49/2007 Sb.



FIND



The Constitutional Court



On behalf of the Czech Republic



The Constitutional Court ruled June 13. December 2006 in plenary in the composition of Stanislav

Package, Francis Skinner, Vlasta Formankova, Pavel Holländer, Ivana

Smith, Vladimir Crust, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jiří Mucha, Jan Musil, Jiří

Nykodým, Pavel Rychetský, Miloslav Výborný and Michael Židlická of the proposal

51 members of the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament and 21

Senators of the Senate of the Czech Republic to repeal section 9 (2). 2 and 3,

§ 17 paragraph. 6, § 18 paragraph. 4, § 21. 1 (a). (e)), section 26, paragraph. Part 1

the sentence for a semicolon, § 27, paragraph. 1, section 31, paragraph. 1, 2 and 6 (a). and), § 55

paragraph. 1 to 3 and § 69 paragraph. 1 of law no 449/2001 Coll., on game management,

amended by laws No. 320/2002 Coll. and the No. 59/2003 Coll.



as follows:



The proposal is rejected.



Justification



(I).



The circumstances of the case



1. The proposal sent to the Constitutional Court the day 4.7.2003, complemented subsequently

filing sent to the Constitutional Court the day of 19. 12.2003, plaintiffs with

referring to the article. paragraph 87. 1 (a). the Constitution of the Czech Republic) and seek,

to the Constitutional Court annulled the rubrikovaná provisions of the Act No 449/2001 Coll.

about hunting, as amended by laws No. 320/2002 Coll. and the No. 59/2003 Coll., as

It was that these provisions of the Act on hunting are within the meaning of article. 87

paragraph. 1 (a). and the Constitution of the Czech Republic) in conflict with the constitutional order

The Czech Republic, namely, that violate article. 1, article. 3 (3).

1, article. 4 (4). 3 and 4, article. 11. 1 and 4, article. 20 of the Charter of fundamental

of rights and freedoms (the "Charter") and referring to the constant

the case law of the Constitutional Court, in particular on the Constitutional Court

published under no. 403/2002 Coll., article. 1 of the additional protocol to the

The European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well

as the article. 14 of the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental

freedoms.



The proposal affects essentially the two problem areas.



2. the first, more general, is the controversy with plaintiffs ' expectation that the performance

hunting rights, generally perceived as socially beneficial activity,

It can be considered as a whole for the work in the public interest to all

the consequences that such a characterization may have on the ownership

the rights to the land.



3. Second heading relates to questions of the relations between land owners and members

hunting communities, relations between the members of the hunting communities

each other, and in particular in connection with the placing of hunting

facilities on the land, restrictions or prohibition of entry into the hunting ground,

optimization of the shape of the honiteb achieved přičleňováním of the land, or

their Exchange and the conditions for the application of the right to compensation for damages.



II.



The plaintiffs ' argument



4. The appellants are based on the assumption that the right of hunting, respectively.

his performance is, as the contested Law modified, intervention in the

ownership of individual land owners in favour of persons

entitled to exercise the rights of hunting-in favour of the holders of the honiteb.



5. Point out that according to the article. 11. 4 of the Charter may be a proprietary

the right to forcibly limited only in the public interest, on the basis of the law and

for the replacement. Public interest in the general interest or to interpret as generally

beneficial in this context and point to the fact that in the

specific case can act only on the interest of the public, but also in the interest of the

individuals or groups of people (no matter how specific and numerous).



6. Your opinion based, inter alia, on the findings of the Constitutional Court of 28 June. 3.

1996, SP. zn. I. TC 198/95 (collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court

Volume 5, finding no. 23, p. 193 et seq.), according to which "... not every

collective interest can be marked as public interest company, ... the concept of

the ' public interest ' is to be understood as such interest which could be

Mark generally beneficial for General or interest ". The Constitutional Court in this

the award also refers to the work of f. a. Hayek's Law, legislation and

freedom. II., Prague: Academia, 1991, p. 14, where the author States,

"often mistakenly suggests that all collective interests are General

the interests of the company; but in many cases it may be satisfying

the collective interests of certain groups with the general interests of the society in

variance ".



7. The appellants also argue that the right of hunting, as

defines the Act of hunting, represents the entire summary of rights and obligations,

which do not form a compact-homogeneous group, but on the contrary, a minimum of two

the essence of the vastly different categories.



The fulfilment of the obligation to protect the animals, and in a wider context, therefore, as follows

to protect the environment shall recognize the nature of the public interest.

They warn, however, that the nature of the other part of the hunting rights

consisting of, for example, in the law of the deer hunt, caught or found

Deer uhynulou přivlastňovat's etc. It is clear that no public interest

on the exercise of these rights does not exist. Take issue with, so according to them

unacceptably paušalizovaným, the Supreme Court concluded that the rights of

the owners of hunting lands are the relevant provisions of the law on

hunting (adequately) limited in the public interest, as expressed in the judgment

The Supreme Court of 17 December. 10.2002 in case sp.. 22 Cdo 3006/2000

(posted in Judicial rozhledy No. 6/2003, Prague: c. h. Beck, 2003,

p. 189).



8. the exercise of the right of hunting, then, because, inter alia, clearly includes the

hobbies, sports, and economic or business activity, according to the

opinion, the plaintiffs cannot be as all the activities in the public interest.



9. The correctness of this conclusion the appellants emphasized by recalling the

the fact that in France, for example, was-in connection with problems with

hunting-hunting law, defined as a sport. Refer to the

the case of Chassagnou and others against France (an overview of the judgments of the European

Court for human rights no 7-8/1999, p. 148 et seq.), in the alternative, refer to

and, in their opinion, generally related to Constitutional Court

SP. zn. PL. ÚS 11/01 (collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, the volume

25, finding no. 25; promulgated under no. 144/2002 Coll.), which dealt with

the law on railways.



To the individual provisions of the law questioned:



10. section 9 (2). 2



"(2) it is also forbidden to damage or destroy the salt marshes, the drinker,

device for feeding, watching and hunting and other hunting

the device. To their construction and the location of the prior consent is required

the owner of the honebního estate. If any of the owners of the hunting grounds

the land in the wild hunt this consent, decides the authority of State administration

hunting. The provisions of the special law on the location

salt marshes, the drinker or a device for feeding game by not

prejudice. "



The appellants challenge the ability to place hunting equipment in the

benefit of the game (not to its hunting-it seems, therefore, that "certain

the differences "between the public and private interest was already and the legislature

aware of) on the land without the consent of its owner, or directly in conflict with the

his will, although different in this case, the existence of public interest

they accept.



At the same time, the construction of refuse in compensation, the law for the restrictions

ownership of a strictly required, can be used in a particular case

be regarded as rent for the shooting, as it is a limitation of the ownership

the rights of a specific, individual owner, not all owners

land belonging to the honebním Guild. The appellants point out, even on the

the specific mechanism of restriction of ownership rights, to which in

this case does not occur by the Association in the honebním community, but

only by decision of the administrative authority. In the absence of compensation, as it should be

According to their opinion, therefore, the greatest conflict with article. 11. 4

Of the Charter.



11. section 9 (2). 3



"(3) on the request of the user, the authority may-state administration of hunting,

in particular, at the time of nesting, laying and rearing or implementation of hunts,

require an appropriate limitation and prohibition of entry into a hunting ground or its parts,

restrictions on driving horses and dogs and other towing restrictions in sports or

extracurricular activities. The said measures shall not apply on the economic

the activity of owners or tenants hunting land. "



Contradiction with article. 11. 4 of the Charter of the plaintiffs and in the options see

the administrative authority may order, at the request of the user-owner

reasonable grounds and the limitation or prohibition of entry into the private hunting grounds and the limitation

the other listed activities, inter alia, at the time of the implementation of the hunts.

The fact that these restrictions do not apply to the economic activity

the owner or tenant of the land, shall not be considered to be satisfactory, acceptable

the compromise. While the reasons of the protection of the game when nesting,

laying and rearing shall recognize the nature of the public interest, hunting as follows,

referring to the fact that it is not always exclusively about the planned reduction

staff game related with the protection of nature, or of the

environment (it is sufficient compliance with the "hunters management" or the needs of the

agricultural and forest production), refuse to accept. Repeatedly in the alternative

They argue by reference to the attitude of the ECTHR in the foregoing case.



12. § 17 paragraph. 6



"(6) in the formation of honiteb, must take into account their shape. Cannot be

create or recognize the shooting, which has the shape of a narrow strip of land in the

the widest point only 500 m wide, although it was set
the minimum acreage. This provision does not apply to outlying parts of the hunting ground

(processes). As is necessary to prevent the formation of boundaries of hunting ground, which would

the interface consisted of agricultural and forest land. For this purpose, in

the formation of honiteb carried out the settlement of borders in Exchange honiteb hunting

of the land or by incorporating them. "



In the options of the border settlement enacted here honiteb in the form of Exchange or

the affiliation of the hunting land for the purpose of optimization of the shape of the hunting ground

fro the plaintiffs hit to the right of Association of citizens as

enshrined in article. 20 of the Charter, since the procedure under this legal

provisions, ultimately to the demise of the automatically

membership in the Guild does not take into account honebním on free will

owners of individual plots of land.



13. the first subparagraph of section 18. 4



"(4) an applicant may request that the land of honebním

the minimum acreage has been added for more continuous hunting land other

the owners, with an indication of the reasons for this affiliation. If, on the

the affiliation with these owners agreed, this Agreement shall be attached to the proposal.

If the plaintiffs agree on the future of the neighbouring honiteb

mutual exchange of hunting land, which to their acreage may not be

the same, submit the agreement to the proposals. If carried the affiliation of the authority

the State administration on its own initiative, may occur only with the consent of

the holder of a hunting license. The total extent of the exchanges and the affiliation, which are carried out

to compensate for the border, must not be higher than 10% of the acreage of their own hunting grounds

the land of the petitioner masturbating. "



The eventual incorporation of the land adjacent to the Wild Hunt, causing the owner

the land tolerate it on the exercise of the right of hunting, they reject the appellants with

pointing to the fact that activities related to the law of the hunting and

use of the honebního property in the particular case have largely

the character of private interest, which cannot be a sufficient reason to

restriction of ownership rights of the owner of the land.



Also according to the provisions determined by the plaintiffs an unjustified

discrimination between (forcibly) reporting because the owners of the land,

While some in the case of the hunting ground, where there is a hunting body,

at least they can exercise the rights of game vicariously, as his

members participate, the others, where their land attached to the Wild Hunt

the individual owner, do not have this option, and cannot carry out

one of the rights derived from the right to use the land as part of the

ownership rights.



According to the petitioners, there is no public value, which, in the

connection with the přičleňováním convincingly justify different treatment

with the owners of the land, and therefore the procedure permitted this provision

the Act fro the infringement of article 81(1). 1 and article. 4 (4). 3 of the Charter.



14. To § 21. 1 (a). (e))



"(1) the competence of the general meeting belong to the



(e) the adoption of the decision of the owner) hunting land přičleněných to the

Wild Hunt for a member of the honebního community, "



The appellants criticize the fact that from the legal provisions

indirectly implies that because membership in the honebním

the community falls within the competence of the general meeting, you cannot become a member of the

honebního community "or"-"semi-automatically", in the context of the

by incorporating the land in a way anticipated the provisions of § 26 paragraph. 1

the law on hunting. Drawn to a discrepancy between the strict wording of the

the law and its free interpretation in the form of comments, but without

support in the Act, in the case of the affiliation of the land acceptable construction

automatic creation of the membership of the honebním Guild. In the opinion of

the plaintiffs, however, this question cannot be solved and in the current adjustment

by membership in the Guild honebním under all circumstances

makes the consent of the general meeting, see speech unjustified

inequality between owners and therefore the infringement of article 81(1). 3 (3). 1 in the

conjunction with article. 11. 1 of the Charter.



15. with regard to section 26, paragraph. 1 part of the sentence for a semicolon



"Membership in the Guild honebním



(1) if the ownership of the honebního Guild honebním

the land, which are part of the company, its membership in the hunting ground

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

ownership fails to notify in writing the honebnímu Guild, that with

membership does not match. "



The appellants argue that the transferee of the land is in the context of honebního

with the procedure relating to the transfer of ownership to the land honebnímu

as a result is forced to become a member of the honebního collective. If he does not

the same option as the owners of the other hunting land

occurs between the owners of the hunting land to unjustified inequality.



Point to a thirty-day period begins to run as from the date of

ownership, in which the transferee may announce that the membership in the

honebním Guild disagrees. This then critically confront

the fact that under the provisions of section 2 (2). 2 Act No. 265/1992 Coll.,

as amended, the right of ownership shall retroactively-with

effects to the moment when it was filed for the registration of ownership rights in

the real estate cadastre. Therefore, if the licensee can wait for a moment, when he

the land registry office will confirm that (when) he became the owner,

almost certainly no longer be able to show their opposition to membership in the

honebním Guild, since in most cases, provided for a 30-day

Meanwhile, the deadline expires.



In this construction fro the plaintiffs conflict with article. 3 (3). 1 and article. 11

paragraph. 1 of the Charter, and at the same time violating article. 14 of the European Convention for the protection of

human rights and fundamental freedoms, in conjunction with article. 1 Additional

the Protocol to it.



16. with regard to section 27, paragraph. 1, second sentence



"The assets of honebního communities



(1) the shooting body is responsible for its obligations with all its assets.

Members shall be liable for the obligations of honebního communities honebního communities. "



According to the plaintiffs, the members of the honebního Fellowship is responsible for

obligations of the honebního communities, without the extent of their liability corresponds to the

the share of the vote, respectively, to the extent that they are effectively-with light

the size of his holding-able to decide honebního

communities of influence, based an unjustified inequality among members, in

the particular case of it nepřijatelnější that members of the honebního

communities are the owners of the land may become completely independent of their

the will.



According to plaintiffs, so is a violation of article. 1 and article. 3 of the Charter, they argue

also violation of article. 14 of the European Convention for the protection of human rights and

fundamental freedoms, in conjunction with article. 1 of the additional protocol to it.



17. For section 31, paragraph. 1 and 2



"Change and the demise of honiteb



(1) if required by the principles of proper game management, the institution may

the State administration of the hunting permit hunting ground or balanced change

Exchange of hunting land (hereinafter referred to as "the change in the hunting ground"). When you change the hunting ground

is not taken into account the territorial boundaries of municipalities, districts or counties and acreage

exchanged the land may not be the same.



(2) the proposal to change the hunting license holders concerned served honiteb

together, and that the authority of the State administration, territorial wildlife management

hunting land circumference hitting most parts of the affected. Unless otherwise agreed by

owners of the affected honiteb on submission of a joint proposal for the amendment of

hunting ground, can submit a proposal for any of them. If the company

hunting, hunting the Fellowship shall submit a proposal. "



Proponents of dedukují, that the (still) in connection with the changes in the

supplies, specifically by incorporating the land to another private hunting grounds, against the will of his

the owner may, only on the basis of the decision of the administrative authority to

forced termination of membership in a voluntary community. If

the owner of the land does not happen-he doesn't want to or can not become a member of the neighbouring

honebního Fellowship is forced to suffer in their exercise of the right of land

hunting without the right to any compensation for this restriction. In that

the greatest contradiction with article. 11. 4 of the Charter.



18. For section 31, paragraph. 6 (a). and)



"(6) Hunting shall cease



and, by merging) or by splitting the private hunting grounds at the request of their

holders and the acquisition of legal power of the new decision on recognition of the hunting ground, "



Violation of article. 11. 4 and article. 20 (2). 1 of the Charter the plaintiffs argue

in connection with the fact that once the demonstrated will of the owners

hunting land to create a fellowship may no longer be changed in the future

without the consent of the honebního communities and minority owners

land, or unhappy with the activities of the communities of honebního, who

they don't want to continue to remain in it, are in conflict with the requirement

freedom of Association, being deprived of the possibility to create a new

honebního communities, and the creation of a hunting license in their territory,

vicariously.



The benefit of this design speaks in the view of the plaintiffs and

the fact that the members of the emergence of the honebního communities have

under the current arrangements shall be entitled to compensation for the continuing limitations of their

of ownership in the form of the exercise of hunting by a third party.



19. section 55, paragraph. 1, 2 and 3



"Claims



(1) a claim for compensation for the damage caused by the animals must corrupt the user

-apply
and the damage to agricultural) land, field crops and agricultural

stands within 20 days of the date when the damage occurred,



(b) damage to the forest) on the grounds and on the forest stands resulting in

period from 1. July of the previous year to 30. June of the current year

within 20 days from the expiry of that period.



(2) at the same time with the application of the right to compensation for damage caused by wildlife

calculates the amount of damage is damaged. On field crops and agricultural

the stands, which can be used to quantify the damage only at harvest time, it

corrupted compiled from within 15 days after the harvest.



(3) the injured party and the user-is have on damages caused by the

the game concludes. If the user does not replace the damage-within 60 days from the date

the date when the injured party filed a claim, and quantify the amount of damage or in the

the same period has a written agreement with the refund of this

the damage, the injured party may, within a period of 3 months to exercise his right to compensation

damages in court. "



The appellants argue that the prescription periods are listed here

unreasonably short, respectively. that constitute the significant disparity between the

private bodies, for the protection of the rights of owners of land-

claim for damages-used-other, more stringent

scale, than in the case of time limits for the exercise of the right to compensation

the damage incurred by the holders of hunting ground, which the legislature retained the normal periods

civil. In it fro the infringement of article 81(1). 1 of the Charter, namely, the principle of

equality in rights, and also of her article. 11. 1, the identity of the

legal content and the protection of ownership rights of all owners.



20. To § 69 paragraph. 1



"The transitional provisions



(1) the hunting ground and branches according to present regulations remain recognised

maintained: this is also true for disciplines covering less than 50 ha and separate

recognised according to present regulations, pheasantry, which become

honitbami according to this law, even if the acreage is below 500 ha. If

hunting or recognised in accordance with the existing laws of the Park reaches the statutory

the acreage under this law, but does not meet the other requirements for

hunting ground, is the person that has been recognised under the previous hunting

regulations, be obliged to submit to the 31. December 2002 the authority of State administration

hunting proposal on putting a hunting license in accordance with this Act, or

hunting will lapse on 31 December. March 2003. "



This provision of the Act, the appellants complain that perpetuates legal

relations in the exercise of the rights of hunting. The only way to create a

a new hunting there, where there was another (and subject to the conditions

the new law remains) is its distribution. Because it is but

According to the existing adjustment possible only on the basis of the proposal of the holder of a hunting license,

have the appellants considered that the minority owners of the land, if the

like the split-or its abolition, is so denied the possibility

to participate in the exercise of the right of hunting by creating a honebního Fellowship

(according to their wishes and needs). The appellants therefore have considered that the

the current adjustment in this respect is in breach of article. 11. 4 and article. 20

paragraph. 1 of the Charter.



III.



Representation of the parties



And the.



The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic



In General, the



21. in its comments, the Senate similarly recounted progress

the legislative process in relation to the contested provisions of the law on

hunting, while conceding the eventual doubts the parties some

individual provisions applied in the debate. Confirms that in both

committees and in the plenary session was widely discussed issues of ownership

honebním land rights in relation to the degree of the constitutionality of the restrictions of this

rights in favour of the rights of hunting. The Senate, however, neither in the spirit

the Bill did not find its unconstitutionality, the amendments were therefore

just legal-technical nature.



22. In general, the Senate said that, in the assessment of the contested

the provisions in the context of the whole Act of hunting is the essential question

the definition of the public interest founding for the implementation of the rights of hunting

the legitimacy of specific restrictions on the property rights of the owners of hunting grounds

land. The Senate's doubts, that the need to protect the animals, so that the

It could be anyone, in accordance with article. paragraph 35. 1 of the Charter, to ensure the right

on favorable environment (sees here totally immediate

the link), represents the public interest.



23. the right of hunting, both in terms of its historical development, and

the perspective of the current arrangements, characterized as a compact summary of the

respective rights and obligations, which are the implementation of a mutually

is consistent and that it is therefore to be considered in their mutual

context. In that context, it is then considered by the Senate of the need and

on hunting, including appropriation of legally harvested game, seen

as part of the integral process of the protection of wildlife. Also, therefore, of this

view the restriction of ownership rights to land in favour of the honebním

hunting rights appears to be considered by the Senate as the restrictions in the public interest.



To the individual provisions of the Bill questioned



24. paragraph to section 17. 6 and § 55 paragraph. 3 the Senate said that the appellants in the

your submission of the text of the amendment in front of the quote made by law No.

59/2003 Coll.



25. In connection with section 17 paragraph. 6 the Senate said that Fowles did not with

the proposed solution to this provision, which lays down the relevant

the criteria, which must be taken into account when creating a hunting license and terms

about the suitability of the shape of a hunting license in relation to the minimum width of a hunting license, and

the amendment recommended by the factual edit to this provision.

The Chamber of Deputies, however, after the discussion of the Bill in this respect

approved as amended, which was referred to the Senate. Furthermore, in the context of the

This provision of the law the Senate stressed that the shooting body

considered in the assessment of the draft law for the legal person sui generis

under the law on hunting, whose members may be the only owners or

co-owners of contiguous land, hunting grounds, and not for the Association,

the company or association within the meaning of article. 20 of the Charter.



26. paragraph to section 26. 1 part of the sentence for a semicolon (subsequently the contested

the provisions that the Senate) is the result of changes to the law on hunting

carried out by Act No. 59/2003 Coll., amending Act No 449/2001

Coll., on game management, as amended by Act No. 320/2002 Coll., and Act No. 128/2000

Coll., on municipalities (municipal establishment), as amended. The Senate is

unsuccessfully tried to edit the issue of membership in the honebním

the Guild that would allow owners of all hunting land

which are part of the recognized company-to decide

whether they become members of honebního communities. Therefore, the Senate proposed a

based on the provided editing to edit later adopted the de facto

the opposite, IE. the assumption that a member of the honebního Fellowship is

the owner of the hunting land that are part of the recognized company

hunting license, if it so requests in writing Fellowship, and hunting

on the day when the request was delivered to the honebnímu Guild.



27. section 27 of the paragraph. 1 the Senate acknowledges that, in the context of the discussions in the committees and the

the full Senate was some senators fear the potential risk of pronounced

"tunneling" the personal property of those members of the honebního community, who

in the company-own small acreage hunting land, and

Therefore, they cannot adequately influence the decisions of the general meeting honebního

communities in the cases of loans and credits that the shooting's Fellowship

(if applicable).



28. The proposal of the Committee for regional development, public administration and the

environment on the deletion of section 27. 1 the second sentence to the Senate with a different

the result dealt a total of twice. For the second time this proposal passed, but

The Chamber of deputies would have agreed to it after discussion.



29. According to the opinion of the Senate can be therefore promoters in this issue

přisvědčit, but only in the part of their design, where to seek the annulment

the second sentence of the provision of section 27. 1, but not the sentence first, setting out the

the responsibility of the honebního Fellowship for his obligations with all property

Fellowship. Such liability, the Senate considers, in accordance with the

the claimant, a quite common expression of legal personality.



(B).



The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic



In General, the



30. The Chamber of Deputies, said that the legislature has acted in

discussions about hunting in accordance with the prescribed procedure and in

the belief that the adopted law is not inconsistent with the Constitution of the Czech Republic.

The law on hunting in its opinion does not deny nor does it preclude the basic

the human rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution of the Czech Republic and the Charter.

At the same time expressed doubt whether after the annulment of the contested provisions

the law on hunting was still usable.



31. the legal opinion of the petitioners, she appears as a special-purpose. Clearly

calls into question the basic principles of the game Act, which in the first place

must respect the needs of the game (and its interest is often required

disregard the property boundaries of the land), in the second place the interests of the breed

game, and only after the interests of the owners of hunting land, tenants of these

the land, hunters, etc.



32. The Chamber of Deputies recalled that the Wildlife Act is

defined as natural wealth, then this fact applies to the article.
7 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, according to which the State is committed to careful use of

natural resources and the protection of natural resources. It then concludes,

the right and obligation to protect animals, and fish is purposefully to be

be considered in the public interest. The more that the right hunting with us is not

According to the law of interest or sports activities, but is part of the

economic activities carried out by the human in nature, similar to the

management of forests.



To the individual provisions of the Bill questioned



33. section 9 (2). 2 and 3



Annulment does not in the opinion of the Chamber of Deputies.

If there is no agreement on the construction of a hunting device shall

authority of State administration management in the administrative procedure. Every participant of the

has the option to apply the objection or appeal.

In the administrative procedure – with the same context – is exercised and decisions

about restrictions or prohibition of entry into the forest. In addition, does not apply only to the

to allow the hunt, but in particular because of the care of the animals. In addition, does not apply to

the economic activity of the owners and tenants of the land.



34. paragraph to section 17. 6, § 18 paragraph. 4, § 21. 1 (a). (e)), section 31, paragraph. 1,

2 and section 31, paragraph. 6 (a). and)



The proposal to abolish the Chamber of Deputies shall be deemed of "above

the reasons for "unfounded. Notes that when creating the honiteb,

authorization of changes to the private hunting grounds and the owner of the land including hunting

free will, how to deal with his land, including the right to

request a declaration of their land for nehonební, and it may not even happen

a member of the honebního collective.



35. with regard to section 26 (subsequently the contested provisions)



Annulment does not in the opinion of the Chamber of Deputies.

The obvious intention of the legislature was to protect and prioritize new

the owner of the hunting land that is interested in becoming a member of the honebního

the Guild, with the understanding that neither the general meeting honebního Fellowship he

cannot deny this membership. The owner, who happens to be a member of honebního

fellowship under this provision, but may at any time your membership

Exit on the basis of written notice or ask the authorized administrative

the Office for a declaration of their land for nehonební. To the specific adjustment

the acquisition of ownership of the decision to permit its entry in the

the land register retroactively to the date of submission of the proposal, the Chamber of Deputies

notes that after the signing of the purchase contract the purchaser may communicate

honebnímu Guild its disagreement with the membership and bind the effects of this

the communication back to the time when the request was made to the cadastral authority.

Limitations period Act is also necessary in the opinion of the Chamber of Deputies and

because the hunting body is inter alia obliged to convene a general meeting

pile, an aliquot portion of the proceeds to pay etc., for which we shall have to

Indeed the current register of members. Reference to § 30 paragraph. 2

According to the Court, the Chamber of Deputies is indicative of a lack of understanding of the difference between

hunting land owners, who are in the formation of honebního communities

become its members, and owners of hunting land, whose land was

added to the already existing wild hunt according to § 30 paragraph. 1 of the law on

hunting.



36. with regard to section 27, paragraph. 1 the second sentence (subsequently the contested provisions)



The House of Commons does not agree with the cancellation. It is considered that, if the law

expressly governs the liability of individual members of honebního communities in

its liabilities, it is probably possible, secondarily, to be based on the provisions of section 22 of the

paragraph. 3-decision making (and thus the responsibility for decision making) by

acreage hunting land to individual owners. Also, nothing shall prevent the

modify the internal rules-statutes of the honebního communities.

Each Member of the honebního of the Guild may also, pursuant to section 22 paragraph 1(b). 8

the law on hunting in order to seek annulment of the decision, the Court said

the general meeting of honebního communities.



37. section 55, paragraph. 1, 2 and 3



Application for annulment of the opinion Of the Chamber of Deputies is unacceptable, since the

would there have been to the demise of the agreement between the injured party and options by

masturbating on damages; the time limit for a claim for damages

the Chamber of Deputies shall be deemed with regard to the technical context for

appropriate, reasonable.



38. With the abolition of section 69, paragraph. 1 the Chamber of deputies also disagrees,

Since the limits laid down in the transitional provisions already passed, therefore,

consider the proposal on its cancellation for the become obsolete. Otherwise, it would

In addition, it was necessary to cope with the already initiated administrative procedures and to consider

possible discrimination in relation to cases that have already been

determined to.



39. The Chamber of Deputies specifically stresses that the reasoning in this

the case relies on the provisions in the Act of hunting.



IV.



The opinion of the Ministry of agriculture



40. The Constitutional Court according to section 48, paragraph. 2 and § 49 paragraph. 1 of law No. 182/1993

Coll., on the Constitutional Court, called on the Ministry of agriculture, in order to

expressed to the proposal submitted.



In General, the



41. the Ministry of agriculture (hereinafter referred to as "the Ministry") in its

the opinion advocates agree that, in the implementation of the rights of hunting

the use of a foreign land occurs. Rejects, however, that there would be

management on foreign hunting grounds and getting their benefits.

Points to the fact that, according to our rule of law, wild

animals-hence the animals-are not considered part of the plot, but

Similarly, as in many other European countries for a "res nullius". Therefore has a

in the opinion of the Ministry of the State the right to determine who and under what conditions

such animal may be appropriate. The State is then directly, with reference to the

article. 7 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, the obligation to ensure that the legal prerequisites for

the possibility of protection of wildlife as a natural wealth, declared as follows in the section

2 (a). (b)) of the law on hunting. The right and the duty to protect the animals,

purposefully behave and Hunt considers the Ministry with regard to the above

referred to in the public interest. Restriction of ownership rights of

options to the extent strictly necessary to enjoy the hunting grounds for the implementation of the rights of

hunting is, therefore, the interest of the general public interest, respectively.



42. In accordance with the Charter of the property right is not an absolute law, and must not be

misused to the detriment of the rights of others, or in violation of the law protected

the general interests and its power must, inter alia, damage to nature and

the environment beyond what is provided by law.



43. the right of ownership is therefore the Act on hunting sufficiently

respected and protected. About whether the hunting of land will be

part of some of the honiteb, can fully decide the owner of this

of the land. If you do not agree with the fact that his hunting land was part of the

some of the honiteb and it was therefore exercised the right of hunting, gives

the law on hunting him the option to exclude such rights on his land, his

the Declaration for nehonební.



44. The permission přivlastňovat found uhynulou's caught or beasts,

as well as its developmental stages are characterized by the Ministry as "a reward

for the care of the State "part of the natural wealth and compensate for any

the negative consequences of that game with its living manifestations on land and

the stands.



45. The Ministry stresses that according to the law on hunting are not

the owners of the hunting grounds of the land forced or compulsory membership in the honebním

community or to compulsory membership in the Hunter's Association. This

their decision is entirely voluntary and depends on their will, whether

its right use, or not.



46. Hunting in our legislation is not and has never been considered a

the sport, while according to the opinions of the European Commission, which the Ministry with

regard to the accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union, is

the assessment as such with regard to the (different) cultural and

the historical tradition of each member country is left to the national

legislations. Notes at the same time-with a link to the argument concerning the applicable

to the conditions in France-that the meaning of content, called

the English term "hunting" is not identical with "myslivostí", as it is

traditionally understood by us and used in our legislation.



47. the absence of a compensation proposal probably argues, refers

the Ministry on section 30 paragraph. 2 the law on hunting, which States that

replacement for affiliation shall be determined by agreement, in the event that the agreement

There is no refund shall determine the authority of the State administration of hunting.



To the individual provisions of the Bill questioned



48. section 9 (2). 2



The Ministry deems it expedient to keep the editing in the Act contained with

due to the fact that the decision of the administrative authority is issued in

the administrative procedure, in which a land owner can exercise their rights;

This, rather, that such decision is reviewable by the Court.



49. section 9 (2). 3 the Ministry points out that, unlike the

(different) French edit according to our law the owner of the

honebního land, which voluntarily created hunting fellowship with

the fact that its land will be accepted for hunting, or agreed to by

his land was transferred to the Wild Hunt, was also aware that, in the

Wild Hunt will be done right to hunting, which, inter alia,

includes hunting and everything associated with him. The other owners of the hunting grounds
land, who's such a restriction of ownership rights to the honebním

the land they have pursuant to § 17 paragraph. 2 the law on wildlife management option

submit to the administrative authority of the application for a declaration of his land for nehonební.

Restrictions at the time and is guided by the intention to allow persons to perform the compulsory

such measures, to the actual numerical States game in the Wild Hunt

does not exceed the standard conditions and other general interest, which

in particular, the safety of other persons.



50. paragraph to section 17. 6



Although the proposal has to be canceled throughout the provisions of § 17 paragraph. 6,

justification, which, moreover, does not match the legislation, pointing only to his

the last sentence. Under the law on hunting hunting Fellowship is not

the civic association under the Act No. 83/1990 Coll. on Association of citizens,

in the wording of later regulations. The Ministry, however, agrees that, in the

the settlement of the border honiteb in exchange of land or hunting

by incorporating them into the already revealed to tamper with the will of the owners of the hunting grounds

land, and the situation could deal with any consent required

the owner of the Exchange or by incorporating this honebního land.



51. the section 18 paragraph. 4



The Ministry notes that it is not entirely clear what the applicant has to

the mind. With regard to the third sentence, refers to the position expressed to § 17 paragraph.

6. the claim of discrimination, the owners of hunting land přičleňovaných

the company Wild Hunt, the Ministry notes that solutions such

the question is not subject to the provisions of § 18 paragraph. 4.



52. To § 21. 1 (a). (e))



The Ministry in relation to the proposal for the repeal of this provision states that the

When compared with the provision of section 26(3). 6 the provisions of § 21. 1

(a). (e)) of the law on hunting seems as discriminatory in relation to the

the owners of the hunting grounds of the land přičleněných to the company, the Wild Hunt

who decided to become a member of this honebního the Guild later

than the time limit set out in section 26, paragraph. 6 the law on hunting or in this

the time limit for some reason missed, or to their legal successors. In

this context, the Ministry also notes that neither the provisions of §

26 paragraph. 6 is not always in accordance with § 19 paragraph. 1 (a). and according to this).

the provisions of honebního of the Guild members can only be owners or

co-owners of contiguous land hunting. The provisions of § 26 paragraph. 6 in the

as a result, it can lead to the fact that a member of the honebního Fellowship is

become a person who pursuant to § 19 paragraph. 1 (a). and a member of the honebního)

the Fellowship can be. Moreover, the intention of the legislature from § 26 paragraph. 6 is

Therefore, with regard to § 19 paragraph. 1 (a). and) very difficult. The possibility of

honebního communities respond to its extension to other persons is not

in the opinion of the Ministry in general discrimination against a person whose

plots of land were added to the Wild Hunt, and restricting its right to freely

bring together. This approach relies on the fact that the Ministry of the hunting

the fellowship is an association under the Act No. 83/1990 Coll. on the Association

citizens, in wording of later regulations. The Ministry is of the opinion that it is

taking account of the right to honebního communities to freely

could comment on whether anyone else happens or doesn't happen to his

a member of, in particular, with regard to this, the members of honebního communities is guaranteed by the

the obligations of this fellowship.



53. with regard to section 26, paragraph. 1 part of the sentence for a semicolon (subsequently the contested

the provisions)



The Ministry admits that the 30-day time limit is in many

the cases are difficult to be acceptable, or is not workable at all; agrees

Therefore, in these cases, there may be restrictions of ownership rights

those owners who do not wish to become members of the honebního

Fellowship. At the same time, however, points to the efforts of the legislature to protect

the new owner, who has an interest in becoming a member of the honebního communities

and to establish the best conditions for him.



54. with regard to section 27, paragraph. 1 the second sentence (subsequently the contested provisions)

the Ministry notes that the only questions of liability the property within the

honebního fellowships are not subject to the decision-making or supervisory

the activities of bodies of the State administration of the hunting.



55. For section 31, paragraph. 1 (a). 2 the Ministry of an opinion is the same

as to section 17(2). 6.



56. To 19.6. and section 31, paragraph. 6 (a). and) the Ministry points out that

the argument is not based in the design of the valid legislation. In this

provision is not an exhaustive list of all the reasons for the demise of the hunting ground, but only

one of them. Just a (proposed) the deletion of the words "at the request of their

the holders of "according to the provided the Ministry could lead to an unprecedented

the increase in the number of administrative procedures (possibly even lawsuits) on the basis of the

the proposals submitted and the entities which are neither the owners of land in the

This concerned the holder of the hunting grounds or honiteb.



57. section 55, paragraph. 1, 2 and 3, the Ministry concluded that the current legal

the adjustment is based on the specifics of the damage that the game operates on the agricultural and

the forest stands. Notes that for the agricultural crops the damage is after

20 days already difficult detectable, for forest stands, particularly in

mountain areas, then determine the damages caused by animals with regard to the

High snow up often for a longer period of time real. From

past experience shows that the time limit of one year can be considered as

the maximum, after a longer time period would probably not

You can detect when a specific damage occurred, and to what extent, and who

(due to possible user-change) is responsible for it.



58. section 69, paragraph. 1 Ministry points out that the time limits laid down in this

transitional provisions already passed, therefore, considers the proposal for its abolition

for become obsolete. In the opposite case, it was necessary to cope with already

by administrative procedures and consider possible discrimination in relation to the

cases that have already been resolved.



In the.



59. The Constitutional Court, in accordance with the provisions of section 68, paragraph. 2 of law No.

182/1993 Coll., as amended that law no 449/2001

Coll., about hunting, in wording of later regulations, some of which

the provisions are attacked for unconstitutionality, was accepted and published in the

the limits of the Constitution of the Czech Republic set out competences and constitutionally

in the prescribed manner.



VI.



The essence and nature of the hunting rights



60. The Constitutional Court notes by way of introduction, that when the legal normotvorbě in Czech

the principle applies to the Republic a sovereign legislature. From this perspective,

The Constitutional Court to assess the accuracy of the Distributor, the ideological balance,

the political hub or the suitability of the material received by the statutory modifications, but only

-as to the constitutional definition of competences corresponds to the Constitutional Court, according to the article. 83

The Constitution of the Czech Republic-compliance with constitutional guarantees.



61. In the context of the present case, the Constitutional Court in the first place

question the nature of game rights, and subsequently its

evaluation from the perspective of constitutional guarantees, which the appellants

They allege.



62. Historically, it was the right game in our culturally-geographic

conditions seen as part of the high land ownership. In

the modern period, when this concept was not with regard to social

emancipation of broad layers of the acceptable, even in conditions of

the Habsburg monarchy to change conditions by the law on hunting of

the year 1849 abolished the right of hunting on foreign land. The right hunting

so was newly understood as part of the ius fruendi, separated from the other

folder ownership. Even if it was and is the land ownership

indicator body authorised to exercise the right of hunting,

silent on the existing legislation (laws on hunting of 1947

and 1962) the relationship of rights to land ownership, management clearly and

primarily in the practice and the legal consciousness of rights was the right of the mailing

hunting, seen as the special right to its very existence, independent of the

ownership of the land. Just to emphasize this fact,

the legislation attempts to act on hunting, whose provisions he

are the subject of this proceeding (see also the explanatory memorandum to § 16

the law on hunting, house print no 788/0).



63. the right of hunting derives directly from the freehold to the beasts,

or to wildlife neulovené. The beasts, which is understood throughout the legal

modifications in different ways, is usually referred to as res nullius, that is, the thing

not belonging to anyone. This access is subject to the fact that the animals are

moves freely, regardless of the boundaries of the land and cannot identify

ownership of the land on which the game moves, with proprietary

the law of the beasts. Therefore does not constitute a product of land animals, but a separate

the subject of ownership. The State, on its territory, the Overlord is from

for this reason entitled to regulate the rights to the game.



64. Subject to the rights of hunting is, therefore, that in the abstract plane

is mainly a natural wealth that the State's aims

protect. The severity and zásadnost this protection is mainly

the fact that the protection of natural values become subject to Regulation

directly in the Constitution of the Czech Republic, according to which article. 7 the State shall ensure the thrifty

the use of natural resources and protection of natural resources.



65. The current legislation, as performed by the Act on hunting,
distinguishes between the two categories-hunting and hunting law. The law on the

hunting defines hunting [section 2 (a))] as a set of activities

carried out in nature in relation to wild beasts as part of

the ecosystem and the federal action to maintain and develop

hunting traditions and customs as part of the Czech national cultural

heritage. Hunting law means the law on hunting [section 2 (b), (h))]

a summary of the rights and obligations of the beasts, purposefully, to protect the fish,

přivlastňovat's caught or found animals uhynulou, its developmental

stages and chutes antlers, as well as taking to the extent necessary, hunting

land.



66. From these definitions it follows that the essence of hunting in the Czech legal

treatment is directed primarily to the fulfillment of the above-mentioned constitutional objectives, i.e. to

the protection of wildlife, adding that to this end the base to mount yet another

the aim of the protection of wildlife management as a national cultural heritage.



67. the State sets a number of conditions or restrictions under which can be

the right to exercise hunting. First, the most general limitation is that right

hunting may be exercised only in the Wild Hunt, and may only carry

bodies which satisfy the conditions laid down by law-is therefore not

exercise anyone and anywhere.



68. A more fundamental assessment of the nature of the rights for the game in terms of

accordance with the specific constitutional guarantees are, however, other attributes, which were the law

hunting vests in the law. Hunting is not defined as a production

activity or business, but as a relationship to the wild beasts, which are

part of the ecosystem. The right hunting so you cannot distribute on "commercial"

and "non-commercial" part, because the law provides all the components as

an integral part of the game, but, in particular, that the two sides of the

of the same coin; one is the protection of game and taking care of her and the other significant

limits to the right to hunt, whose primary objective is mainly regulation State

game. The law on hunting implies the mechanism by which the proceeds of the

hunting should be approximately cover the costs that arise in connection with the

the realization of the obligations imposed by the law. Also for this reason cannot be

distribute groups of activities implemented in the framework of the law on hunting

those that serve the public interest, and which he does not serve.



69. In order to achieve its purpose, the law provides for a variety of hunting

obligations, primarily those concerning the game-planning.

The basic principle of breeding ground game is to maintain the balance of the occurrence of any

species of wildlife within the limits between the so-called. State the minimum and the status of the standardised

(thus a status that corresponds to the quality of the environment and úživnosti

a hunting license). Not irrelevant circumstances is also newly enshrined

responsibility for other administrative offence, which can affect the

saving penalties failure to comply with or exceeded the plan. Implementation of hunting

the activity is also subject to the supervision of the State administration of hunting, in

under the performance measures may be imposed to remedy the identified

the shortcomings. Exercise of the right of hunting on the part of the owner is

load the material burden of walking, driving, and the suffering of the hunting activities;

the construction of the hunting equipment requires the consent of the owner of the land.



70. Of the premise in the opinion of the Constitutional Court concluded that in the

the Czech Republic are hunting and hunting law

the social activities of the aprobovanými State to the protection and the development of one

of the components of the environment-the game. The law on hunting does not present

adjustment of hunting as leisure activities, but in its base as

purposeful and regulated activities for the protection and development of wildlife.



71. In this context, the Constitutional Court considers it important to mention also

on the applicability of the findings made by the European Court of human rights

in the above mentioned case of Chassagnou and others against France. The essence of the

the case under consideration is that the complainants were in breach of their

ethical belief-forced to include their land in honiteb, respectively.

they were forced to participate in approved hunting associations of the municipal

(Associations communales de chasse agréés-ACCA) and were forced to, though

Sami nelovci, tolerate hunting on their land. The subject of the complaint

the construction of the so-called. Verdeillova of the Act, under which the various

French departments established the obligation of the participation of the land

owners in ACCA for different conditions, and the law did not allow

effective (nárokový) means the work of the ACCA nepodílet,

or to exclude your land as land nehonební. It is in this

the context has been stressed both by the French law on agriculture

enshrined as the activities of the mission to assist the development of the game and

Pest animals, suppressing the poaching, the implementation of hunting

education of the members of the hunting associations, while respecting the ownership and

crop and, generally, to provide better technical organization of the hunt, in order to

Hunters were given the better performance of their sport. From the foregoing

the obvious difference in the nature of the proceedings in the matter of Chassagnou compared to now

the case under review. In particular, from the above, then it is obvious

that the concept of game management in the Czech law is qualitatively different, as

According to the Czech not deer hunting means to implement, but

on the contrary, hunting is a means of achieving optimization of the maintenances.



VII.



The general assessment from the perspective of constitutional guarantees of ownership rights



72. The core of the plaintiffs ' argument is directed to the basic objection that

the bulk of the contested provision is inconsistent with the provisions of the article. 11

paragraph. 1 and 4, of the Charter, according to which:



"(1) everyone has the right to own property. The ownership right of all owners

has the same statutory content and protection. Inheritance guarantees. "



"(4) Expropriation or compulsory restriction of ownership rights is possible in

the public interest and on the basis of the law, and for compensation. "



73. the Charter itself does not contain a definition of the content of the title. The principle of the

expressed in the provisions of the second sentence of the article. 11. 1 of the Charter refers to the

a simple act, which provides for the specific content of ownership,

that even in the nuances of the specifics of the individual legal-

orders of magnitude in the definition of the specific content of the traditional triad of ownership-often

different. A simple act has set the content of the title as a General

legal category and the Charter represents a constitutional guarantee which guarantees

the unity of the content of this category. The aim of such provisions is to-without

regardless of the subject and body of the title-there were only

ownership, rather than the different kinds, as was the case in the past,

When the legislation knew the Socialist ownership, private and personal,

or when were the owners with regard to a specific type in the subject of limited

to such an extent that their property was the only property of the legal,

bare and his performance was entrusted to a Socialist Organization.



74. The legal provisions, which establish the legal content of the title

the law, section 123 of the civil code, according to which: "the owner is within the limits of

the law entitled to subject its ownership, use, benefit from its

the fruits and benefits and to deal with them. ".



75. Essential characteristics of ownership, as from the

It follows the realization of ownership restrictions within the limits of the law. The constitutional

a rule that defines the content of ownership does not provide the content of the

ownership in and of itself, but it provides a link to the § 123

the civil code and in conjunction with it, you can find specific content

ownership rights as a category protected the constitutional order. Part of the

the content of the legal title to the land is in general terms and

that you can perform on them under the conditions stipulated by the law

hunting, while his performance can be under certain conditions (the Declaration

land for nehonební).



76. In the light of those arguments, it is necessary to examine the provisions of the article.

11. 4 of the Charter, which does not mean any non-

any restriction of ownership rights, where appropriate, without compensation.

Expropriation or restrictions of ownership rights it is necessary to understand only

such a restriction that excludes the realization of ownership either completely,

or to an extent that significantly inhibits the performance of title

the law in some of its components.



77. This approach, moreover, confirms the extent of the guarantees enshrined in article. 1

The additional protocol to the Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental

freedoms ("the Convention"):



"Any natural or legal person has the right to peacefully enjoy your

assets. No one can be deprived of his property except in the public

interest and under the conditions provided for by law and general principles of international

rights.



The previous provision does not preclude the right of States to adopt laws that

consider it necessary to adapt the use of property in accordance with the General

interest and ensure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. "



The provisions of the second sentence of the first paragraph of the cited provisions of the talks

a deprivation of ownership rights (No one shall be deprived of ...

Niemandem darf ... entzogen werden..., of zeros not peut etre prive...),

which proves the conclusion that restrictions of ownership rights shall be

essential, therefore "take ownership", that it establish a conflict with

guarantees provided by the additional protocol to the Convention.
78. The material in the context of case are even more

provisions, and both cited the provisions of the second paragraph of article. 1

paragraph. 1 of the additional protocol to the Convention and also article. 11. 3 of the Charter:



"Ownership committed to. Must not be misused to the detriment of the rights of others or in the

contrary to the general interests protected by law. His performance may not

damage human health, nature and the environment of peace

provided for by the law. "



79. With those ústavněprávními the limits of realization of the power of ownership

the law, however, the appellants had been accounted for in any significant way.

The mentioned provisions of the Charter is, in comparison with the other provisions

Moreover, the fact that the law does not provide for the constitutionally guaranteed, the subjective

but obligations. In the first instance, pronounced the principle that property rights

committed to. This policy reflects the fact that-although it should be a property right

be regarded as an absolute right that allows you to protect the owner against all

-owner permissions have their limits, which may hint at a legitimate

the interests of others and of society as a whole. A plenitude of ownership as

the legal relationship is not completely unlimited and there is no "absolute" to

of the consequences. In the spirit of the legal-political maxims "right of individuals there, ends

where to begin with the rights of others "must therefore be interpreted and the question of the exercise of

ownership rights. This policy then elaborates on the provisions of the article. 11. 3

The Charter of two other sentences.



80. Taking into account the special importance to the protection of ownership rights is

should be stressed also the prohibition of abuse of ownership rights to the detriment of the rights of

of others, or in violation of the law protected the general interests. This is

the two bans, the first of which is the expression of the general principle of the prohibition of

abuse of rights and the other against the implementation of the exercise of ownership rights

the interests protected by the law.



81. The Constitutional Court has already in the past positively commented on the General

the possibility of the legislature to limit the law to implement the right of ownership article. 11

paragraph. 3 of the Charter [such Constitutional Court of 16 May 2002. 2.1995 in case

SP. zn. III. TC 114/94, collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court

Volume 3, finding no 9, pp. 45 et seq., of the later case law then for example.

the finding of the Constitutional Court of 8 April. 4.2004 in case sp.. II.-482/02,

A collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, Volume 33, find no 52, p.

39 et seq.]. Similar to the conclusion of the Constitutional Court, for example, even in the

the earlier finding of 23 December 2003. 6. in the matter of the 1994 sp.. I-35/94 (collection

the findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, volume 1, finding no. 36, p. 259, and

et seq.), in which he has dealt with, inter alia, the question of restriction of ownership rights

as a result of the protection of cultural values.



82. In the assessment of the substance of the legal regulation of hunting, as is clear from

of that, the Constitutional 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

of the Republic). Fulfilment of constitutional obligations cannot therefore have a task

in General, or even in the public interest.



83. The file previously voiced premise allows the Constitutional Court to pronounce

the basic principle applicable in the assessment of the case, namely that the

the realization of the rights of hunting and wildlife management in General is a legitimate

restrictions of ownership rights. If the right of ownership was effected

in such a way that would eliminate hunting and law enforcement

hunting, he would exercise of ownership rights in breach of article. 11. 3

Of the Charter. The legal adjustment of hunting your concept builds on the positive

historical traditions in our countries. The Constitutional Court is, however, aware that

in particular, because of the negative phenomena in the exercise of hunting, which are

associated with the Communist regime, was in the company of in the previous

period, and so far the shifts in perception of hunting. To ensure that the

you have reached the desired end of socially monitored by law, it is necessary to

systematic educational activities and consistent fulfilment of the principles

hunting in practical life. In individual cases, could and still

can exercise the right of hunting only on the level of fun slide,

of the impression for the chosen activity, or to exercise such

hunting, which will hit the position of owners of hunting land

unlawful manner. This fact-the abuse of rights, respectively.

illegal activities-, however, cannot become a justification for understanding

the current legal regulation of hunting as unconstitutional; individual

offenses against hunting and abuse of rights resulting from the regulation

It is necessary to consistently affect the individual, and thus contribute to change

negative views on hunting as an abstract category. Also

the owners of the hunting grounds of the land law provides a number of generic tools to

protection against the excesses of the people, that the right of hunting on their

land exercise.



84. In konkrétnostech must be in accordance with the opinion of the Constitutional Court in detail

deal with it, whether the limitations to which the legislature in a particular case

, are proportional, in line with other ústavněprávními

guarantees and that saves their essence and purpose within the meaning of article. 4 (4). 4

Of the instrument (see also referred to Constitutional Court SP. zn.

III. TC 114/94).



VIII.



The effect of exercise of the right of ownership on the performance-management owners

hunting land



85. With regard to the assessment of a possible collision with the constitutional guarantees by

article. 11. 1 and 4 of the Charter can be characterized by the right hunting [§ 2

(a). h) of the Act on hunting] as:



1. the activities that lead to the realization of the rights and obligations to protect the animals,

act purposefully, fish, caught or found's přivlastňovat

uhynulou animals, its developmental stages and chutes antlers,



2. the use of hunting grounds land to the extent necessary for the performance of the activities referred to in

point 1.



86. The activities referred to sub 1. they are mainly by defining the content of the rights

hunting, because when their sound performance, with regard to the above accepted

the findings, by themselves, cannot constitute a limitation of ownership rights

the owner of the honebního estate.



87. in the case of Otherwise required the use of hunting land

item 2., for the realization of this permission, the owner assumes restrictions

honebního land. If the use of the honebního plot (i.e., in the open air)

consists only in the passage or transit (whether due to hunting or

any other reason leading to the realization of the rights of hunting), is not

the performance of such exploitation right owner fundamentally, such

exploitation right is also-as mentioned above-is to be made to the implementation of the

constitutional obligations arising from article. 7 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, the performance

constitutional obligations cannot establish the illegality. Such "restrictions"

the exercise of ownership rights of land is honebního with regard to the above

referred to legitimate and proportional.



88. The specific situation arises in cases where the exercise of hunting

the activities of the emergence of economically significant damage, which gets rid of the

the owner of the honebního plot possibilities of one of the folders

the ownership of the right to enjoy the fruits of the triad-and the benefits of things. Such a type

the intervention, however, is compensated for by adjusting the obligation to compensate for damage that

arises (article 52 et seq. of the law on hunting). You cannot therefore be considered that the

to limit ownership rights without compensation, how enjoins the article. 11

paragraph. 4 of the Charter. Should be noted that the legislator in this issue went

further, that enshrined the principle of the adjustment of the refund on the objective

damage caused by wildlife, i.e. without the direct influence of human activities, which

the realization of the rights of the game arises.



89. Before the Constitutional Court expressed specifically to the argument

the plaintiffs in relation to the contested provisions of the law on hunting,

considers it important, in general terms, in particular with regard to the case

The appellants Chassagnou allege, noted that the restrictions

the owner of the land is not honebního nelimitováno. Hunting can be operated

According to the law only in the context of a hunting license. Is excluded on nehonebních

land, whose nehonebnost is given either directly by the law [list in section

2 (a). (e)) of the law on hunting], or it may be an administrative office within the meaning of section

17 paragraph. 2 the law on hunting for reasons to declare the military,

security or in the interests of the owner, and that no design either, or

his proposal. The law does not specify a vague legal term closer "interest

the owner ". In the interpretation of this term is to be respected, that the

the realization of the rights of hunting cannot intervene in other constitutionally guaranteed

rights or ownership rights contrary to the principle of proportionality

in such a way that it denies the essence of constitutional obligations under article. 11

paragraph. 3 of the Charter. The owner of the honebního land has, therefore, in accordance with the constitutional

the Court is entitled to make his land in nehonební declared either due to

the need to protect other constitutionally guaranteed right of the negative nature of

the right of hunting (for example, thinking of the owner in accordance with article 15, paragraph 1

Of the Charter), or in situations where otherwise ceases to be legitimate restrictions

the owner of the reason hunting rights proportional, if, for example,

If the reason on the part of the owner of the land is the nature of the use of the

specific business activities, that would have been honebním the use of

the plot is significantly limited (land-use for the purposes of research and

development, etc.).
90. The Constitutional Court of the reasons for this fact rather preventive separately

notes in connection with the case of Chassagnou and appeals to the constitutionally

the application of the provisions of § 17 of the Conformal paragraph. 2 the law on hunting. In

that case has not been granted to the owner of the protection of the title of his

ownership rights to land, but because of another of its rights

guaranteed by the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms

It was favorizováno before the law of the game, and even with regard to the nature of the

hunting rights in France, which is inherently different from the concept of the

the Czech legislation.



91. It should also be noted that the administrative authority is called upon to

the real reason for the existence of the Declaration of the land nehonební examined

According to the said premise so as to guarantee the protection of the rights of the owner and the

at the same time that the formal patronage of other constitutional guarantees did not

means the denial of the rights of hunting.



IX.



The evaluation of the individual provisions of the unconstitutionality of the contested



To § 9 (2). 2 and 3



92. The provisions of section 9 (2). 2 in fine enshrines the possibility of imposition of restrictions

(location, drinking troughs, to přikrmovacích device) by decision of the

administrative authority, even if the owner does not agree with it. The provisions of §

9 (2). 3 allows in particular during nesting, laying and rearing

or the implementation of restrictions on the prohibition of the entry and save on hunting land and

some of the other activities, with the exception of the economic activity of the owner or

the tenant of the land honebního.



93. Considering that such limitations are set out to achieve

the general objective of the Act on hunting, and seek to ensure the activities,

the object of which is to protect the game, eventually reaching its optimum

State, where appropriate, ensure the safety at the time of the hunt, not in terms of

constitutional guarantee of these provisions above reproach. Due to the

the fact that the above provisions are in accordance with the disposition of the article. 11. 3

Of the Charter, cannot be on the obligations arising from these

the provisions of section 9 (2). 2 and 3 of the contested act, be regarded as restrictions

ownership, for which the complainants belonged to refund within the meaning of

article. 11. 4 of the Charter, which is invoked by the. Not irrelevant circumstances

It is also the sole restrictions occur, burden of the owner in

the performance of its ownership of only the minimum. In the event that-

for example, collecting more game in napajedla-the

the damage, the owner has the possibility to claim damages for the help

the mechanism that the contested law.



To § 17 paragraph. 6



94. That provision generally regulates the means to ensure

optimization of the shape of a hunting license. In the options exchange or the affiliation of the hunting grounds

land spařují the plaintiffs conflict with the right to freedom of Association

According to the article. 20 of the Charter, since the contested legal provisions does not take into account

on the free will of the individual owners. This argument, however,

applies only to the text of the last sentence of the contested provisions, although

the appellants seek to repeal the entire section 17(2). 6.



95. In the opinion of the Constitutional Court is to be taken on it-as has already

It has been said-that from the title alone does not imply the right to

hunting is only an indicator for local determination of the implementation of this

rights, i.e.. determination on which land can be the right hunting

to exercise. The shooting body is a body which among other things suggests

the right to use hunting (to implement the right hunting), in this case has

the obligation to give priority to allow use of a hunting license to its members, or has

the possibility of shooting on rent. Membership in the Guild is honebním

in principle, depends on the existence of honebního from the ownership of the land.

This body is therefore created in order to achieve the objectives pursued

the law on hunting and the condition of the ownership right to a land plot,

the purpose of which is to establish the possibility of membership in a particular honebním

the Guild represents a legal condition for any State-regulated

activity. This condition is legitimate-it is logical that in the framework of the honebního

communities can be involved if a person has an interest in how the

in a way it will be within the law the right hunting carried out on its

land, and it would be illogical to allow the same permission should

a person who acquires an interest in similar (to the right of ownership of land

zahrnovanému to honebního communities).



96. The Existence of a honebního Fellowship is closely linked with the achievement of the objectives of the

the law on hunting and as a form of law subject to bargain collectively in terms of

a potential review by the Constitutional Court, which arise from the contents of the

article. 20 of the Charter. The constitutional guarantee enshrined in this provision ensures

the right of Association and in that right is the owner of the land.

Hunting the fellowship is a legal person not sui generis,-according to the

the express prohibition in § 19 paragraph. 2 the law on hunting-authorized

business and is closely focused on the performance of the tasks assigned in the area

hunting. The purpose of his existence is to make it possible to identify the

quite clearly the entity that either carries out tasks relating to wildlife management

himself, or the performance of "converts" through the lease on the body

another. Failure to comply with these obligations (non-use of a hunting license), which is considered

result in the task of hunting, incurred leads to the fact that the land

added to the Wild Hunt, or divided among other more honiteb (§ 29.

2 the law on hunting), so that the objectives of the law on hunting was achieved.



97. it is also Not trivial circumstances that membership in the honebním

the Guild is not mandatory. As already mentioned, the right of ownership to

the competent land is a condition of membership, membership, however, does not

automatically. If a particular owner's interest in the activities of the honebního

communities participate in, it can become its member. Its action is fully

guided by the principle of vigilantibus is scripta sunt. Owner,

participating in the activities of the communities of honebního, may-

obligations, which arise from the membership for him-also participate in decision-making

and participate so on how implementation of the legal obligations of honebního

Fellowship.



98. With regard to the nature of the participation in the honebním Guild cannot be in

the balancing mechanism of the borders of the land without the consent of the owner of the traced

element of unconstitutionality. The right to participate in the honebním Guild, as well as

the right to implement the right hunting resulting therefrom are the legal

category different from the nature of the right of ownership and do not benefit from

constitutional guarantees and there is qualitatively identical to them

the legal claim in the plane of a simple law.



99. In the spirit of the General conclusions, which the Constitutional Court is also

should be pointed out that the establishment of basic spatial and qualitative

the parameters of the hunting ground is motivated by the needs of the game so that the hunting

represented in a particular situation the best ecosystem with as

large living conditions. The assessment of these circumstances, however,

the administrative responsibility of the Office.



To § 18 paragraph. 4



100. The Constitutional Court stressed that the various components of the game, respectively.

hunting rights cannot be separated from each other and is to be considered is

comprehensively with the fact that the whole is a legitimate restriction of ownership rights in

the meaning of the article. 11. 3 of the Charter. This conclusion also applies in situations where the

the owner of the land under the affiliation of the including agrees.

If the implementation of hunting activity in the public interest, it is necessary to

emphasize that the main objective of the protected by law about hunting-

protection of game-not at risk, and therefore cannot be without reservations and for all

circumstances take on the conclusion of agreements with all the owners of the hunting land

will be included in the hunting ground.



101. The contested provisions of the plaintiffs also claimed that the discriminatory

a character who is supposed to be due to the fact that the owners of hunting land

přičleňovaných to the wild hunt a single owner are discriminated against

the owners of the hunting grounds of the land přičleňovaných to the company Wild Hunt.

Own discrimination has to be due to the fact that, in the context of membership of the

honebním Guild can be in the opinion of the plaintiffs at least some

way to participate in the exercise of the right of hunting, while in the case, when it is

the land attached to the wild hunt a single owner, no hunting

the Fellowship does not arise and the above described participation is not possible.



102. It is undeniable that may arise from the dual legal status dependent

on whether hunting will be attached to the land company Wild Hunt

or to the wild hunt a single owner. However, it was possible to characterize the

Act as discriminatory, it is in principle to be-in the spirit of the guarantee

contained in the article. 3 (3). 1 of the Charter, which the appellants allege-

two conditions are met. Both must be struck the inequality in access to

fundamental rights and freedoms, on the one hand there must be no discrimination of

for some reason (i.e. qualified by reason of sex, race, color,

skin, language, faith and religion, political or other opinion,

national or social origin, membership of a national or

ethnic minority, property, birth or other status). Even if the

The Constitutional Court said that the owners of the involuntarily přičleňovaných

the land consists of two groups, with each other diskriminovatelné

discrimination would consist in belonging to a group, the owners,
whose lands are přičleňovány to the wild hunt a single owner,

need to ask, in the exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed rights to what would have been

these owners discriminated against. From the overall context of the argument

plaintiffs would be considered discrimination in rights

guaranteed by the article. 11 of the Charter and pursuant to the explicit justification contained in

the proposal if it were about discrimination in equality in the rights referred to in article. 1

Of the Charter, respectively. statutory limitations in equality in fundamental human

the rights and freedoms referred to in article. 4 (4). 3 of the Charter.



103. the restrictions on the exercise of Rights article 40(2). 11 of the Charter of the

the case cannot occur for reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court. The right to

hunting is not the law, that is linked with the right of ownership

honebnímu plot, but hunting land is as a unit making honiteb

the only way the territorial definition of the hunting ground, so it is

quantitative prerequisite rights of hunting. In this sense, it is necessary to

also part of the sentence contained in the abovementioned judgment of the Supreme

the Court in the matter of sp.. 22 Cdo 3006/2002, on which the appellants

reference: ...



law

(meant is the earlier edit hunting carried out in law No 23/1962

SB.. The Constitutional Court)



while crafting the right hunting as a separate right in rem based on

ownership of the land from the honebního (§ 2);

However, it should be noted that the Supreme Court continues (and this part of the text

justification thereof already cited in the proposal):



... However, this does not mean that the owner of such land could no

the next exercise this right. In accordance with ... the law is the law of

hunting only carry on hunting grounds. While the right

hunting (meaning its performance) ... only the owners of the hunting ground

(today the holder of a hunting license. The Constitutional Court)



... The owner of the hunting ground, which is usually a person different from the owner of the

honebního of land, can perform in the Wild Hunt-the right hunting alone

or it may contract rent. From the above it is clear that the performance of the

hunting rights does not imply the right of ownership to honebnímu

the plot, but depends on the fulfilment of the other conditions resulting from the

of the law and in certain circumstances ... it is possible, even against the will of the owner of the

honebního land. The Act its provisions public nature

restricts the hunting rights of the owners of land in order to protect hunting

...

The conclusions of the Supreme Court, so in principle correspond with how the

expressed by the Constitutional Court of the nature of the rights of hunting, since these two rights

(right of ownership to land and the right of hunting) are independent,

Although it is undeniable in the formation of (establishing) and partly in the implementation

the functional connection between the hunting rights those rights, or more precisely between

honebním land and hunting ground, in which the right of hunting

realized.



104. In the context of the reference to the article. 1 and article. 4 (4). 3 of the Charter point

the plaintiffs also state that in their opinion not

provide one group more advantages than the other group only

If this occurs when the security functions of the State and with reference to the

public values. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court referred to findings published

under no 403/2002 Coll. and under no 83/2003 Coll. (note the red: findings SP. zn.

PL. ÚS 36/01 and SP. zn. PL-12/02, collection of findings and resolutions of the constitutional

the Court, Volume 26, finding no 80; volume 29, finding no. 20). To this issue

the Constitutional Court has already expressed in the framework of the General argument, according to which the

hunting means to achieving the tasks of the State resulting from the article. 7

The Constitution of the Czech Republic, therefore, are "constraints" that occur on the

the side of the owners of hunting land, within the limits of constitutionality.



105. With regard to the argument relating to the specificity of the contested

the provisions of § 18 paragraph. 4 the law on hunting, can also be noted that the

the circumstances of the affiliation in the process of recognition of the honiteb must be in accordance with

the administrative law Office thoroughly investigated. In case of disagreement

the owner of the property with the honebního: must the applicant (i.e., a single

the owner or the Preparatory Committee honebního the Guild) to justify the requirement

the affiliation of the land to the Wild Hunt, which has even without přičleňovaných of the land

to achieve the prescribed minimum acreage. Such reasons may in practice be

for example, the fact that the land is usually a small area adjacent to the proposed

Wild Hunt, or the land proposed for the affiliation consists of isolated islets

among the otherwise continuous land-and their proposed affiliation is

so logical, for example, with regard to the respect of legal requirement

hunting license; the affiliation is therefore motivated by creating or improving

the conditions of proper game management (see also Řehák, l.-

Staněk, j.-Kříž, p.: the law on hunting with a comment. 1. Edition.

Prague: VENATOR, 2002, p. 121 and 122). In the opinion of the constitutional law

the Court shall determine the affiliation motivated transparent reasons for the land

the needs of the game and creates sufficient prerequisites for a review of these

reasons in a specific case.



106. With regard to the above, it is therefore appropriate to conclude that the inability to

the owner of the land honebního to participate in the realization of the rights of hunting

participation in the honebním community in a situation where his land is attached

to the wild hunt a single owner, does not constitute an unconstitutional action, since

the "deterioration" of the legal status of the owner of the plot occurs honebního

When the implementation of restrictions on ownership permitted by article. 11.

3 of the Charter.



To § 21. 1 (a). (e))



107. The subject of the criticism of this provision is, according to the plaintiffs '

the fact that of the membership of the honebním Guild decides

the General Assembly, and that you cannot derive the option for automatic creation of membership

for example, by incorporating the land. It cannot be found in the opinion

The Constitutional Court, the element of discrimination pursuant to article. 3 (3). 1 of the Charter, since the

Here is missing the reason for which the owner has been discriminated against, as required

article. 3 (3). 1 of the Charter (see above). You cannot distinguish the two categories namely

persons in a comparable legal status, which would be treated

differently. As already mentioned, the right of ownership to the land represents the

the only assumption of membership, and in this condition are all

potential members are equal.



To § 26 paragraph. 1 part of the sentence for a semicolon



108. The Constitutional Court cannot přisvědčit the plaintiffs ' argument regarding the

inequality and discrimination to which the application should the contested provisions

directed. According to the opinion of the Constitutional Court, it is necessary to count the time to notice,

that does not agree with membership in the Guild, from the time of the honebním

the delivery of the decision on the authorization of the registration law. According to § 2 (2). 2 of the Act

No. 265/1992 Coll., on the registrations of ownership and other rights in rem to

real estate, in the wording of later regulations, the rights of the

in the land register on the day of the deposit in the land registry. About this fact

legally relevant way the owner can learn up to delivery

decision. Within the meaning of section 2 (2). 3 of the Act, the legal effects of a deposit

arise on the basis of a final decision on its permit on the date when the

the proposal to deposit was delivered to the cadastral authority. This provision is nothing

change the previous conclusion. Reverse effects are embedded with regard to

the need to respect the effects of the registration procedure, that arise on the date when the

for the first time could show the effect of the transfer of ownership (transition),

which is determined by the State. It is also ensured the continuity of the series after

successive owners and the law specifies exactly the moments in

where a person was the owner. In this situation, cannot be found in the

that the provisions of the manifestation of unconstitutionality.



To § 27. 1 the second sentence



109. The liability of the members of honebního communities, the obligations of fellowship is not

regulated in the Act on hunting by acreage of land of individual members,

While the appellants, it was that such modification constitutes unequal and

the discriminatory treatment, and therefore proposed to repeal the provisions of the second sentence of

§ 27. 1 the Act of hunting.



110. Even if the Constitutional Court does not accept the finding of unconstitutionality of the second sentence of §

27. 1 of the law on hunting, accepts the content of the reservation

plaintiffs. Indeed, the statutory bases its structures an

the disproportion. The provisions of section 22, paragraph. 3 the law on hunting down:

"The voting right at the general meeting is entitled only to the members of honebního

Fellowship. On the decision-making members of honebního communities involved in

According to the acreage hunting land that they own and that make up the

company hunting. For every hectare of acreage, and started honebního

the land, which in the Wild Hunt of its own, is the responsibility of the Member of the honebního

communities a voice. ". The honebního Fellowship is the vote on the

the general meeting of honebního communities able to affect handling

the property only to the extent which corresponds to the area of his land in the wild hunt.

The contested provision, however, does not respect the same mechanism when

quantification of liability, since liability above does not correspond to the extent that he was in

democratic conditions the activities of honebního communities able to his

the affect the liabilities of the company, for which he is liable. Members of the honebního

the Fellowship-the little pozemkoví the owners would be discriminated against in the

the comparison with members of honebního communities-large land
the owners, if they could not at the same extent of liability affect your

the legal position of the same law. Such an approach therefore

based discrimination in equality in the rights referred to in article. 3 (3). 1 in the

conjunction with the first sentence of the article. 1 of the Charter. The Constitutional Court, however, does not consider that

This situation determined by the necessity of first instance appealed against without any further cancellation provisions.

Because the rule of unlimited liability is not expressed explicitly in the Act,

You can-in a spirit of constant case law of the Constitutional Court-prefer prior

the abolition of provisions of its constitutionally Conformal interpretation. The Constitutional Court has the

that the amount of the liability of the Member honebního the fellowship must be quantified

According to the same rules, which set out to vote at the General

meeting of the honebního Fellowship, the so shall be liable for the obligations of the Guild

According to the acreage hunting land that they own and that make up the

company hunting. Interpretation, that such an approach would be disregarded,

would based described discrimination.



To section 31, paragraph. 2, 3 and 6 (a). and)



111. The argument used in § 17 paragraph. 6 applies here mutatis mutandis.



To § 55 paragraph. 1 to 3



112. the unequal treatment in this case cannot occur because of

discriminatory behaviour would be if – as has already been

mentioned-was treated with persons of the same or similar legal

the position differently. If the plaintiffs allege different treatment

the owners of the hunting grounds of the land on one side compared to the other

bodies, it should be stressed that the status of these two groups is different,

Since then referred to a group of operators cannot arise (as

nevlastníkům) damage to agricultural crops or forest land.

About discriminatory access would, for example, if you would

different groups of owners of the land on which they are grown field

crops are treated differently.



113. The subject editing is responsible for a specific damage that

responds-in comparison with the General arrangements and liability e.g.. in

civil code-in the specific case, which is typical,

with the end of a longer period of time is a pity really undetectable by

and could hardly provide the protection of the rights of any of the

liability of the parties concerned. The Constitutional Court therefore

... with the caveat that the deadlines which are the law on hunting

Embedded for a claim for compensation, are not reasonable.

If the owner of the land can be farmed agricultural field,

assume that continuously monitors the status of the crops. The time limit of 20 days from the occurrence

damages for a claim seems perfectly reasonable. The time limit for

a claim for damage caused to the forest land and forests,

You can apply for the previous year is always within 20 days from the end of the month

June, the Constitutional Court with regard to the same reasons, what were the

mentioned in the previous case, as appropriate.



To § 69 paragraph. 1



114. the transitional provisions contained in the contested provisions of the law on

hunting preserve hunting ground and recognised in accordance with the existing scopes

legislation also lays down the rule and the transition to the new legal requirements

editing in the statutory time limit. Such an approach is fully in line with the normal

the rules of the intertemporality.



115. The argument according to which the existing State of preservation, which

does not allow small, respectively. minority owners to create a hunting

the Fellowship in accordance with their wishes and needs, not přisvědčit.

The Constitutional Court considers it important to emphasize that the hunting body,

as already mentioned in the context of the argument for the proposal to repeal section 17 paragraph.

6 the law on hunting, the account is opened programmatically for the purpose of implementation of the

hunting, so to protect the game. Just because (automatic) legal

the demise of hunting societies (even after the expiry of the period for compliance with the

the requirements of the new legislation) could endanger the fulfillment of the statutory purpose

hunting and could lead to a State where it would institutionally not

ensure the care of part of the ecosystem, thereby bringing the State fulfilling its

constitutional obligations under article. 7 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic.



X.



On the basis of the above reasoning, the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that

adjustment of hunting and hunting rights in the simple law shall not constitute a

namítaný conflict with constitutional guarantees and is not in conflict with other

constitutionally guaranteed rights. This is a limitation of the owner of honebního

the plot, which, while maintaining the essence and meaning of other constitutional

the guarantees stemming from the provisions of the article. 11. 3 of the Charter.



If, in the exercise of the right to use hunting grounds hunting land

the intervention of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the owners of the land, hunting is

the restrictions that are proportional in terms of objectives and purpose to

which the right hunting; such restrictions are located in

the limits of constitutionality.



Also for the remaining opposition to the plaintiffs was not found to be hardened

the unconstitutionality of justifying the conclusion that this is an adjustment in

contrary to the namítanými or other constitutional guarantees.



In view of the above findings, the Constitutional Court annulment rubrikovaných

the provisions of law No. 449/2001 Coll., on game management, as amended by law No.

320/2002 Coll. and the No. 59/2003 Coll., dismissed.



The President of the Constitutional Court:



JUDr. Rychetský in r.