In Case Of Cancellation Under § 13 Para. 3 Of The Act. About Mimosoud. Rehabilitation

Original Language Title: ve věci zrušení části § 13 odst. 3 zák. o mimosoud. rehabilitacích

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now

Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=46700&nr=153~2F1998~20Sb.&ft=txt

153/1998 Coll.



FIND



The Constitutional Court



On behalf of the United States



The Constitutional Court ruled the day 3. June 1998 in the plenary on the proposal of the Supreme

the Court for annulment of part of the provisions of § 13 para. 3 of Act No. 87/1991 Coll. on

extrajudicial rehabilitation, in the words "from the effective date of this

the law "



as follows:



Date of publication of this finding in the journal of laws shall be repealed part

the provisions of § 13 para. 3 of Act No. 87/1991 Coll. on extra-judicial

rehabilitation, in the words "from the effective date of this Act".



Justification



(I).



The Supreme Court of appeal, when hearing an applicant JUDr. O. K.,

He sought legal action in the circuit court in Prague against the Czech Republic-1

The Ministry of finance to pay the amounts $ 180 000 as compensation for the

the penalty the confiscation of property pursuant to the provisions of § 13 para. 2 of the Act

No. 87/1991 Coll. on extra-judicial rehabilitation, came to the conclusion that the

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

The Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"). Therefore, in its resolution of 29 January 2004. may

1997 No. 2Cdon 1343/96-38 proceeding pursuant to § 109 paragraph. 1 (b). (b))

Code of civil procedure and in conformity with the article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution and

with § 64 para. 4 of law No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, the proposal made by the

cancellation of part of the provisions of § 13 para. 3 of Act No. 87/1991 Coll. in words

"from the effective date of this Act".



The Supreme Court first pointed out that the applicant, a permanent resident in the

Switzerland, already in the application, the same gamble with the view of the defendant, that his

requests for refund were filed late (15 November 1994)

Since the Constitutional Court published under no. 164/1994 Sb.

without prejudice to the provisions of § 13 para. 3 of Act No. 87/1991 Coll. argued that

the restrictive interpretation of this finding would again lead to discrimination against people

living abroad.



The Supreme Court further stated that the judgment of the municipal court in Prague, dated

March 29, 1996, no. 18 what 33/96-23 has been confirmed by the judgment of the district

Court of Prague 1 of 6. October 1995 No. 15 C 42/95-11, which was

a claim for payment of the amount CZK 180 fully rejected. General

the courts have concluded that the applicant is a person authorized by a

the provisions of § 19 para. 1 of law No. 87/1991 Coll. and meets the conditions for

the granting of flat-rate compensation for the penalty the confiscation of property, the

part of the property was not, according to § 13 para. 3. the law. Request

the plaintiff for financial compensation from the 10. October and of 15. November 1994 said, however,

have been delayed. A term specified in § 13 para. 3. at the time of the Act

submission of applications has already expired and the defendant has expressly this fact

930. "The question of time limits" for the assertion of claims under section 13(2). 2 of the Act

No. 87/1991 Coll., in particular in relation to the finding of the Constitutional Court No 164/1994

Coll., conceded the Court of appeal the appeal, which shall be decided by the Supreme Court.



The Supreme Court pointed out in its proposal to the existing text of § 13 para. 3

Act No. 87/1991 Coll., according to which "a written request for a refund

must be filed with the competent central authority of the State administration of the Republic of

at the latest within one year from the effective date of this Act, or

within one year from the date of final judgment, which took

the proposal was rejected on the issue of the case ". The application of the first of these time-limits

apparently assumes the situation between the parties no doubt about

inability to release things and when there is no reason to seek a first action

their issue. The second period is indicative of those authorized, who preferred

request to release things and whose proposal was rejected for reasons not

tkvících in absentia imperative time limits or non-fulfilment of the criteria defining

them as a competent person. Constitutional Court No. 164/1994 Coll. was

abolished the condition of permanent residence on the territory of the Czech Republic enshrined in §

3 of Act No. 87/1991 Coll., determining the concept of authorised person pursuant to § 19

paragraph. 1. the law. However, since the launch of the unconstitutional conditions

permanent residence in the territory of the United States has cited findings to

1, 1994, persons that this condition before that date

did not meet, prevented from bringing their claims within the time limit, the beginning of the

in § 13 para. 3. the law depends on the "efficiency of law". This

the provisions of the relevant findings remained intact, so to use

a one-year period could not authorized persons residing outside the territory of the United

States to proceed even after 1. November 1994. The Supreme Court therefore

takes the view that where unable to consider the issue, it is not possible after

authorized persons "described the kind of" reasonably required to

by default the first of these time-limits in the provisions of § 13 para. 3. law-

to transmit their unconstitutional exclusion from the circle of beneficiaries

-replace after 1. November 1994 by invoking a fictitious dispute on the issue of

things just because the negative judgment enables them to request financial

refunds based on the run time of the second of the time limits with which that provision

counts.



For these reasons, the Supreme Court suggested part of the provisions of § 13 para. 3

CIT Act, in the words "from the effective date of this Act," Cancel, because

considers that it is in breach of article. 1 of the Constitution and article. 1, art. 3 (2). 1 and

article. 4 (4). 2 and 3, of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (hereinafter referred to as

"The Charter"). The Supreme Court has referred to the plenum of the Constitutional Court finding of

December 13, 1995, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 8/95, which States that "If the

the existence of the rights associated with the deadline, in the event of a finding that the law was

limited institutional manner, it is necessary to remove an obstacle which would

getting in its constitutional application ". In this case, apparently, you can also

take the arguments used in the award of the Constitutional Court No 164/1994 Coll.

because of the time limit specified in § 13 para. 3 of Act No. 87/1991 Coll., from

the nature of the periods referred to in § 5 para. 2 and 4 of this Act differ only by

that there is no expressed limitation, but the nature of the defendant may, in

described the situation successfully argue prescription of the claim.



The resolution of the Constitutional Court of 6 May 1999. October 1997, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 26/97 was

as inadmissible rejected a proposal from the District Court for Prague 2 on cancellation

under the provisions of § 13 para. 3 of Act No. 87/1991 Coll. in the words "after the date of

the effectiveness of this law ", since the Constitutional Court has already in the same case under the sp.

Zn. PL. ÚS 24/97 Act [section 35 (2), § 43 para. 1 (b), (f)) of law No.

182/1993].



The above proposal of the Supreme Court were party to the proceedings-

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the intervener-

District Court of Prague 2, the procedural status of relies on

the provisions of § 35 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll. pursuant to the provisions of § 48

paragraph. 2 and § 49 paragraph 1. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll. asked the Constitutional Court to

representation and the Ministry of finance.



The Chamber of deputies in its statement said that the proposal of the Supreme Court

is well founded. On 1 May 2004. Although the July 1994 entered into force law No.

116/1994 Coll., amending and supplementing Act No. 87/1991 Coll., but

This law did not address in any way the deadline laid down in § 13 para. 3,

so an authorized person in accordance with § 3 (1). 1 and 4 of law No. 87/1991.

not able to submit a request under section 13(2). 2 of this Act.

The Chamber of Deputies added that Act No. 87/1991 Coll. has been approved

the necessary majority of the Federal Assembly of the Czech and Slovak

Federal Republic, was signed by the respective constitutional actors and

properly declared. The legislature at the time of the adoption of this Law Act

in the belief that the adopted law is constitutionally Conformal and also corresponds to the

International Customs. It is therefore for the Constitutional Court to assess

the constitutionality of this law and issued the appropriate decision.



District Court of Prague 2 intervene with a proposal to cancel

under the provisions of § 13 para. 3 of Act No. 87/1991 Coll. identified.



The Minister of finance in its statement said that the finding of the Constitutional Court No.

164/1994 Coll. was without prejudice to the provisions of § 13 para. 3 of Act No. 87/1991

SB. "as a result of the apparent mix-up-omissions in the draft represented".

The find, therefore, the current wording of § 13 para. 3

does not allow newly eligible persons early and thus the successful application of

the right to financial compensation, as provided for in period has expired at the time when

the citizen without permanent residence in the Czech Republic this restitution law

the position of the beneficiaries haven't openly admitted. The second of the two periods (IE. "to

"one year from the date of final judgment has acquired

rejected a proposal to release stuff) he refers only to compensation for the property,

as for compensation for forfeited movables in the flat-rate amount of Eur 60 000 is not

applicable, whether things were partially or completely issued or not.

Therefore, the Ministry of finance, while respecting the current version of so far

the provisions of § 13 para. 3 requests received outside of the law could not

to meet the deadline and were rejected for the same reason the following

the court action.



The Minister of finance considers the proposal of the Supreme Court-in view of the

judgment of the Constitutional Court concerning the deletion of the part of the

the provisions of § 5 para. 4 of law No. 87/1991 Coll.-for reasonable. It is recommended that

However, in the grounds of the award say that after the cancellation of the relevant provisions of the

Act No. 87/1991 Coll. begins a one-year period mentioned in it to run on the date of


enforceability of the award and that this finding cannot be applied retroactively.



II.



The Constitutional Court first dealt with the question of whether a formal

assumptions of the validity of the contested provisions of Act No. 87/1991 Coll.

this direction was from the reports on the 13. joint meeting of the House of the people and

The House of peoples (VI parliamentary term, part 3, p. 905 and 906) and from the

News on 6. the Chamber of Deputies (VI. electoral period, 21 February 1991,

page 28) found that on 21 February 2006. February 1991, the law on extrajudicial

rehabilitation approved the necessary majority of members of the Federal

Assembly, 86 members of the House of the people (against 25

members of Parliament and 13 abstentions) and 96 MEPs in the House

the Nations (and was 24 members and 9 members of the abstentions

vote). He was then signed by the respective constitutional factors and properly

promulgated in the collection of laws. The Act was adopted and published in the

the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and constitutionally prescribed manner (section

68 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll.). It had already stated the finding of the Constitutional Court

promulgated in the collection of laws under no. 169/1994 Coll. (PL. ÚS 3/94).



III.



After the substance has delivered the following opinion of the Constitutional Court:



Already in the grounds of the award No 164/1994 Coll., the Constitutional Court stated that the condition

permanent residence, originally enshrined in the provisions of § 3 para. 1 and 4 of the law

No. 87/1991 Coll., create inequality between beneficiaries and from this

reason has been cancelled. However, because the natural persons who are nationals of

The United States and do not have a permanent residence on its territory, would not have its

claims of success, since the expiry of the statutory time limits,

set aside the Constitutional Court cited finding that part of the provisions of § 5 para.

2 and 4 of law No. 87/1991 Coll., the words "from the effective date of this

the law ", since only in this way to allow citizens, whose

claim founded the only finding of the Constitutional Court that it raised in a timely manner.

At the same time, the Constitutional Court stated that the period referred to in article 5 (3). 2 and 4

Act No. 87/1991 Coll. begins to run on the day of enforceability of a constitutional

the Court, therefore, on 1 January 2000. November 1994. This newly opened the period, however,

concerned only persons finding become persons authorized, i.e.. that

still did not meet the condition of permanent residence on the territory of the Czech and Slovak

Federative Republic (Czech Republic), this finding has already been set aside. Run

the new time limit from the date of enforcement of the award, however, did not touch people, that

already before the effective date of the award were persons authorized, if the

a valid condition of residence on the territory of Czech and Slovak Federal

Republic (United States) meet, and the only claim more

in a timely manner.



Also in the present case-that with the finding of the Constitutional Court cited in

essentially corresponds to the Constitutional Court found that the application for annulment of the words

"from the effective date of this Act" in the provisions of § 13 para. 3 of Act No.

87//1991 is justified, since the current text of the cited provision--

due to the expiry of the statutory period--excludes persons who

they have permanent residence outside the territory of the Czech Republic, from redeem

a financial compensation. The Supreme Court correctly deduced that that provision

Constitutional Court left no 164/1994 Coll. intact, so to

the use of the statutory period provided for authorised persons could not proceed even after

1, 1994, when he became the award enforceable. These persons

Therefore, they have been effectively excluded from the circle of beneficiaries that might have

seek financial compensation, and were therefore-in comparison with other

-beneficiaries of the disadvantaged and were unconstitutionally against them in

an unequal legal status. The Constitutional Court also agrees with the view

The Supreme Court, in cases where you cannot consider the issue of the case,

It is not possible on these beneficiaries reasonably required to

missed the first of the above time limits pursuant to the provisions of § 13 para. 3 of Act No.

87/1991 Coll., which was their unconstitutional the exclusion of

beneficiaries, substituted by invoking a fictitious dispute about the release of things

just because the negative judgment will allow them to request financial compensation

base on the second run of the time limits referred to in that provision.



Therefore, the Constitutional Court-in conformity with the proposal of the Supreme Court-decided

the conclusion that the provisions of § 13 para. 3 of Act No. 87/1991 Coll. is in the words

"from the effective date of this Act," in breach of article. 1, art. 3 (2). 1, art.

4 (4). 2 and 3 of the Charter.



For this reason, the proposal of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court for annulment of the words "from the

the effective date of this Act "in the provisions of § 13 para. 3 of Act No.

87/1991 Coll. agreed and cited a portion of this provision, the date of publication of

This finding in the statute book. The Constitutional Court concluded,

It would be appropriate to defer its enforceability for later, as it is

about how exceptional, for whose use is not a reason in the present case.



The Constitutional Court adds-as well as in the report of 12 October. July 1994 sp.

Zn. PL. ÚS 3/94 (No. 165/1994 Coll.)-that the period referred to in § 13 para. 3

cit. law enforcement begins to run on the date of this finding, that is, on the date of

its publication in the statute book, because otherwise in the matter of the protection of

the constitutional principles that led to the annulment of the contested part of the provisions of section

in article 13(3). 3 of Act No. 87/1991 Coll., was not guaranteed.



For completeness, the Constitutional Court also refers to the provisions of § 71 para. 2

Act No. 182/1993 Coll., according to which "other final decision

issued on the basis of the legislation that has been cancelled shall remain unaffected;

the rights and obligations referred to in such decision, however, you cannot perform ". It comes

the decision, which was released outside the area of criminal proceedings.



The President of the Constitutional Court:



JUDr. Kessler v. r.



Rights for putting different opinions in the minutes of the hearing and on its

the connection to the decision, stating your name, under section 14 of Act No.

182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, the judge took advantage of JUDr. Pavel Param V.