 paragraph 1. 3 the law on hunting this membership has been terminated, or
owners whose land was added to the Wild Hunt (section 30, paragraph 1,
of the Act); one can participate in the exercise of the right of hunting (§ 19
paragraph. 1 (b). (b)) of the Act), any other law be declared for the limitations of their
ownership of compensation (section 30, paragraph 2, of the Act). With regard to the
the subject matter of the proceedings (on the payment of "compensation"), which the appellant in appeal
stage results, however, can be conditions of its factual evidence are met
exclusively in relation to the question of whether the hunting Act indeed does not allow
to the owner of the hunting grounds of the land that their membership in the honebním
the Guild has ended, for the exercise of the right of hunting was implemented also
on his land (which would be compensated by the plaintiff should
violate the article. 1 and article. 11 of the Charter), and in the case of the negative, that is
such a State (objectively) constitutional acceptable or not.
28. This question direct (explicit) projection to the provisions of § 26 para. 3 and
4 the law on hunting, which the rapporteur proposes to repeal, it does;
above (under 18), it was stated that of the broader context of the proposal can be
to conclude that the applicant does not criticise those provisions, what is in them
included, but what's in them is not, although in his opinion would be
should (namely a claim for adjustment for the exercise of the right of hunting on
land owner, who completed his membership in the honebním Guild).
29. This opens the question of the so-called. gaps in the law (the omission of the legislature),
already, the Constitutional Court in its case-law the judge more than once. The gap
"wrong, the content of which is the incompleteness of the written law (his absence) in
comparison with explicit editing similar cases, IE. the incompleteness of the
the perspective of the principle of equality, or from the perspective of General legal principles "
the Constitutional Court found unconstitutional, for example, in finding SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
36/01 (in which it was a situation where the former law on bankruptcy and settlements
did not contain provisions which would determine the body required to pay remuneration and
cash expenses of the receiver in the case of an insolvent
the bankrupt, if not prepaid the costs of bankruptcy due to the
legal exemption of its proposer)-a collection of findings and resolutions
The Constitutional Court, Volume 26, finding no 80, declared under no. 403/2002 Sb.
Here the chosen solution, consisting in a repeal of the downstream content
provisions, to apply the Constitutional Court because it was not available to other,
on the option, however, expressly pointed out and which he used in the matter of SP. zn.
PL. ÚS 48/95 (collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, volume 5, finding
# 21; in it the gap "created by the legislation, arbitrary inequalities
fill in with the interpretation of the applicable statutory constitutionally Conformal editing "
(minori ad maius argument and in relation to the provisions of § 2 para. 1 of the law
No. 243/1992 Coll., as amended by Act No. 441/1992 it applied, respectively.
the concept of "-acquired back citizenship"), without having to proceed to
If the Act or its provisions.
30. The application of this (latter) method comes into account in
the present case.
31. There is no doubt that the law on hunting does not contain provisions which
would explicitly regulate the question of compensation for the exercise of the right of hunting
honebním community on hunting grounds land owner whose membership
in the Guild according to § 26 para. 3 of the Act. The law only (in section 26
paragraph. 4) enshrines the entitlement of the settlement amount, which, however, he partakes only
"defunct" participation in the community of the former member, while
his subsequent property relations to honebnímu Guild (which here
It is) does not apply. It is equally clear that the actual termination of membership
There is no change of hunting ground; This is a "recognised" (and pozemkově
limited) administrative decision (section 2 (b) (i)), § 18 para. 1) as a whole,
which is made up of concrete continuous honebními land (section 17, paragraph 2,
the first sentence). The land owner, whose membership has been terminated, therefore remain
part of a hunting license, which carries out hunting (section 17 (1)),
or the right of hunting (section 19 para. 1 (b))), still hunting
the Fellowship, as the resignation of members of honebního communities cannot
touch the administrative decision on recognition of a hunting license (section 18 (1)).
32. the situation is not the only, when the law on hunting (although
It is based on the principle that the right to exercise hunting in the Wild Hunt those who
they are also the owners of the land, which comprise it-see § 18 para. 3, § 19 para. 1
(a). and) or § 26 para. 1, sentence after the semicolon) counts with the hunting area,
which part of the land of outsiders honebního Fellowship. According to § 30
paragraph. 1, hunting land, which are not owned or
company hunting, hunting incoporate Government authority
as a rule, to the Wild Hunt, which has the longest land with these honebními
a common border and the principles of sound game management do not require
their other affiliation (the owners of the land may be affiliated,
but it may not become members of honebního communities-see § 26 para. 6).
33. The financial situation of owners of land who are affiliated members
honebního communities becoming, however, the law on hunting no longer expressly and
clearly edits. The provisions of § 30 paragraph 2. 2 provides that "the owners of the
hunting grounds land which government authority under the affiliated hunting
paragraph 1, the holder of a hunting license belongs to the refund; in the case of
company hunting, hunting is obliged to pay compensation for the fellowship.
Unless the person concerned, by the amount of the refund shall determine the compensation authority
the State administration of hunting and taking into account the size of the affiliated
land and hunting grounds to the anticipated proceeds from the exercise of the right of hunting
on these grounds. Compensation is payable until 31 December 2006. March of the current year
retroactively. However, compensation does not belong, if hunting lands were added to the
company enjoyed hunting and their owner became a member of the honebního
the Fellowship ".
34. The position of the owners of the hunting grounds of the land, who got out of the honebního
communities, and whose lands are still used to the exercise of rights
hunting, is clearly comparable to that of those who were members of the
communities have never been, and whose land was the Wild Hunt by decision
administrative authority added. Therefore, the distinction between them as to
the provision of compensation for the use of their land to the exercise of the right of hunting
missing indeed reasonable justification, and it would be inconsistent with the constitutionally
guaranteed the principle of equality enshrined in article. 1 and article. 3 (2). 1 (in the
relation to the article. 11 (1) 1) of the Charter, as it is by default in traktována
the case-law of the Constitutional Court (cf. SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/95 (collection of findings and
the resolution of the Constitutional Court, volume 4, finding no 74, under no 6/1996
Coll.), SP. zn. II. TC 192/95 (collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court
Volume 4, finding no. 73), pl. TC 36/01, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 36/01 (collection
the findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, Volume 26, finding no 80, promulgated under the
No 403/2002 Coll.), SP. zn. PL. ÚS 12/02 (collection of findings and resolutions
The Constitutional Court, volume 29, finding no 20, announced under no 83/2003),
and others); exclude from compensation for owners whose ownership
left by earlier recognised hunting ground is limited, it also represents the
the risk of collision with the article. 11 (1) 4 of the Charter, which forced restrictions
of property rights by granting a refund just makes.
35. The Instrument to suppress these consequences, however, is already available in
the plane of the podústavního law, and represents the standard of interpretation
the rule in the form of analogies, which allows the legal rationale behind the ratio explicitly
arbitrary rules, unadjusted assessed according to the standard laid down for
cases, respectively, in their nature are similar. From the preceding follows that
this-by analogy-the rule applicable is to be found in the provisions of
of the cited provisions of § 30 paragraph 2. 2 of the law on hunting. Its application in
assessed relations with places also urgently because the shooting
the Fellowship after the demise of the membership of the owner of the hunting grounds land ceases to
objectively observe the principle that the exercise of the right of hunting is called
in the Wild Hunt consisting of land (or land of its members reporting
administrative decisions), and that compliance with this principle is important
the reason for this conclusion is that the arrangements for the enforcement of wildlife management in relation to the law of the sea
in terms of ownership of the Constitution can be accepted. The application of the principle of
refunds, expressed in terms of the provisions of § 30 paragraph 2. 2 of the law on hunting, has
whether or not an ideological base (not the right application) in the Institute of unjust
enrichment in terms of section 451 et seq. of his/her identity. Cust.
36. The analogue use of the provisions of § 30 paragraph 2. 2 of the law on hunting with
Naturally there must do without an administrative procedure-based, since it cannot be
entitlement to the refund to the owner, whose membership of the honebním Guild
disappear, to expose the uncertainty whether the competent administrative authority for
the affiliation of its land to the wild hunt will decide, in particular when such
the procedure is missing an explicit legal support. However, this does not change the permissions (and
the obligations of such claim) Court to decide, as nothing prevents it
assess the (no longer) as a claim of private law, which is called
provide protection to a right the Court (cf. the principle expressed in paragraph 4, sentence
the second, of the Civil Code).
37. It is worth recalling that the decision, to which the applicant
the Supreme Court pointed out (judgment dated 17.10.2002, no. 21 Cdo
3006/2000-64), provides for the right to pay the whole course (albeit without
more justification), and acts as the regional court in Hradec Králové
in a decision dated 3.4.1997, SP. zn. 19 What 502/96 (published in
the journal of the Court views 99, 8:256). It is not essential that both are
relative to the previous legislation, Act No. 23/1962 Coll.
hunting, as amended.
38. limitation of the owner of the honebního land, moreover, may not be permanent,
or bezvýjimečné, and the owner may face otherwise than by applying the
the claim for compensation; According to § 17 para. 2 of the law on hunting is the administrative
authority may also declare the plot behind the nehonební, and also due to the
"the interest of the owner"; to the definition of this condition is also a constitutional
expressed in the mentioned award pl. TC 34/03.
The final summary
39. The lack of explicit editing legal conditions the owner of the hunting grounds
the land, which ended its membership in the Guild honebním procedure
pursuant to section 26 paragraph 1. 3 the law on hunting, thus obstructing his
relationship to the honebnímu Guild, which uses longer land
exercise of the right of hunting, was interpreted on the basis of positive law. In
relation to what is the subject of civil proceedings, and what it
content is subject to the definition of design evidence of decisive Court
According to the article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution (article 64, paragraph 3, of the law on the Constitutional Court), it is
in this level the rights of its own conclusion that the owner of the hunting grounds of the land
It is the responsibility of the honebního communities like the use of the compensation provided for in § 30
paragraph. 2 of the law on hunting which decides (in the case of absentujícího
the administrative decision of the affiliation of the land to the Wild Hunt). The Constitutional Court
It considers that this conclusion is constitutionally conformal, and that, moreover, corresponds to the
considerations that in relation to questions of constitutional law on hunting and the conformance to the
expand comment proposing to the Court of appeal; It believes only that it
had the Court come alone, for he is not the system from the obligation to provide
the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms (article 4 of the Constitution).
40. In terms of top-reported (cited) method of finding SP. zn. PL.
TC 48/95 (see above) is coming of the Constitutional Court in this case concluded that the
due to the dovozenému interpretation of the applicable positive law, that is
eligible constitutionally Conformal applications in specific court case, it is not
reason the proposal that it marked with the provisions of the Act on hunting was
41. Is it then, for the purposes of the formulation of the final result of the procedure for
the design of the General Court under art. 95 odstavy of the Constitution and § 64 para. 3
the law on the Constitutional Court, to which the decided conclusion leads you remind
the conditions that have been reported above (see paragraphs 17 to 18 and 25 to
28.) within the meaning of the existence of the locus standi to his administration. Can be
recognise that in a situation in which the plaintiff claims a "loophole", is
logically impossible to identify those provisions which are to be derogována in order to
He opened a space for adjustment, which compared to the present-including the
competence to regulate the relations of the neglected, yet at the same time those that
It is in the specific court proceedings required to the appellant (as a decisive
the General Court) judge. Compared with the previously expressed the general principle here
There the claimant's standing to associate with those
the provisions, which, although itself doesn't get in "achieving a constitutionally
"the result of conforming (cf. section 26 above), with which, however, in terms of
the systematic, logical and content is adequate contact request
to the current edit to remove the hardened was unconstitutional "spaces"-
42. If it can be as follows pojímanou locus standi to the applicant to admit in
relation to the provisions of § 26 para. 4 the law on hunting (by modifying
Equity demands, in connection with the termination of membership in the Guild, and honebním
the "space" also reflects the property claims, albeit of a different kind), it is not
the same sustainable-in view of the above expressed condition of adequate
relation to the provisions of § 26 para. 3 the law on hunting, as
does not edit anything other than membership of the honebního communities
to get off. Lack of locus standi of the claimant is then
the standard reason for refusal within the meaning of § 43 para. 1 (b). (c))
the law on the Constitutional Court, as the case of a proposal made by someone apparently
43. for these reasons, the Constitutional Court the proposal to repeal the provisions of § 26
paragraph. 4 Act No 449/2001 Coll., on game management, as amended
regulations, pursuant to section 82 para. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court refused, and a proposal for
repeal the provisions of § 26 para. 3 of the same regulation according to § 43 para. 1 (b).
(c)) of the Act on the Constitutional Court refused.
44. This is not to say that it would be possible to make the legislature question
compensation for the use of the honebního of the land who of honebního communities
got out, without seeking a declaration of land in nehonební,
positively edited by when in the Czech Senate was
such an opinion previously expressed.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v.r.
Different opinion referred to in section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,
as amended, a decision of the Assembly, judge