The Proposal To Cancel Some. Ust. Cust. About Safety. On Social Security

Original Language Title: k návrhu na zrušení někt. ust. zák. o pojist. na soc. zabezpečení

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.
92/1995 Sb.



FIND



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,



as follows:



The proposal is rejected.



Justification



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

old-age pension.



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

rights.



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

ratio.



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)).

the law].



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

paid retirement.



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

conclusions:



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.



Different views



1.



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

the unemployed.



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

State.



(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

against discrimination.



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

against discrimination.



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.



2.



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.

Related Laws