172/2009 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic of
The Constitutional Court decided on 7 December. April 20090, as amended by an amending resolution of
27 June 2002. May 2009 in Parliament consisting of Chairman Paul Rychetského and
judges of Stanislav Duchoně, Bumpkin, Formánkové, Vlasta Vojena
Güttlera, Pavla Holländera, Ivana Janů, Vladimir Crust, Dagmar
Lastovecké, Jiří Mucha, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodýma, Miloslava
Excellent, Elizabeth Wagner and Michael Židlické on the proposal of the regional
Court in Brno on the repeal of certain provisions of Act No. 184/2006 Coll., on
the withdrawal or restriction of ownership rights to the land or the construction, in
eventum on release interpretativního opinion regarding some of the provisions of the
This Act, with the participation of the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament and the Senate
The Czech Parliament as parties to the proceedings,
as follows:
The proposal is rejected.
Justification
(I).
The definition of things, the argument of the applicant, the opinion of the parties
1. On 8 June 1998. September 2008, the Constitutional Court received a proposal to repeal parts of the law
No 184/2006 Coll., the withdrawal or restriction of ownership rights to land
or construction (hereinafter referred to as "the law of expropriation"), and more specifically:
-part of the provisions of § 28 para. 1 of the law on expropriation, in the words of
"that has to be dealt with under the code of civil procedure ',
-part of the provisions of § 28 para. 2 of the law on expropriation, in the words of
"which the party requests that the matter of the expropriation was discussed in
Code of civil procedure ',
-the provisions of section 30 of the Act on expropriation.
2. In case of refusal that is being proposed to the Constitutional Court
at least filed a constitutional interpretation of the provisions of section 28 and section 30 of the law on
expropriation by way of interpretativního statement. It should answer the
the question of whether, even after the contested provisions of the law on expropriation of the acquired
efficacy, the interpretation taken before the Constitutional Court in its resolution sp.
Zn. PL. ÚS 14/06.
3. the applicant stated that in his Department 35 C is the amount of control
based on the law on expropriation (35 C 32/2007, 35 C 33/2007, 35 C
34/2007, 35 C 335/2007, 35 C 36/2007, 35 C 37/2007, 35 C 39/2007, 35 C
40/2007, 35 C 41/2007, 35 C 50/2007, 35 C 1/2008, 35 C 4/2008, 35 C
7/2008, 15/2008 35 C, 35 C 16/2008, 35 C 19/2008, 35 C 25/2008).
The calculated proceedings are conducted as a result of decisions of administrative authorities,
which was not decided on the expropriation and the proposals were without
the real substantive discussion of rejected on the basis of the legal opinion that
in the case of realised constructions is the additional expropriation shall be excluded.
According to the appellant, this view runs counter to the conclusions adopted by the Supreme
the Administrative Court in the judgment in no. 5 As 11/2003-66 (collection of decisions of the NSS
No 9/2005, no. 630) where it says just the opposite. Before the Court
However, according to appellant's decisions should be to resolve the question
jurisdiction. Management referred to spisových brands do not qualify
private law disputes about the amount and distribution of compensation where appropriate, but
itself as a public intervention in the expropriation of property
the law, which should, at least in the opinion of the applicant-be subject to
the review in the administrative justice system. Still, the Administrative Court in a series of cases
the above brought refused according to § 46 para. 2
administrative judicial procedure, with the 1. 1.2007 belongs to the civil
the court proceedings. In the matter of SP. zn. 35 C 33/2007 decider even
the Special Senate Committee, established pursuant to Act No. 131/2002 Coll., which by order in
the matter of competency of the dispute. Msg 34/2007 determined that the relevant issue
a decision on an action against a decision of the Regional Office on the establishment of a substantive
the burden on the Court in civil proceedings. This conclusion is binding
for the petitioner. They must therefore apply the above marked with the provisions of the Act
about expropriation, although convinced of their conflict with the constitutional
policy. The applicant infers from that its locus standi.
4. the legislation in question, its interpretation adopted by the Special
the Senate, in the opinion of the claimant is in direct conflict with existing
the case-law of the Constitutional Court (specifically the resolution SP. zn. PL. ÚS 14/06)
The Supreme Administrative Court (specifically the enlarged Board resolution No.
j. 4 As 47/2003-50), and the Special Senate Committee, established by the Act. No. 131/2002
Coll. (specifically, by resolution No. Msg 81/2004-12). Stresses there
that interpretation, according to which it is necessary to distinguish the proceedings which
the subject is the vyvlastění or the forced restriction of ownership of material
the burden created an administrative act, and the management, the purpose of which is
a dispute over ownership. The first category of cases represents the decision-making
in public, not a private matter, and therefore it is given the power to
administrative courts. In contrast, the jurisdiction of the civil courts shall apply to disputes relating to the
the amount and, where appropriate, the distribution of compensation. In the cases referred to by the applicant
on the amount of compensation (i.e., distribution or seen the concept of private law
matters), on the contrary, it is about the typical questions of public law.
5. Legislation is in conflict with the constitutional principles of separation of powers in the State,
When the expropriation would in consequence of the contested practices (within the meaning of the whole
substantive examination) Government undertake a civil instead of address
the courts. They do not have the ability to interfere with the decision of the administrative authority and things
he return for further proceedings with a binding legal opinion. The administrative part
national management, so was de facto circumvention. Appellant
advocates fear that the administrative authorities will simply decide in
matters of expropriation to relieve their "playing" in the civil courts.
Yet effective judicial control of administrative authorities dealing with and
decisive in these cases can be made except by way of the administrative
the judiciary, i.e. the interference of faulty decisions and change things to the next
consultation. The contested legislation calls into question the very meaning of the administrative
the judiciary in the Czech Republic. Finally, the administrative authority is not even a participant in the
proceedings from the fifth section of the code of civil procedure, therefore he cannot Court
Save the obligation to pay the costs. This legislation finds himself
contrary to the diction article paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (hereinafter
"the Charter") dealing with the judicial review of administrative decisions.
6. Furthermore, the applicant points to the contradiction with article. 38 para. 1 of the Charter
fundamental rights and freedoms which guarantees the prohibition of withdrawal of things lawful
judges; originally it was the administrative judge with sufficient capabilities to
redress, it has to be new judge civil redress options
completely lacking. It is also affected by the rights of the participants to the
hear the case without undue delay (article 38, paragraph 2, of the Charter) when
things have previously addressed the administrative courts, of course, is not a rule, just a
transmit to the civil courts, and in the administrative judiciary has already odčekaná
the time is as follows.
7. Finally, the applicant draws attention to a contradiction with the prohibition of retroactive,
If a new law and a decision issued before the date of its
efficiency.
8. the proposal, as has already been mentioned, is heading to the cancellation marked parts
the law on expropriation, or to submit their constitutionally consistent
interpretation in the form of interpretativního statement. This should, according to the applicant
The Constitutional Court illuminate that even after the entry into force of the relevant provisions
the law on expropriation shall apply the interpretation of the Constitutional Court previously made (in the
This resolution SP. zn. PL. ÚS 14/06).
9. The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in its observations to the
content of the proposal after the adoption of the law on the recap of the course of expropriation
simply stated, the legislature acted in the belief of compliance
the contested legislation with the constitutional order and the rule of law. The assessment of the
the constitutionality of the editing leaves completely at the discretion of the Constitutional Court.
10. the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic described in detail the process of communion
the draft law on expropriation, with the emphasis on the debate on the proposal
took place in the upper House of Parliament. The provisions of the contested act now
under the proposal, the Senate had no reservations. Also, therefore, leaves
the decision to the discretion of the Constitutional Court, without making the proposal
supported or called for its rejection.
II.
The diction of the contested provisions
11. The provisions of § 28 para. 1 of the law on expropriation is: "to control in the matter
the expropriation that has to be dealt with under the code of civil proceedings,
first instance by the competent regional court. " To cancel the proposed
the words: ". .. that has to be dealt with in civil proceedings".
12. The provisions of § 28 para. 2 of the law on expropriation is: "Action, which
the appellant requests that the matter of the expropriation was discussed in
civil procedure, must be made within 30 days of the legal
can the decision of the national authority; by default this period cannot be
waived. " To cancel the words are proposed: "which party
requests that the matter of expropriation has been discussed in the civil
control. "
13. the provisions of section 30 of the Act on expropriation, it is proposed to cancel the whole
added: "unless otherwise provided by this Act, the procedure in the code of civil
in proceedings concerning expropriation under the code of civil procedure. "
III.
Terms of locus standi of the petitioner, the constitutional conformity
the legislative process
14. the draft handed by a regional court in connection with the proceedings in his
take place, and to the cancellation of the proposed provisions of the law on
expropriation shall apply. His locus standi is thus based
the provisions of § 64 para. 3 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, in
as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the "law on the Constitutional Court").
15. the Constitutional Court within the meaning of the provisions of § 68 para. 2 of the Act on the constitutional
the Court dealt with the way the adoption and release of the Act on expropriation; the contested
In contrast to provisions from the State in which the Act took effect, any
changes. From its Web site (http://www.psp.cz) shows that the
The Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament a draft law on
approved the expropriation, in the version approved by the Senate of the Czech Parliament
the Republic of its 54. meeting on 14 July. 3.2006, when from the present
170 members of Parliament voted 117. President of the Republic, although the law did not sign and
He returned it back to the House, however, remained on it (the vote was
on 25 April. 4.2006, 55. the Chamber of Deputies).
16. the Constitutional Court stated that the law on expropriation was received constitutionally
Conformal legislative procedure, was signed by the respective constitutional
agents and delivery 11. 5.2006, duly promulgated in the collection of laws.
IV.
Your own review
17. the Constitutional Court has realised about the proposal and the conclusions set out below came to the
the conclusion that the annulment of the contested provisions of the law on expropriation are not
the reasons why.
18. first, it should be recalled that the Constitutional Court is the body protection
the constitutionality (article 83 of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC.). In proceedings for the annulment of laws and other
legislation in the position of the so-called. the negative of the legislature and
its task is to assess the constitutionality of the contested legislation or
their designated parts of, respectively, to consider whether the contested
interpret and apply the legislation constitutionally Conformal manner. The constitutional
It is not the Court-and this is particularly relevant for the case-
is authorised to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of legal norms, since this
competency only belongs to lawmakers. The Constitutional Court is of the opinion
in the present case it is not a case of violation of the contested law with
the constitutional order, but it is a confrontation of the diction of the Act, respectively.
the variant chosen by the legislature, the court controls the activities of the public administration
in the given section, and legal practice (or its part), how should
This legislation will look to best reflect the views of the legal
the doctrine.
And)
19. If the Constitutional Court by the petitioner's objections,
first they must deal with the contradiction with the current case-law criticised
custom, case law of the Supreme Administrative Court, and the Special Senate
set up by Act No. 131/2002 Coll., on certain decisions
conflicts of jurisdiction.
20. it should be noted that the answer to the question, namely, that of
the judicial branch has carried out a review of the relevant acts, not from the
the beginning of the unique and the nature of the decision on the compulsory limitation of property
the law has become a frequent subject of the decisions of the courts. The Supreme Administrative
the Court has expressed repeatedly in connection with the establishment of the factual
the burden under section 91 paragraph 2. 3 of Act No. 151/2000 Coll. on telecommunications and
amending certain other acts, and according to § 17 para. 3 of Act No.
13/1997 Coll., on the road. Initially stressed (as well
as the county courts in administrative justice) the fact that
the decision on the compulsory limitation of ownership extends to private
owner rights (i.e. the right of ownership). As the decision in
private things, according to the original case-law of the Supreme Administrative
the Court was subject to review in the Administrative Court, but it was
decisions of the Court in civil proceedings.
21. this view was later overtaken by the right decisions on which
the rapporteur points out-the decision of the enlarged Board of the Supreme
Administrative Court of 12 July 2005. 10.2004, no. 4 As 47/2003-50, and out of it
based on a subsequent decision of the Special Chamber established by law
No. 131/2002 Coll., zn. Msg. 81/2004-12 of 5 May 1999. 5.2005. The decision of the
they are built on the premise that although the decision of the administrative authority on the
the expropriation. of the easement, undoubtedly, interfered in the
of property rights, but it is always necessary to examine the nature of such an intervention,
as to limit or to the extinction of the right of ownership may occur as the
the basis of private title, so title public service. To determine the
whether a particular matter will discuss and make decisions in civil or
in the administrative judiciary is a critical private or
the public nature of the interference with the right of ownership, but not legal
the nature of the title itself. If the applicant contests the decision of the
expropriation or compulsory limitation of property rights through the establishment of a substantive
the burden is not the subject of legal proceedings, the question of ownership of itself
(there is, therefore, a dispute about the ownership of), but its subject is
a review of the decision on expropriation or compulsory limitation of property
rights. The nature of the legal title is indicative of the determination of civil or
the administrative jurisdiction. A criterion for the assessment of the private
or public nature of the operative part of the expropriation or establishing substantive
the burden has chosen the Supreme Administrative Court of the legal regulating method
expressing the nature and level of participation of the subjects of the legal relationship in shaping
its content. Private method of legal regulation is usually the method
equality, public method of legal regulation is vertical.
Deciding on the compulsory limitation of ownership rights belong to the second
category when the compulsory limitation of ownership rights shall be decided without
regardless of the will of the debtor.
22. these conclusions made (and also in the preamble to the left) of the constitutional
the Court in the claimant referred to resolution SP. zn. PL. ÚS 14/06 dated
December 7th, 2006 (13/43 SbNU 645) ^ *. They also said that, for the determination of whether
some thing will be to discuss and make decisions in civil or administrative
the judiciary is a critical private or public nature of the
the interference with the right of ownership, not the legal nature of the right of ownership
itself. In the specific case under consideration therefore deduced that the review
the administrative decision of the easement, issued pursuant to § 17
paragraph. 3 of the Act. No. 13/1997 Coll. on road traffic, as amended by
amended, belongs to the substantive jurisdiction of administrative courts,
rather than the courts.
23. these legal interpretations and conclusions, however, concern the law of time
before the adoption of the law on expropriation. At that time, the issue of
dispossession and restriction of property rights to real estate scattered
in a number of legal norms, with the Centre of gravity in the Act No. 50/1976 Coll., on the territorial
planning and building code (the building Act). None of the procedural issues
judicial review of legislation has not been separately regulated vyvlastňovacích,
followed by the abandoned general rules of judicial review
administrative decisions. Determining jurisdiction to rule on the substance of the case was
When the dualism of judicial review of acts of the public administration of the Affairs of the interpretation of this
the competent judicial institutions-above all, the Supreme Court of the administrative
and the Special Chamber zřizovaného pursuant to Act No. 131/2002 Sb.
24. the adoption of the law on expropriation, the legal status of the default for the Court
a review of the decision issued by fundamentally changed. The power to
discuss and decide these things has been entrusted to the courts held
civil proceedings. The former interpretation, conferring control in matters of
expropriation of the administrative courts, continued to be unsustainable. Logical response
then there was the decision of the Special Chamber zřizovaného pursuant to Act No.
131/2002 Coll., which in its resolution of 8 June 1993. 6.2007, c. j. Msg 4/2007-6,
published under no. 1312/2007 Coll. NSS, declare as competent to issue
a decision on an action against a decision of the Regional Office on the establishment of a substantive
the burden of the Court in civil proceedings; as well i decided later in the
similar matters SP. zn. Msg 34/2007, SP. zn. Msg 4/2008 and SP. zn.
MSG 2/2008. He stated that on 1 May 2004. 1.2007 took effect
the law on expropriation, which regulated the substantive and procedural issues
deprivation or restriction of ownership rights, including provisions for dealing with
expropriation in the proceedings before the Court. Discussion and decision of the case
expropriation has been expressly entrusted to the courts in civil proceedings
referring to part of the fifth code of civil procedure. This power
is established regardless of the expropriation act was issued before
the effective date of the law.
25. the Constitutional Court States that the Special Senate acted constitutionally
Conformal manner, when deciding on the appropriate competence
the conflicts he adapted the new legislation. Such a procedure is
the principle of the Division of, since it is true that the courts provide protection to the rights
the manner prescribed by law (article 90 of the Constitution). Reflection sessions can
the legislative and judiciary and their mutual balancing is then also
imperative, according to which the judge is bound by the law when making decisions and
the international agreement that is part of the rule of law (article 95, paragraph 1
Of the Constitution). In other words, the Court is determining the version of the law, not opinion
the doctrine or practice of the nature of the expropriačního Act. Review of the criterion
the Constitutional Court Act is its compliance with the Constitution, not whether
corresponds to the opinion of the doctrine. That deviates in the formation of the legislature
editing a legal Institute from how it has already been
looks legal practice, does not constitute such adjustments without further conflict with
the constitutional order. Another interpretation would be contrary to the position and mission Court
power and balance while avoiding impacting relations between the legislative power
and the legal system.
26. contrary to the namítanému the new legislation with the views previously handsfree
high courts can be used as an additional argument to indicate that
The Constitutional Court is not considered unconstitutional to change decision-making practice in the
unchanged legislation. Asked (e.g. find SP. zn. IV. TC
613/06, http://nalus.usoud.cz/), that case-law cannot be without the development and
It is not excluded that not only delivers new interpretive conclusions,
but i changed. Due to the need to preserve the principle of predictability
adjudication, particularly with regard to the practice of the Supreme Court
interpreter and the unification of lower courts case-law, a valid
the legislation prescribes specific and binding rules on the admission
in situations where the decision by them to be their existing case-law
been overcome. This rather then by the Constitutional Court cannot be marked for
zakonzervovanou procedural adjustment.
(B))
27. To namítanému conflict with the constitutional principle of the separation of powers in the State,
the principle of the Division of private law respectively, and public relations and
their judicial protection:
28. This objection already outlined the Constitutional Court. According to the article. 2
paragraph. the Constitution is the source of all State power shall be exercised by the people, and it
through the authorities able to legislative, Executive and judicial. From the constitutional
the definition of legislative power (article 15, paragraph 1, of the Constitution) it follows for the legislature
wide scope for decisions about how the Institute specifically
adjusts. Therefore, in its deliberations is not bound by the opinion of the application practice.
If the decision is to change a rule, even though it is in the awareness of the legal
public zažito, responsible for such a decision unless the political
liability. The petitioner must recognize that justice is realized by
a single, arbitrary State expressed will. Other than the weight of their
the expert arguments on the form of a law cannot operate. And cannot do so
even the Constitutional Court, which is the only negative by the legislature, and this just in
connection with the control of the constitutionality of the law, not its
"doctrinal purity". In the present case it is not a case of omission
the legislature that is causing the violation of fundamental rights, but rather an expression of
his will edit in a certain way the judicial control of the national
control.
29. The objection of the plaintiff, that the challenged legislation is contrary to the principle of
Division of public and private law relations and their judicial
of protection can be only in so far as that comment is completely devoid of constitutional law
dimension. In the opinion of the Constitutional Court is currently private and
public law separated the "Chinese wall". The legal order of the Czech Republic is
Although based on the dualism of public and private law. This distinction
on the two big areas of law based on classical Roman law
However, you cannot be dogmatically. A preview of the characteristics of the
which area can change and change, which, moreover, demonstrated by the above
an outline of the development of the evaluation of the nature of the decision on expropriation or compulsory
restriction of ownership rights. In any case, the Constitutional Court is not the one who would
to convert legal institutions from one area to another of its
derogation of the powers to intervene.
30. the allocation of public and private law relationships in relation to the
the subsequent judicial review with the Constitutional Court dealt with in decision SP. zn.
IV. TC 349/03 26.02.2004 (8/32 SbNU 501). Case concerned
deciding on the deletion of trademarks and the Constitutional Court in response to the controversy over the
character of the trademark of the agenda, inter alia, stated: "the Constitutional Court involved
their competence, should make decisions about the allocation takes's agenda
administrative justice under public law and private law nature
relationships that are the subject of disputes. It is for general justice found
the boundary between a set of public and private law relations. The
may be indistinct. ... The Constitutional Court as a judicial body called upon to
protection of special categories of fundamental rights after the failure of the other
the administrative and judicial authorities do not feel the need to address specified
legal-theoretical dispute. Rozhraničení public and private law
a matter of law rather than a simple, basic human rights, regardless of whether
material (right to assets in accordance with article 11, the right to the results of creative intellectual
activities pursuant to art. 34 or other rights), or procedural (right to judicial and
other legal protection under article 5(2). 36, and other Instruments) ".
31. In addition, it cannot be ignored that the constitutional parameters must have
the judicial system as such. From the perspective of the guarantee of the fundamental rights of participants
vyvlastňovacích management, which goes by the Constitutional Court in particular, is
whether the Court will be in protection mode, the code of civil procedure
an administrative or civil procedure. Finally, this basic
rights may be equally well protected or neglected one another
the branches of contemporary Czech administrative justice.
(C))
32. contrary to the appellant's belief about the contested edit with the contents of the article.
paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter:
33. According to the article. paragraph 36. 1 of the Charter, each can claim laid down
the procedure of their rights before an independent and impartial court and in specified
cases at another institution. The applicant submitted a second paragraph
the same article gives anyone who claims that he was on their rights is truncated
by a decision of a public authority, the possibility of recourse to a court to
reviewed the legality of such a decision, unless the law provides otherwise. From
the review jurisdiction of the Court, however, must not be excluded decisions
the fundamental rights and freedoms, whose protection is embodied in the constitutional
order of the Czech Republic. Pursuant to paragraph fourth of the article that are
conditions and details of the review of the law. The law, which in
the case under consideration the question of powers to carry out the review, issued by the
administrative decision resolves, the law of expropriation. The requirement of the Charter to
the form of the rules so it is filled with and in this way it is possible to talk about the
improvement over the State prior to the adoption of the law on expropriation; unambiguous
determination of the jurisdiction of the Court to carry out the management of increased legal certainty, its
participants.
34. As already mentioned, the Charter guaranteed the right to judicial protection
The Constitutional Court interprets the material, i.e., in the sense that it depends on the
de facto populate its content, and is a minor whether realistically is to protect
provided by the courts of Justice of civil or administrative.
The point is that the benefit of judicial review has been preserved. The task of the
The Constitutional Court is, therefore, to see that the participant (in principle)
against the Act of the public authority of judicial protection, but whether it will be in the system of courts
decisive in the civil or administrative courts
the judiciary is irrelevant to him, for rozhraničení of public and
private law is not a matter of fundamental human rights and freedoms
(cf. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 11/08 or resolution SP. zn. I. ÚS
59/04, II. TC 6/04 or IV. TC 150/04, http://nalus.usoud.cz/).
35. Judicial review of expropriačních acts is guaranteed and adapted-even if
otherwise, than by the claimant, and (at least) part of the professional
the public was perfect. On the infringement of article 81(1). paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter, which
does not provide any further details in that direction, what should be the process
Review mode decision of a public authority, so cannot be speech.
(D))
36. the plea of breach of the rights pursuant to art. 38 of the Charter:
37. In accordance with paragraph 1. 1 of the same provision of the Charter must not be withdrawn
your legal judges, with the jurisdiction of the Court and the judge sets out
the law. The provisions of paragraph 2, guarantees everyone the right to have his case
has been discussed publicly, without undue delay, and in his presence and
to be able to comment on all evidence. The public may be
excluded only in cases specified by law.
38. the constitutional imperative, according to which no one shall be deprived of his
Court judges, is the protection against tampering with a cast of acting
the Court. To prevent the inadvertent or even an ad-hoc delegation
decision-making in a particular case specified ad hoc court, respectively.
the judge or Chamber, which would otherwise be such decision making nenáleželo.
Practically it is about to be received in advance of the agenda allocated
the General rules. The legal judge can only be the judge of legal
the Court, therefore, the Court which has jurisdiction to hear the matter, and that is
the Court (factually, locally, functionally).
39. If the jurisdiction to review acts under the law on expropriation for
the courts held the civil proceedings established by the law, i.e. the General legal
the prescription, it is conceptually impossible for this right has been infringed on the legal
judge; the rule applies without regard to a particular participant and
(or) specific things. The point is (cf. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 19/02
of 11.3.2003 (N 33/29 SbNU279; 101/2003 Coll.) ^ * to the law of the jurisdiction
and the jurisdiction defined for all type-identical cases as well. In
the opposite of the case under consideration, the Constitutional Court did not detect and eventually not even
adduced.
40. Consider the merits test, the Constitutional Court could not design or for an argument,
that is violated the right to hear the case, without undue delay, since the
new powers and lost time participants already in the odčekaná
the administrative judiciary. Although the Constitutional Court gives a claimant a right,
that delays meaning intervention in the rights of the participant may be marked
occur. These cases, however, will have to be assessed individually. Neither
a positive conclusion about the delays in the various proceedings but cannot lead to a
If the contested legislation, the solution may be to except the advent
the liability of the State for the procedure in dealing with its agenda. In addition, this
the argument of the complainant's short-term impact, since such delay may
apply to only the proceedings initiated and the neskončených before the effective date of the law on
the expropriation.
(E))
41. The alleged conflict with the prohibition of retroactive:
42. Jurisprudence recognizes the retroactive effect right and retroactive effect
mocked-up. Right retrokativita covers cases where the legal standard
reglementuje and the formation of the legal relationship arising out of him and demands before its
efficiency. False; lies in the fact that the legal relations
the substantive and procedural law, which arose under the old rules,
to manage this right and in principle until the effectiveness of the law
new; After its effectiveness is, however, subject to the law. In relation to the
procedural standards can generally be stated that it would be unconstitutional if the
should the proposal (Bill), brought under the previously applicable law and at the same time according to the
This right was allowed as a result of changes to the legislation later
rejected by the Court as inadmissible. Such a procedure would mean that negotiations
According to the original Edit legally relevant in light of the action of legal
Edit a new (more precisely, on the basis of the new legal situation)
legally (see resolution irelevantním SP. zn. I. ÚS 526/03 or i. ÚS
673/03, http://nalus.usoud.cz/. However, this is not currently the case under consideration, when
judicial control is maintained is converted to just "no".
43. In the present case is the question of whether the retrospective
the contested provisions. With the explicit legislation of the
review in cases of expropriation, or determination of the Court that has the power to
proceedings, came to the legislature in a situation where this question solved
only the case law. Not that the new normative rule
to change or replace the existing legislation, but it is actually only about
change the decision-making practice of the new has already express support in the law.
44. In any case, it is necessary to take into account that this is a problem of process
rights, where in the same way (that is, so that after the entry into force of the new
procedural adjustments in the procedure continues to follow her, that
procedural effects operations previously made are preserved)
always, subject to the transitional provisions of something else. Also in the
the case under consideration the procedural effects remain made operations
retained, the participants, therefore, the entry into force of the Act on expropriation were
about the possibility of judicial review are ready, they are only the procedure referred
the provisions of § 46 para. 2 of the judicial code of the administrative officials of the possibility
bring an action before the competent court in substance. In other words the right to review
administrative decisions or any other procedural right is not the participants
the proceedings before the administrative authorities in consequence of new arrangements of odnímáno or narrowed down,
Therefore, do not receive a worse position compared to the moment when submitted
the original lawsuit (see resolution SP. zn. III. TC 151/04 or SP. zn.
IV. TC 293/06, http://nalus.usoud.cz/). As in the case now
the analysis proceeded to the legislature even when acceptance of the code of civil procedure of the administrative
(section 129 (2)); the adjustment did not produce any doubt their party
the constitutionality. Indeed, the Constitutional Court cases where it was this transitional
the provisions applied, already solved (though not confronted objection completely
the same with the one now under consideration) without considered it necessary
to further investigate the temporal jurisdiction [e.g. find SP. zn. I. ÚS 117/05
of 5.10.2005 (N 190/39 27 SbNU], or resolution SP. zn. I. TC 59/04,
http://nalus.usoud.cz/)].
In the.
45. In proceedings on the abstract control does not apply the principle of projednací and
The Constitutional Court is not bound by the reasoning of the proposal, but is obliged to
examine the contested provisions and in terms of compliance with other
ústavněprávními provisions for which it is to attack the plaintiffs.
A breach of any other rules, of course, did not.
46. The Constitutional Court reasons Landed concluded that the proposal is under consideration
According to the provisions of § 70 para. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court to reject.
47. From the oral proceedings was in accordance with § 44 para. 2 of the Act abandoned
Since it could not be expect to receive further clarification of the case and all of the participants with
in this procedure, agreed.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
Different opinion referred to in section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,
as amended, a decision of the Assembly, judge
Elisabeth Wagner.
* Note. Red: a collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, Volume 43, usn.
# 13, p. 645
* Note. Red: a collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, volume 29,
find no 33, p. 279, promulgated under Act No. 101/2003 Coll.
