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relationship to the land and other agricultural property, shall be repealed on the date of its publication in the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