The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic held on 12 June 2006. April 1995 in plenary on
the proposal of the Group of members of Parliament of the United Kingdom
on the repeal of certain provisions of the Act of the Czech National Council No. 589/1992
Coll., on social security and a contribution to State policy
employment, as amended,
The proposal is rejected.
Submission of 27 November. 4.1994, supplemented and zpřesněným submissions of 31 January.
8.1994 and 17. 1. in 1995, a group of 42 members of Parliament proposed to the Chamber of Deputies
Parliament of the Czech Republic according to the provisions of § 64 para. 1 (b). (b))
Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court to annul the Constitutional Court
some of the provisions of the law of the Czech National Council No. 589/1992 Coll., on the
social security and a contribution to State policy
employment, as amended, relating to the recipients of
The proposal (in a supplementary submission of 17 December. 1.1995) annulment
These provisions of the Act of the Czech National Council No. 589/1992 Coll., as amended by
later changes and additions:
1. the provisions of section 3 (2). 1 (b). (c)) and § 3 (1). 2,
2. the provisions expressed in § 5 para. 2 the first sentence and the third sentence of the words
"the retirement or", and
3. the provisions of paragraph 1, expressed in section 14a. 2 the first sentence of paragraph 14(a) and section. 5
the third sentence, the words "retirement or".
The contested provisions are, by design, in accordance with article 3(1). 4 (4). 1 and 4, and
article. 11 (1) 3 and 4, of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, which, according to article.
3 of the Constitution of the United States part of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, and
with the provisions of article 8(1). 2 (2). 1 of the International Covenant on human rights
(to the right of the International Covenant on Civil and political rights) and article.
2 (2). 2 of the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural
On 8 June 1998. 2. a representative of a group of MPs took the 1995 proposal and asked for
admission of discontinuance and the termination of the proceeding on the grounds that "in the
During reflection on the refinement of the design proved a need to extend the proposal to
the cancellation also in relation to Act No. 100/1988 Coll., on social
security, as amended by laws to changing and supplementing, in
a quite considerable extent. Because the members of the representative for such a step
not in the original draft mandate, and this is a significant change, respectively.
extension of the proposal, it seems way to take this proposal to repeal of the law
back with the fact that the new proposal will be given with regard to other
related laws. "
Resolution SP. zn. PL. ÚS 12/94 of 20 December. 2. the 1995 did not admit to the constitutional
the court proceedings and the proceedings did not stop with reference to the provisions of section 67
Act No. 182/1993 Coll., which permits the termination of the proceeding only within the
the conditions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, which brought the proposal does not fall under.
For this reason, the Constitutional Court was obliged to decide on the proposal of the Group
members of the repeal of certain provisions of the Act of the Czech National Council.
589/1992 Coll., as amended by the changes and additions, revised and
supplemented by submission of 17 December. 1.1995.
Social security premiums includes both insurance pension
Security and insurance premiums on health insurance. Conceptual character
insurance is, by design, the fact that in the case when the
insured event, are to be compensated by the insurance covers or dose
the consequences associated with this event. The recipient of a retirement pension
However, by design, is gainfully employed are entitled to any indemnity--
in the area of pensions--does not. Receives only
old-age pension, which he has previously been granted and that is when the next
gainful employment does not increase further.
When it comes to health insurance benefits, the proposal says that the self-employed
Active recipient of old-age pension is provided for a three-month waiting period
for entitlement to benefits and the receipt of sickness benefits is limited to the
a period of 84 days.
Finally, the contribution of the State employment policy by design
does not entitle the gainfully employed not only to those receiving old-age pension
the receipt of unemployment benefits, but not to be registered
as job seekers at the employment offices.
That legislation the status of self-employed recipients of old-age
the pension according to the design this category gets into conflict with
the provisions of the article. 4 (4). 1 and 4, and article. 11 (1) 3 and 4 of the Charter of fundamental
rights and freedoms, which, according to article. 3 of the Constitution a part of the constitutional order
The United States, as well as with the provisions of article. 2 (2). 1 International
the Covenant on human rights and article. 2 (2). 2 of the International Covenant on
economic, social and cultural rights.
Referred to by design does not have the character of adjustment of premiums, as in
the law marked because it is not equivalent to "consideration" and therefore has
the nature of the hidden tax.
From the perspective of a group of Deputies proposes the abolition of legislativnětechnického
some of the provisions of the Act of the Czech National Council No. 589/1992 Coll., on the
as amended. Because in these provisions is not listed individually
a group of recipients of old-age pensions [see § 3, paragraph 1 (b), (c)) and § 3
paragraph. 2. Act], members of the Group proposed cancellation of payment
social security for all categories of taxpayers
premiums, and both employees [section 3, para. 1 (b) (c)), paragraphs 1 to 12],
and all self-employed persons (article 3 (2)). The amount of the
contributions by taxpayers in the dependent ratio amounts to 8.75% of
of the base [of section 7 (1) (b)) of the law of the Czech National Council.
589/1992 Coll., as amended]. If the categories of recipients of
old-age pension insurance was not paid, their net income
increased by $8.75% of the calculation basis, thereby to inequalities between
This category and the other employed persons in a non-law enforcement
If it was not subject to payment of the insurance premium income beneficiaries of old-age
the pension premium payments would eliminate the employer that
old-age pensions in the dependent ratio makes 26.25% of the calculation
Base [§ 7 (1) (a)). the Act] and the self
self-employed and cooperating 30.2% [§ 7 (1) (b), (e)).
Non-payment of premiums employers would have occurred to inequalities between those
who would have employed those receiving old-age pensions, whose costs would
decreased by 26.25% of the calculation basis, which would not be required to
pay social security, and those whose employees would
old-age pension did not receive Community yet.
When you perform the adjustments proposed by the Group of members [deleting § 3 (1)
(a). (c)) and § 3 (1). 2. law] would have virtually no self-employed
the person did not pay social security contributions. While their claims
on the payment of benefits, which are regulated by Act No. 100/1988 Coll., on
as amended, would remain intact.
This fact is realized as well as the representative of a group of MPs, when in your
the withdrawal of the proposal to stop the proceedings and pointed to the link between
the Czech National Council Act No. 589/1992 Coll. and Act No. 100/1988 Coll., on
their current wording.
The Constitutional Court in assessing the design of the opinion that in all
the existing social security systems are in varying proportions
represented the principle of solidarity and equivalence. Every social system
Security carries an advantage or disadvantage certain
social groups, depending on if it is preferable rather aspect
solidarity or preferred the principle of equivalence. This adjustment is
reserved for legislators, which cannot proceed arbitrarily, but when
determination of preferences must take account of the reference public values. In
the area, which was the subject of the assessment in the area of economic
legislation, the legislature has a far wider area than in the laws,
directly touch on fundamental human rights and freedoms.
In the case of recipients of old-age pension for gainful employment was based on
the legislature of the efforts that, for all employed citizens paid
the same rules with regard to the payment of social security contributions
and contribution to the State employment policy. These rules are
fixed in advance, both in terms of the amount of the premiums paid by persons in the
employment or self-employment, as well as the amount of
paid by the employer.
The Constitutional Court could not identify with the statement contained in the proposal, that the
beneficiaries of old-age pension insurance paid them in any group, the
you contribute, does not bring "consideration" and that, therefore, this is a hidden tax,
which they are in conflict with the provisions stored.
Gainfully employed recipient of old-age pension is entitled to a disability
pension, if disability as a result of an accident at work or
occupational disease, if the invalidity pension is higher than the old-age pension,
who draws. In addition, you may receive the pension of a surviving death
her husband, as well as an increase in income for impotence. The children receiving
education, including the premium.
As regards the payment of sickness insurance benefits, is gainfully employed
the recipient of a retirement pension entitlement to payment of sickness benefits,
from the first day of the insurance, not, as alleged members of the group design, up to
After three months.
Receipt of sickness benefits is limited to a period of three months, but in the
This time, on the contrary, it is about a certain kind of preference in this category, because in
overlapping is in receipt of a retirement pension, so as sickness benefits. Gainfully employed
the beneficiaries of old-age pension are entitled to, in addition to health benefits
support in the care of a family member.
Finally, the payment of contributions to the State employment policy entitles
the insured person be the job seeker (article 7, paragraph 1, of Act No. 1/1991
Coll., as amended by Act No. 578/1991 Coll.) and to information about employment with the
the exception of the right to unemployment benefit, when it was tracked with the already
On the basis of the above, then the Constitutional Court examined the
each of the objections contained in the proposal of a group of MPs and came to the following
Namítaný conflict with the article. 4 (4). 1 and 4, of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms
It is not given. That provision does not provide a separate individual basic
rights, but merely lays down the need to impose general obligation only on the
under the law, while maintaining the fundamental rights and freedoms. This
provisions can therefore claim only in relation to other provisions of the
The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, the Constitution or international treaties in
meaning of article 87(1). 10 of the Constitution, which contain the specific fundamental rights or
freedom, to which the infringement was committed. Members of such a group design
fact does not.
Conflict with the article. 11 (1) 3 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms referred to in the
the proposal also is not given, because this provision is not to assess things
at all legally relevant.
To a breach of article namítanému. 11 (1) 4 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms,
the legal adjustment of premium payments is the expropriation of part of the income
the beneficiaries of the retirement pension, the Constitutional Court could not identify with the
the design of the group members. Article. 11 (1) 4 of the Charter of fundamental rights and
freedoms is referring to rights in rem, that could be the event. the subject of the
the expropriation. Such does not cover retirement benefits or
earned income recipients of old-age pensions and with him
United payment of social security contributions.
The Constitutional Court did not conflict with the namítaný article. 2 (2). 1
The International Covenant on Civil and political rights. This provision
prohibits discrimination only in relation to each of the rights referred to in
articles of the Pact. The appellant, however, the lack of any other right referred to in
According to the Pact.
The same is true about the article. 2 (2). 2 of the International Covenant on economic,
social and cultural rights.
For all these reasons, the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that the design group
42 members of Parliament of the United Kingdom of 27 May.
4. the 1994 supplemented on 17. 1.1995 cannot be accepted and rejected the proposal.
The President of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
A different opinion of the judges. Vladimir Paula, JUDr. Anthony
Walks and JUDr. Vlastimila Ševčík
Different opinion consists of two parts. In the first part is directed against
the procedure of adoption of the award, which is contrary to the wording and the purpose of section 70
paragraph. 1 and 2 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court. In the second part
is directed against the reasons for rejection of a group of MPs, mainly from the
legal and factual point of view, because the members of the design points out the contradiction
the contested act, the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, which is
part of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and with the International Pact
Civil and political rights.
1. Objections to the way the application of § 70 para. 1 and 2 of Act No. 182/1993
Coll., on the Constitutional Court, based on its wording:
paragraph. 1: If, after completion of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court concluded that the law
or its individual provisions are in conflict with the constitutional law,
by law or international agreement under article. 10 of the Constitution, finding
Decides that such an act or other legislation or their
individual provisions are repealed on the day on which the award is made.
paragraph. 2: If, after completion of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court concluded that they are not
reasons to repeal of the law, other legislation or their
individual provisions, a proposal will be rejected.
For such a decision is based on article. 13 of the Act, in the context of
with the article. 87 para. 1 (b). and the Constitution, to be) a qualified majority of nine
votes of judges, both for the proposal to repeal the law, and for the
the rejection of such a proposal, because in any case, decides
If there is a contradiction of the contested Law, with the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC, or whether such a contradiction
Here it is not. From this perspective, therefore, you cannot argue with the naked grammar
text (ripped from the context) article. 87 para. 1 (b). and) of the Constitution
The CZECH REPUBLIC, according to which the Constitutional Court shall decide on the revocation of the laws. Both decisions
are equivalent (if there is a conclusion to cancel and contr. comes to the conclusion
don't cancel), and not a single vote, from which it infers one or the other
conclusion. Both parties, i.e.. the appellant and the Parliament of the CZECH REPUBLIC, have in it
equal standing, and cannot, therefore, agree with the idea that, in the case of
equality of votes for repeal of the law and against the cancellation of the presumption of
the constitutionality of the law that is infected. In both cases, the Constitutional Court
"after completion of the proceedings to conclude", IE. based on an analysis of the case
to discuss the proposal in detail all the circumstances to justify the repeal of the law,
together with the appreciation of the positive, or even the dissenting opinion
the claimant, as well as in detail to justify the rejection of the application along with the
refuting the reasons of the applicant on appropriate cancellation.
This corresponds to section 68 of the Act, that the Constitutional Court, if the design
refuse or did not stop the procedure, is obliged to discuss the proposal and
decide about him even without the other proposals. The decision in this case, either
is positive or negative, requires a qualified majority.
In the application of § 70 para. 1 and 2 of the Act is to be presumed
the fact that it is a lex specialis for the purposes of the proceedings on the revocation of laws and
that for such decisions cannot be content with the analogy that could
can be used differently, for example. the failure to achieve a qualified majority
automatically means a reason for rejecting a proposal to abolish the law or the
another law (§ 64 et seq. of Act No. 182/1993 Coll.), because
such a conclusion of the Constitutional Court cannot be derived from it.
In assessing the Constitutional Court access to the decisions to be taken
still note that another interpretation about the majority, for example. in the case that
in the absence of a repeal of the law, because in the plenum of the Constitutional Court when
the vote of a qualified majority was not achieved, it may cause
the results of the protismyslným and completely at odds with otherwise valid unmistakably
the principle that when the vote comes as its result in only an opinion
of the majority. In addition, for the view that a simple majority is sufficient to reject the
present, there is no legal support. It is necessary to imagine that, for example. from
present 10 judges (i.e., the minimum number for the ability of the plenum of the constitutional
Court usnášeti) 8 judges vote for repeal of the law or other
law, 2 judges against; because it was not achieved
qualified majority, he would have been dismissed, though against it
voted just 2 judges. This interpretation is an imbalance in the
decision making, because the minority opinion against opinion prefers most.
2. the legal opinion that the requirement for members to cancel the contested provisions
Act No. 589/1992 Coll. is right, is based on the following facts:
and when it comes to insurance) and insurance:
Act No. 589/1992 Coll., on social security and the contribution of the
the State employment policy, is seen as a first step
the transformation of the existing social security and had to be issued,
because the new tax system, introduced on 1 January 2002. 1.1993, already
excluded by the fact that tax revenues will cover the expenditure on the social
Security and employment policy, as was the case with the payroll tax and
levy on salaries.
In the field of law was that it was deleted from the law on income tax
wages of 1952, where they were included in the tax and contributions from citizens on
social security, and issued the Act No. 589/1992 Coll.
Despite all the doubts that could be expressed, it is necessary to arrive at
to the conclusion that when the application of premiums to the legal Institute
insurance, because it reflects the legal situation in which the citizen carries its
the risk for consideration to another entity, and such entity assumes the risk and
is committed to a specific implementation. It does not change the fact that the
This is not directly about private insurance, agreed under the provisions of
of the civil code, but this is a public-law insurance
factually based on a system not yet applicable law in this area and legally on the
the law on insurance. It is mandatory and the law regulates the legal relations of the
emerging, as well as the terms of such insurance.
The term of the insurance is linked with the term insurance and legal Institute
insurance has its stable content, IE. secures to the insured person the right to
payment of cash or other filling to cover agreed (by law
laid down) needs that arise from incidents. Therefore, you cannot
This Institute subsumovat other content than in other legal
systems actually has and cannot include the citizen under the
the payments, which have the character of the tax.
The future choice of forms and social security legislation
undoubtedly, as stated in the preamble of the award, in the hands of the legislation Act,
but in doing so must be respected the provisions of the Constitution and the Charter of
fundamental rights and freedoms, and in particular must be legally enshrined and
implemented the provisions of article. 30 and article. 31 of the Charter of fundamental rights and
freedoms that the citizens have the right to adequate material security in
old age and incapacity to work, as well as for loss of breadwinner, as well
as they have the right, on the basis of public insurance, to free
health care and to medical AIDS under conditions provided for by law.
The emergence of the insurance relationship, which is obligatory for the citizen and whose
the content is determined by the law, therefore, does not mean the will of the organisation and
the implementation of social security, but legislation must conform to
the obligations of the State, as is apparent from the constitutional order of the CZECH REPUBLIC or from the
international treaties by which the Czech Republic is bound, as well as the legal
the principles that are custom to each insurance relation and the Institute
insurance. One of them is the settlement risks for both parties.
Citizen carries the risk of their future financial or substantive assurance
(pension and sickness reinsurance) on the bearer and his insurance risk
ends when you live to set age limit, because of the risk that
failure to meet this condition, then it will grant holders of insurance payments, such
without any benefit to him alone. On the contrary, the holder of the insurance
at the moment assumes the risk that its performance will be higher than the
counted, whether because the insured person lived longer, or the cost of
diseases were higher.
Of the insurance relationship, even if public, shows that when the
terms and conditions of the insured person resulting from the right to a pension is equivalent to, or
to meet the requirements that belong under the term of insurance
the obligation of the other party, such transactions in the Social Security Act to provide
and unilaterally such basic conditions do not change.
Among such changes undoubtedly belongs to the requirement that a pensioner to whom
was legally entitled to a pension and that it has already received, to continue to pay
pension insurance or sickness insurance, if he
of such insurance has requested on a voluntary basis. Likewise, this includes
request for payment of the contribution to the State employment policy. Or here
his lack of performance, which would require, or which would
its security, but the range of services (not refund in respect of
unemployment, which had been the insurance against unemployment
focus). In addition, an old-age pensioner or conceptually cannot become
In this respect, we disagree with the interpretation that, in the present legal
Edit the file as needed without further refer to this insurance as a tax
whereas that diverts to the State budget, and to deny the
the existence of insurance. If the Medicare premiums, or any of its
a folder, for example. old-age pensioners the premiums paid to pension
security or post on national employment policy should be
taxes and, as such, drawn to the State budget, it would require
the law, which would be marked as a tax and made these payments included in the
the tax system. Otherwise, it could be, when you declare a
"insurance-tax", the conflict with the article adduced. 11 (1) 5 the Charter of fundamental
rights and freedoms, according to which they can be constrained by the property rights of citizens
and stored them only in the form of financial obligations of the taxes and charges on
under the law. In any case, however, it was an unqualified confusion
of the concepts.
If so, the legislation provides that an old-age pensioner is
required to pay even after he became a beneficiary of the old-age pension, and
still, the pension premiums cannot be understood such
the obligation to be well founded, since the term "insurance" is hiding
the obligation to make payments from a completely different reason, and to completely different
purposes. It is in fact a covert tax because it is a payment that
It is, or may be, used for purposes other than those for which it was
established. This character also have posts on the State policy
employment, because saving the old age pensioners the obligation to payment
different purpose and objectives, and such, which for an old-age
the pensioner is no longer essentially a practical or legal significance and in addition to the
the purpose and objectives, which, as is clear from the name, provides solely
(b)) in relation to discrimination against other groups of old-age pensioners
citizens employed or self-employed:
The contested provisions of Act No. 589/1992 Coll. by specify the same
social security for all workers, a pensioner in
employment or similar relationship, as well as for retired self-employed
Active (with the exception of sickness insurance, which for the latter
It is not mandatory), creates the impression of their mutual equality, but which is
only equality before public authorities, because here are brought
pensioners and persons receiving pension yet, in the same series.
In fact, however, creates inequality of citizens before the law, because
does not distinguish between one group of citizens in these relationships provides
the payments, to be lifted from it risk ensure living conditions
(pension and health), particularly after reaching a certain age limit,
While the second group that already has reached that protection and, in this
the direction already has risk, is forced to provide payment, without
effect on her other living conditions. Sometimes referenced as the reason principle
However, solidarity is not a legal Institute, from which stemmed the specific
rights and obligations. The principle of solidarity is an important and applied
the principle, but only means access to the solution of a particular economic
issue. In no case, however, is not the principle absolutely valid and all
influencing and determining, in particular, however, must not interfere with the direction and the goal, the
less provisions of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, which expresses the
the specific right of the citizen. To justify such a difference just principle
solidarity is not sufficient, because the solidarity in social security
always have previously manifested significantly, and is even now, in particular by
the payments are calculated according to the amount of the citizen his salary, as well as by
citizen applies for sickness insurance and never does, or
applies to pension insurance and myself to see him and the embedded
the funds will be used for the benefit of other insured persons and, in General,
generational solidarity of the receipts and payments of one generation are covered
the needs of the older generation, which is most pronounced in systems where
social security paid wholly or partly by the State. Solidarity, which
building the social security system, is based on mutual support
participating in the formation of social risks, but it is in this
the specific case of this reciprocity is missing, since these old-age pensioners
already acquired entitlement to a pension increase reaching a certain age and income of the
because of their additional work activity does not come into consideration.
Pensioners in the described range are therefore discriminated against other
insured persons because they imposed the obligation to pay the insurance on the
transactions that have already been well entitled by law or the transaction which
for them has virtually the importance (contribution to the State policy
employment). The obligation to pay these premiums are related to
the purpose and objective of the social security old-age pensioners. As to the
the obligation of another, transcending the limits of relevant law and limiting the
while avoiding the affected persons and, moreover, that uses such a restriction to the
purposes other than those for which it was established.
You must here take account that corresponds to the logic of the insurance to the citizen
premiums paid by that time, than the meaning and purpose is fulfilled, i.e. the insurance. in
the case of the pension until begins to receive the pension. This is in the premium
This body ended the relationship and the obligation to fulfil occur
the second body-insurer in the determined range. Thus, if the
the law on insurance no. 589/1992 Coll., as amended, stipulated to the contrary,
put this group of disabled citizens against citizens who
so far, contributions and pension are, therefore, currently built
two groups of citizens in the same situation in underprivileged position before
the law and admitted their discrimination.
Similarly, the situation appears to be on the issue of health insurance, which
insurance is included in the social security, together with the
insurance and pension contribution on State policy
employment. From this insurance when another gainful activity or
employment of old-age pensioners, although for him, another new claim,
sickness benefits, but to a much lesser extent, discriminatory, again.
The different status of the pensioners employed (obligatory insurance) and
economically active (voluntary insurance), as well as the diversity of
old-age pensioners ' claims with the same premiums, other workers,
in the first case creates discrimination even within the Group of workers
retirees without objective reasons to do so. That this inequality was
applied, should i be employed by a pensioner on a voluntary basis
decide whether it wants to keep receiving benefits or not, and depending on the
participate in insurance.
The same discrimination is to be found in the fact that the payment in question
premiums are stored only to those pensioners who are in work or
a similar proportion, or are self-employed. The law does not
obligations of the payment of insurance premiums for pensioners, who have also taxed
revenues, however, are from either income from capital or income
otherwise obtained, where apparently determined the necessity of solidarity often
has not been found to be, or has been neglected. It is therefore of unequal access in
the same conditions, thus also on discrimination.
(c) the protection of the acquired rights of the citizen):
According to the final provisions § 20 Act No. 100/1988 Coll., on social
security, in its present wording, the citizen by the length of the periods of employment and
Depending on the age of the legal entitlement to a retirement pension. If such a
legal claim arose, as to the right of a citizen of the acquired and cannot be arbitrarily
In addition to change or the fact that he would be fully or partially or odnímáno
the fact that he would be saved, it is still obliged to provide benefits
the pension, which he already has been granted by law. This will
appears to be illegal, often emerging opinion referred to for example. in
the opinion of the Ministry of labour and Social Affairs, which can be briefly
characterized as an opinion of "wage or pension". This would be fundamentally
violated the protection of acquired rights of the citizen and an important legal principle
security, the protection is provided by article. 1 of the Constitution of the United States, as well as
the provisions of article. 26 paragraph 2. 3 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, according to which
everyone has the right to obtain resources for their living needs work.
In terms of all of the above reasons, we consider the proposal of a group of MPs
The Chamber of Deputies for a reasonable if points out the contradiction
-with article 4, paragraph 2. 1 and 4, of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, according to which
the obligations of the citizens can be stored only on the basis of the law and in its
the limits, while the limitation of fundamental rights must be preserved
the essence and the meaning of and the restrictions must not be misused for other purposes,
-with article 3 (2). 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, prohibiting the
discrimination in the field of fundamental rights and freedoms,
-with article 2 (2). 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and political
rights and article 2, paragraph 1. 2 of the International Covenant on economic,
social and cultural rights, which impose a State-party
Therefore the Czech Republic, to ensure individuals protection on their territory
The contested provisions, however, are in violation of and
-with article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and political rights,
which provides that all are equal before the law and have the right to
the same protection without any discrimination, and the law has to be disabled
any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection
We have, therefore, considered that the proposal of the Group of members should be granted and the
the contested provisions of Act No. 589/1992 Coll., as amended, in
the proposed scope of the cancelled.
A different opinion of the judges. Vladimír Čermák and JUDr. Eva Zarembové
To reject the proposal of the Group of members of Parliament of the CZECH REPUBLIC
on cancellation of the ust. § 3 para. 1 (b). (c)), and (d)) of Act No. 589/1992 Coll., on the
social security and a contribution to State policy
employment, as regards old-age pensioners ' obligation to pay such
insurance, a Chamber of the Constitutional Court of the CZECH REPUBLIC, the above mentioned judges
The Constitutional Court of the CZECH REPUBLIC its opinion within the meaning of the provisions of § 14
Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, by the way, that
fully endorse the expression of judges. Vladimir Paula, JUDr.
Anthony Walks and JUDr. Vlastimila Ševčík, contained in paragraph 2
their different views on this matter.
For the reasons given in point 2 of that different opinions are therefore
the above mentioned judges of the Constitutional Court of the CZECH REPUBLIC considered that the proposal of the Group
Members should be upheld and the contested provisions of Act No. 589/1992
Coll., as amended, in the proposed scope of the cancelled.