272/2005 Sb.



FIND



The Constitutional Court



On behalf of the United States



The Constitutional Court ruled on 17. May 2005 in plenary in the composition of Stanislav

Package, Francis Skinner, Ivana Janů, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jiří Mucha, Jan

Musil, Jiří Nykodým, Pavel Rychetský, Miloslav Výborný and Michael

In the April draft of the District Court in the city of Mělník, for which it is

the President of the Senate. R. W., on the repeal of the provisions of § 11 (1) 5 of law

No. 229/1991 regulating ownership of land and other

agricultural property



as follows:



The provisions of § 11 (1) 5 of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll., on the adjustment of ownership

relationship to the land and other agricultural property, shall be repealed on the date of its publication in the

This finding in the statute book.



Justification



(I).



Day 10. in December 2004, the Constitutional Court was served with the District Court

in Mělník, in front of which is conducted under the SP. zn. 7 (C) 388/2003 proceedings

specify the property to "part of parcel No. 458/21-les, with an area of 0.5524 ha

According to the State, according to the State in PK in the real estate St. p-Nr. 152-

civic amenities, and pitches No 458/23 ", all in the cadastral authority and the municipality Kokořín.

This property has applied pursuant to Act No. 229/1991 Coll., on the adjustment of

the ownership of land and other agricultural property as amended by

amended, (hereinafter referred to as the "law of the land") are entitled to a release group

eight people. Ministry of Agriculture-Land Office Melnik decision

No j. 33530/2002/POOH/919-565/Castle of 11 November. September 2002, decided that the

These parties are the owners (co-owners) of the real estate in

ideal proportions specified in this decision. The applicant in the proceedings before the

the General Court, which is the National Heritage Institute, argues that this

the decision is factually wrong. I can think of is, inter alia, on the grounds that the

the castle of the Kokořína object that is marked as a building without CP./. on the st.

p-Nr. 152 in the cadastral authority and the municipality Kokořín, district Mělník-amenities

(hereinafter referred to as "the subject property"), is declared the Government Ordinance No.

132/2001 Coll., a national cultural monument. In this context, the applicant

He pointed out the provisions of § 11 (1) 5 of the law on land, which prevents the issue

of such property. There was a situation where decisions in this

things you will need to proceed in accordance with § 154 para. Code of civil procedure

and apply the provisions of § 11 (1) 5 of the law on land, according to the

which such property cannot be issued until the time of the adoption of laws

governing the management and protection of cultural relics. Because the appellant in

this context, concludes that this provision is inconsistent with the

the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, in particular article. 1 of the Constitution of the United

Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") and article. 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms

(hereinafter referred to as "the Charter"), filed pursuant to article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution and pursuant to section 64

paragraph. 3 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No.

320/2002 Coll. (hereinafter referred to as the "law on the Constitutional Court") proposal to repeal

This provision.



His proposal warrants that new laws governing the management and conservation of

cultural relics have not been received, as the law still applies.

20/1987 Coll. on State heritage preservation, and since the adoption of the law on soil

already more than 13 years. Further notes that pursuant to section 4 of the Government Ordinance

the law of the land (to the right of the law No. 20/1987 Coll.) are de facto released

the individual administrative acts that in its wake, with regard to the

the provisions of § 11 (1) 5 of the law on land, some of the eligible persons in

the meaning of the land opened the path to restitution by that thing

It is from the list of national cultural monuments launched, or its

the range of defined otherwise. Other eligible persons, then the implementation

on the contrary, the restitution claim block, without in some way

expressed by reference to the time a border "an uncertain future event",

i.e.. the adoption of new legal norms governing the management and conservation of

cultural monuments. The provisions of § 11 (1) 5 of the law of the land is only

blocks, the deferral of the implementation of the restitution claim legitimate existentního

the person, not the negative condition of the existence of such a claim. In

the present case, moreover, the subject property was declared a national

cultural monument in an administrative procedure.



This legal status, according to the appellant, leads to the creation of several

subsets of restituentů. They are the ones who have exercised their rights to

assets at the time of its making has been a national cultural monument, and

It is not yet. Furthermore, these are the people who have been following a claim

the property from the list of national cultural monuments is allocated.

The next group are the people for whom the claim was

the property was declared a national cultural monument. Finally, as to the persons who

have put forward their claims for the existence of section 11 (1) 5 of the law of the land.

On the basis of the Rapporteur came to the conclusion that such a condition is

a violation of the constitutional principle of equality of subjects of law. Exclusion of certain

the Group of eligible persons from the realization of their claims for restitution

the circumstances, does not hold water. The right to property-related injustices mitigation is

in top condition, described the State of the request reasonable to privilege

the protection of the national cultural monuments the new legal standards.



II.



The Constitutional Court first assessed the fulfilment of the conditions under which the

proposal for a decision. The proposal handed to the legitimate claimant within the meaning of § 64

paragraph. 3 of the law on the Constitutional Court. The proposal also meets the condition of § 66

the law on the Constitutional Court, if the contested provisions of § 11 (1) 5 it was not

has not yet changed. As well as this article meets a condition. 1 of the Constitution and article. 1

Of the Charter, which are the provisions of the constitutional order, which is to be § 11

paragraph. 5 of law about land conflict. Likewise, there were reasons for the

termination of the proceeding within the meaning of section 67 of the Act on the Constitutional Court. It is also

the condition article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution, since it is necessary for the resolution of the matter,

to the ordinary court has applied section 11 para. 5 of the law on land, since the applicant about this

the provisions of statement of claim bases its (sub). Therefore, the Constitutional Court

called pursuant to § 69 para. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court of the Chamber of Deputies

The Czech Parliament and the Senate of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, as

the parties to this proposal. At the same time under section 48

paragraph. 2 of the Act on the Constitutional Court asked the Constitutional Court on the expression of

The National Heritage Institute and the Ministry of culture. Further requested the Court

the file in this matter under SP. zn. 7 (C) 388/2003 at the District Court in

Mělník.



The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in its observations dated

Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies, 19.1.2005, signed by PhDr. Lubomír Zaorálkem,

simply stated, the proposal was approved by the constitutionally prescribed way delivery

the necessary majority of 21.5.1991 Federal Assembly, was

signed by the respective constitutional factors and properly declared. Under consideration

the law was adopted within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and constitutionally

in the prescribed manner. In so doing, the legislature acted in the belief that

the adopted law is in accordance with the Constitution. When it comes to considering the matter, it was

dependent on the finding of the Constitutional Court promulgated under no. 57/1999 Coll.

a similar provision was repealed § 8 para. 6 of law No. 87/1991 Coll. on

out-of-court rehabilitation, as amended. It is therefore on the

The Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of the contested provisions and released

the relevant decision.



In the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, which the Constitutional Court

posted by day 20.1.2005 Chairman MUDr. Přemysl Sobotka, States that

the law of soil was conceived in a similar manner as the law No. 87/1991

Coll. on out-of-court rehabilitation. Therefore, the contested provisions of § 11

paragraph. 5 of the law on land the mirror image of the provisions of § 8 para. 6 of the Act

on extrajudicial rehabilitation, which was repealed finding no 57/1999

SB. It is also the only reason that led by the Senate of the applicant to

reflection on the unconstitutionality of the provisions, without, of course, over the

This framework dealt with the specifics of the law of the land, which could, where appropriate,

justify a different mode for the restitution of national cultural monuments, or

in the words of the Constitutional Court, to be "reasonable grounds for their exclusion from the

the normal mode of the restitution process, "according to the law of the land. The Senate

in doing so, does not have convincing reasons and arguments for limitations

ownership of a particular group of former owners or their legal

successors to the valid legislation is not arbitrary

the legislature, since the proposal is directed against the provision, which became

part of the law at a time when the Senate has not yet been established. The Senate also

He had no way to deal with this provision in the debates to novelizacím

the law of the land, since none of the present amendment to this

the provisions have not yet touched. Beyond the scope of that expression still States

that the proposal should lead to a deeper reflection on the used

legal technique, which is in the law "places" of the future will

the legislature for acceptance or contingent upon the related legislation,

that, however, may not be realized for various reasons. So the question arises

the concept of "the silence of the legislator". However, the Constitutional Court, in order to

to assess the constitutionality of the contested provisions and decided about it.




In addition, the Constitutional Court has requested representation according to § 48 para. 2 of the law on

The Constitutional Court from the Ministry of culture and National Heritage Institute.

For the Ministry of culture is expressed by Deputy Minister of culture of JUDr.

P. s., which drew attention to the different opinion of JUDr. Vladimir Paul (to the

finding no 57/1999 Coll.), with which the Ministry of culture completely

aligns itself. In the opinion of the Ministry not to § 11 (1) 5 of the law on

soil is unconstitutional because it only declares, when it will be possible to restitution and

consideration of the particular group of assets that have fallen into the hands of the State,

actually go. Similarly, the Ministry points to the conclusion that

a different opinion, according to which "the Constitutional Court ruled at a flat rate on

place the legislature about how that property belonging to the national cultural

the monuments will be issued according to the other provisions of the law on extrajudicial

rehabilitation, without respect, that this provision the legislature's

has reserved for himself. for the competency of the Government decision, in

What are the assumptions and conditions respecting the protection of the public interest

the property will be released. " Therefore, the Ministry of culture does not see any reason for

repeal of § 11 (1) 5 of the law on the ground and wait for the new legislation proposes

protection of cultural monuments. In this context, stated that the Government was

approved the substantive intent of the law on the protection of cultural monuments and heritage

care. In response to her was in October 2001, presented a draft law on

the protection of cultural monuments and heritage preservation, which was then sent to the

The Chamber of Deputies. However, it returned to the Government of 13.2.2002

rework. According to the Ministry of culture is now real, that the Government will

the new draft law presented in 4. quarter of 2006. Finally,

The Ministry of culture, beyond the scope of § 48 para. 2 of the Act on the Constitutional Court,

have recommended to request also the representation of the Ministry of agriculture.



III. And



In proceedings for annulment of the law it is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court

First, to examine whether the legislation, which the proposal refers to, was

within the limits of the Constitution provided for approved competency and constitutionally prescribed

manner (section 68, paragraph 2, of the law on the Constitutional Court). However, this can only

If a constitutional modification, based on which was under review

legislation enacted. The provisions of § 11 (1) 5 of the law on land apply in

the original version, which was adopted by the Federal Assembly of the CZECHOSLOVAK FEDERAL REPUBLIC day

on the basis of a valid 21.5.1991 Constitutional Act on Czechoslovak.

the Federation. This Constitutional Act was repealed article. paragraph 112. 2 of the Constitution Day

1993. therefore, it was no longer necessary to the Constitutional Court the question of the fulfilment of the

These two conditions.



III. (B)



As regards the assessment of the content of section 11 (1) 5 of the law on soil in relation to the

the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and its international obligations,

The Constitutional Court concluded that the proposal to repeal this provision is

reasonable grounds. Was guided by the following considerations.



The provisions of § 11 (1) 5 of the law on land, which stipulates that "the property,

that is declared a national cultural monument, cannot be issued until the

the adoption of the laws governing the management and protection of cultural relics. "

follows up on similar provisions of § 8 para. 6 of the law on extrajudicial

rehabilitation of the cancelled finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/98 of 10.3.1999

[A collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as "collection

the decision "), Volume 13, finding no. 38; promulgated under no. 57/1999].

This provision lays down that "the thing that is declared by the national

cultural heritage, shall be issued until the time when the Czech National Council and the

Slovak National Council shall adopt a new law on the Administration and protection of the cultural

landmarks. ". Both provisions differ only in the formulačně, when one talks about

"laws", the second of the "law" that has to be accepted by both the national

Councils. With regard to the article. 9 the Constitutional Act No. 143/1968 Coll., on

the Czechoslovak Federation, is, however, no doubt that this will understand the laws,

the adoption of which fell within the exclusive legislative competence of the Republics and the

which ruled the National Council separately. The Constitutional Court did not also

some differences, which should lead to other conclusions, therefore, that in the

the case of the law on extrajudicial rehabilitation should be about "things"

whereas in the case of the law of the land is a national cultural sights such as the

"real estate". That, in the latter case does not come into consideration as a rule

fear of the exportation of such monuments outside the territory of the State, of course,

the very issue of cultural relics protection regime, however, has not been

the subject of this proceeding.



The proposal to repeal section 11 para. 5 of the law on soil is essentially based on the

a summary of the reasons already mentioned being exercised by Constitutional Court No.

57/1999 Coll., the Constitutional Court did not find the reasons for which the procedure should be

pursuant to section 13 of the Act on the Constitutional Court from its legal opinion. In

This preceding the award of the Constitutional Court found that the law of the United

the National Council of No 20/1987 Coll. on State care monument, provides in paragraph 4 that

determining what is to be regarded as a national monument, it performs

Government by regulation. The provision of section 9 are laid down special

obligations of owner of cultural monuments, section 13 of the pre-emption

State to these things, and article 15, paragraph 2. 3 modifies the procedure in cases where the

owner neglects the care of the national cultural monument. The latter

provision allows, in certain cases, the expropriation of assets. In

transitional provisions § 42 para. 2 then States that the national cultural

monuments declared under the former legislation shall be considered as

national cultural monuments under this Act. These provisions shall also apply in the

present as well as the implementing Decree of the Ministry of culture of the Czech

the Socialist Republic No. 66/1988 implementing the law of the United

the National Council of No 20/1987 Coll. on State heritage preservation, as amended by

amended, under which leads to the central list of cultural

monuments in which features also a cultural monument is

It has been declared a "national".



The legal situation of the beneficiaries under the law of the land, therefore, such that

This law shall not exclude from the right to the return of the land, buildings and structures

belonging to the original farmhouse, if were transferred to the State or to

other legal persons from 25. February 1948 to 1. January 1990 way

referred to in section 6 (1). 1 of this Act. The law on land, however, for their

claims provides a barrier in the form of conditions, which is the adoption of the law

relating to the management and protection of cultural relics. This condition is

in the opinion of the Constitutional Court, formulated in a way that is contrary to the

the requirements, which are subject to the legislation of the Democratic

the rule of law, and this for various reasons. At the time of the determination of the law

This species existed. This can be inferred with reference to the text

repealed § 8 paragraph. 6 the law on out-of-court rehabilitation, that this

the condition means the repeal of law No 20/1987 Coll. and its replacement

the new law. In terms of legislative techniques, however, can be an existing

the law being changed, and thus adapted to the new conditions of development of the company

the successive amendments. Nothing, therefore, does not force the legislature to the original

the law set aside and accepted the new law just because it assumes different

the law, which in addition to the management of cultural sites not directly related. It is not

Therefore, certain that the condition of a claim ever filled.



The affected section 11 para. 5 of the law on land also does not set any content

the elements by which it would be possible to determine whether the condition of § 11

paragraph. 5 the envisaged adjustment has already been adopted and how this can

to assess. It would be possible to argue that this is about any law that

modifies the specified subject matter. It can even go on a law that applies to

cultural heritage, to which the law of the land does not apply at all. The laws,

Since the effectiveness of the law on soil govern Affairs in some way

management and protection of cultural relics, has been adopted for more.

It is Act No. 241/1992 Coll., amending and supplementing Act

The Czech National Council No. 20/1987 Coll. on State heritage preservation, as amended by

the Czech National Council Act No. 425/1990 Coll., on district offices, edit

their ambit and on certain other related measures

Act No. 363/1999 Coll., amending Act No. 20/1987 Coll., on State

heritage preservation, as amended by Act No 246/1992 Coll., Act No. 121/2000 Coll.

on the protection of the collections of the Museum of the nature and on the amendments to certain other laws,

Act No. 129/2000 Coll., amending and repealing certain laws related

the law on regions, law on municipalities, district offices and law

the Act on the capital city of Prague, as amended, law No.

146/2001 Coll., amending Act No. 20/1987 Coll., on State conservation area

care, as amended, Act No. 320/2002 Coll., amending and

cancellation of certain acts in connection with the termination of the activities of the district

authorities, as amended, law No 18/2004 Coll., on the recognition of

professional qualification and other eligibility of nationals of the Member

States of the European Union and on amendments to certain laws (law on the recognition of

professional qualifications), Act No. 186/2004 Coll., amending certain


laws in connection with the adoption of the law on the customs administration of the Czech Republic,

and Act No. 1/2005 Coll., amending Act No. 242/2000 Coll., on the

financial destination of the proceeds of certain taxes to the territorial entities and

some State funds (law on budgetary determine taxes), as amended by

amended, and some other laws that relate to

itself the law No 20/1987 Coll. materie in it adjusted in terms of

management and protection of cultural monuments (not only national). However, you can specify

other laws, such as the. Law No. 101/2001 Coll., on the return of illegally

exported cultural goods, as amended by Act No. 180/2003 Coll., or

Act No. 71/1994 Coll., on the sale and export of objects of cultural value, in

as amended. In itself, however, should such inaccurately

formulated by the referring provision did not constitute a problem.



At the time, when the rule of law based on respect for the rights and

freedoms of man and citizen (article 1, paragraph 1, of the Constitution) binds the possibility

the right to restitution so vaguely formulated circumstances arises from

regard to the protection of the rights of the beneficiaries under the Act on the soil completely different

the situation. Here it is necessary to evaluate as unconstitutional state. The law on land because

infringes the principle of the rule of law-making, according to which if

the condition laid down in the law of connects with the entry into force of

other legislation, it must be the fact that occurs and the

that the recipients be announced in some way. In the present case, however, is not

clear whether Parliament for various reasons (e.g. a conflict of requirements

heritage protection and owners), with restitučními claims directly

are not related, not adopt the envisaged adjustment. As well as

It is not clear how the time of opening of the period for making a claim

authorised persons should know. You cannot therefore be regarded as arbitrary decisions

the legislature has not yet in the field of management and protection of cultural relics

did not accept formally the new law at all, if this § 11 (1) 5 of law

on land, however, is meant to be overbearing and discriminatory procedure at the same time, when

on this condition, moreover, vague and inconsistent with the principles of the law of

in the rule of law, the possibility of the restitution claim binds.

The law, the purpose of which is the removal of certain property injustices, so

in fact, a reference to the famous so called. "temporary" legislation acts of injustice

already the next generation of beneficiaries. Just for completeness, the Constitutional Court

recalls that the procedure for the award No 57/1999 Coll., the Ministry of culture

stated that the proposal of the substantive intent of the law on the protection of cultural relics

will be submitted to the Government for consideration in June 1999. Now in a new control

States that the submission of the draft of the new law can be expected in a 4. quarter

in 2006, that is, until the next parliamentary term.



Contrary to the principle of the rule of law and the equality of subjects of law is also

the situation, which it has already been pointed out in the report No 57/1999 Coll., Constitutional

the Court here concluded that about what it will be. national cultural

landmarks released to authorised persons, in fact, the Government decides that its

Regulation may omit certain things from the list, or a statement

a national cultural monument and limit or advanced. How current knowledge

show the Government can expand the list of additional national cultural

the monuments also intervene in the ongoing restitution proceedings and some

a person from it "temporarily" excluded. An example of such a procedure may be

just Government Regulation No. 132/2001 Coll., on the Declaration of certain cultural

the sights of the national cultural monuments. In section 1 (1). 1 (b). and section 6) is

as a national cultural monument was declared "the Castle Kokořín. According to section 2 of this

the regulation came into force on 1.1.2002. It was released on the day, 28.3.2001

at a time when proceedings for restitution was the right group

restituentů, who claimed on his release.



There was a situation that neither the previous find no 57/1999 Coll.

specifically, however, this difference does not alter the validity of the

supporting reasons of this finding in the present case. In this context,

considers the Constitutional need to state that can evaluate only the constitutionality of

the contested legislation, it is not for him to anticipate future legal

the decision, even if the proceedings in the matter occasioned to perform

specific control of the constitutionality of § 11 (1) 5 of the law of the land. It will therefore be the

the General Court to assess whether, in this case comes into consideration

taking into account the fact that during the restitution procedure was issued by a Government

Regulation No 132/2001 Coll., which with effect on the date stated 1.1.2002

the property that is to be the subject of restitution, the national cultural

monument, or not, and what's the effect on the application of § 154 para. 1

Code of civil procedure, pursuant to which the judgment is decisive for

status at the time of its publication. The task of the Constitutional Court is to decide

on the constitutionality of legislation, which is to be in the court proceedings

used, since it relies on one of the parties to the proceedings before the General

Court, specifically the party complaining. The subject of the proceedings is to determine

ownership of the property, which is a national cultural monument,

that was at the time of initiation, it was, however, at the time of

ownership of a group of defendants in the proceedings before the General

by the Court. In the present case should lead to establishment of the right of ownership

by decision of the Ministry of agriculture, the land Office, Montgomery

by decision No. 33530/2002/POOH/919-565/Castle of 11 November. September 2002,

which came into force the date of 24.1.2003, at a time when the question

the property was declared a national cultural monument. Therefore, even this

the fact that the incidental case in just decided by the things different from the

the circumstances in which it was decided upon finding no 57/1999 Coll., cannot

the outcome of the proceedings have the effect, regardless of the amount of emphasis placed on the fact that the

even in the course of proceedings on the constitutionality of the legislation on the proposal by the Court according to the

article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution the Constitutional Court cannot anticipate next steps

the General Court in a particular case, the less then its result.



Government Ordinance No. 132/2001 Coll. has been issued, although in terms of forms of legal

prescription, de facto, however, individual administrative act (you can talk about the

measures) that as a result, potential beneficiaries had closed

the path to the restitution of the Castle Kokořín. In this respect, it was in finding sp.

Zn. PL. ÚS 25/98 pointed out, and the appellant's argument that this takes

so there are several subgroups among the restituenty, which consists mainly of

those who have exercised their rights to property, which at the time of the claim

has been a national cultural monument and it is now, then people who have

was a after claiming the property from the list of national

cultural sites earmarked, and finally, the person that their claims

disregard for the existence of the provisions of § 8 para. 6 of law No.

87/1991 and for which, in the opinion of the Supreme Court cannot be

to the demise of claim expiry (Cpjn 50/1993, publ. No 7-8/1993,

page 254, paragraph 11 Collections of court decisions and opinions). Now, however,

as a result of new Government Regulation No. 132/2001 Coll. formed a group of people,

that claim to apply to real estate, which at the time of application

the claim has not been a national cultural monument (so blocking

the provisions of § 11 (1) 5 of the law on land did not apply), and Additionally it

have been declared (which is the case pending before the ordinary court, which

This proposal). Without changes to the law of the land, which was

claimed on the return of property, which at the time of nothing interferes,

may be prevented by regulation of the Government claim, or vice versa

disposal of the asset from the list of national cultural monuments could be

restitution in addition. Therefore, the question arises how to deal with the

by modifying the combine the principles of the rule of law and the equality of subjects of law including

the prohibition of discrimination.



Ústavností definition of the circle of beneficiaries in the restitution legislation,

specifically, in the law on out-of-court rehabilitation, and in the law on land,

The Constitutional Court dealt with already in the findings, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/94 (collection

the decision, volume 1, finding no. 38; promulgated under no. 169/1994 Coll.) and sp.

Zn. PL. ÚS 8/95 (ECR, volume 4, finding no. 83; promulgated under the

No 29/1996 Coll.). The question of whether there is a reasonable legal grounds for

exclusion of certain entities from the circle of those different characters in a specific

the title of the restitution, the Constitutional Court answered in the negative when

the framework of a possible restriction is given only article. 11 (1) 2 of the Charter,

IE, that some things can only be owned by citizens of the United

of the Republic. It deduced that the Charter without authorising the legislature to

the determination of the other terms of the acquisition of property (whether in the framework of the

the restitution process, or in General). For these reasons, the condition was permanent

stay rozpornou with article declared. 11 (1) 2 of the Charter. Ústavností

conditions in the form of the release "of the new law on the Administration and protection of the cultural

"Czech National Council and the Slovak National Council, Constitutional

the Court dealt with in the report No 57/1999 Coll. in the analysis of the legislation on this

the section concludes that, for a real or movable property


as a national cultural monument is not decisive, what is this thing

the ownership regime. This is about the law, which provides for the owner of a

restrictions and special arrangements in cases of such property

did not take care of properly. Yet, the Czech National Council Act No. 20/1987 Coll. was

issued in quite different social and economic conditions and some

its provisions are no doubt already neaplikovatelná, the Constitutional Court had

for that it gives the State enough money to protect cultural values

While respecting the rights of the restituentů. The obligation of the owner of the cultural heritage

(i.e. national) properly care for its conservation and maintenance of results from

the provisions of § 9 of the Czech National Council Act No. 20/1987 Coll., where are also

established an extensive conservation authorities permission in relation to

the owner, who does not fulfil his duties. In section 13 is based priority

the right of the State to buy the cultural monuments, etc. The Constitutional Court in 1999

It concluded that the national cultural monuments from the point of view of the law on

extrajudicial rehabilitation, there is good reason for their exclusion

from the normal mode of the restitution process. Therefore, it appears valid to modify

as the arbitrariness of the legislature, without compelling reasons and arguments

a group of former owners or their legal successors

discriminates, without prevailing public interest in the protection of values.



The same conclusion reached by the Constitutional Court in this case. In the context of

with the assessment of the obstacles to the application of the restitution claim in section 11 (1) 5 in the

the law on land in conjunction with article. 1 of the Charter did not find the reasons why

from the former the argument to depart. On the contrary, it considers necessary in addition

compared to the original line of argument pointed out that these people are after the abolition of section 8

paragraph. 6 of the law on extrajudicial rehabilitation in an unequal position with

other beneficiaries even to a greater extent than it was before

the announcement of the award No 57/1999 Coll., it is not only about the other

the person who can apply (to) restitution claims to

real estate, on which the impediment of section 11 (1) 5. In addition, the

Since 1999, are in an unequal position with authorized persons

a similar obstacle (§ 8 paragraph 6 of the law on extrajudicial rehabilitation)

originally, before it was canceled as unconstitutional. It's an obvious

contrary to the article. 4 (4). 3 of the Charter, which provides that legal restrictions

fundamental rights and freedoms must apply equally to all cases that

meet the specified conditions. Here meant to refer to a similar situation,

that in relation to the cancellation conditions of permanent residence in the Act on

extrajudicial rehabilitation finding no 164/1994 Coll. was the Constitutional Court

forced to deal with in finding no. 29/1996 Coll., also by canceling this conditions in

the law of the land.



The Constitutional Court considered those reasons as sufficient to comply with the proposal on the

annulment of the contested provisions, without considering whether or not the question

no constitutional concept of "the silence of the legislator, which applied in the

your observations of the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. Only

notes that in the present case, it is not from the perspective of the theory of creation

law on the so-called. the silence of the legislator, but of his possible omissions. For

such omissions can be in the present case, the mark situation when the legislature

After the publication of the finding did not indicate no 57/1999 Coll. in compliance status

authorized persons according to the law of the land with the authorized persons according to the law

on extrajudicial rehabilitation.



Because the legislature has done so and the contested provisions of § 11 (1) 5

the law on soil was found to be in breach of article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution, as well as with the

article. 1 in conjunction with article. 4 (4). 3 of the Charter, it was decided by

According to the § 70 para. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court repealed on the date of its publication in the

This finding in the statute book, and given the consent of participants

management within the meaning of § 44 para. 2 of the Act on the Constitutional Court without oral

the negotiations.



The President of the Constitutional Court:



JUDr. Rychetský in r.