60/2007 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic
The Constitutional Court ruled June 13. in December 2006, as amended by an amending resolution
of 14 June. March 2007 in the plenary in the composition of Stanislav Package, František
Duchoň, Vlasta Formankova, Pavel Holländer, Ivana Janů, Vladimir Crust,
Dagmar Lastovecká, Jiří Mucha, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodým, Pavel
Rychetský, Miloslav Výborný and Michael Židlická in the matter of the proposal
The District Court in Břeclav to repeal section 21. 2 Act No 449/2001
Coll., about hunting,
as follows:
The proposal is rejected.
Justification
(I).
Submission of 9 October. in December 2004, the Constitutional Court delivered 16 June.
December 2004, designed by the District Court in the municipality Břeclav, according to § 64 paragraph. 3 of the law
No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by later regulations (hereinafter referred to
"the law on the Constitutional Court") § 21. 2 Act No 449/2001
Coll., about hunting, and in connection with the management of the neskončeným
draft decision on the annulment Committee Honebního
communities (B). held at this Court under SP. zn. 9 (C) 931/2004.
The appellant points to the section 22 paragraph 1(b). 8 of the law on hunting, according to which the
If the decision of the general meeting of the honebního communities in
illegal or contrary to the statutes, may, within 15 days from the date of
the decision of the learned, but not later than 3 months after the holding of the General
the meeting, to demand that the Court had pronounced the nullity of a decision by the General
meeting, or its right to exist. The contested provisions of § 21. 2
the law on hunting while allows you to make decisions about how to use
company-including the conclusion, amendment or termination of the contract
lease hunting ground, then deciding that it is the provisions of § 21. 1
(a). (c)) of the law on wildlife management has been entrusted to the competence of the general meeting, it was
by decision of the general meeting passed the hunting Committee. Therefore, if the
How to use a hunting license shall be decided by the general meeting may, with the honebního
communities seek annulment of this decision.
Delegates, however, if the general meeting of their powers to the Committee of the honebního
communities, there is no law to pursue the possibility of voicing
the invalidity of the decision of the Committee and honebního communities. The applicant will
therefore considers that the majority of the general meeting which decides on
the migration of its competence to the Committee, to deny its members the possibility to challenge
the decision of the Committee. Delegation of powers is in his opinion
the law expressly provided for and in itself is neither illegal nor in
contrary to the statutes. For these reasons, considers that failed to
the legislature allow Member honebního Guild challenged and
the decision of the Committee of the honebního, is a violation of the rights of any member of the
honebního communities to transfer some of the decisions of the relevant General
meeting of the Committee on the shooting. The contested provisions deemed
inconsistent with article. 10, paragraph 1. 2 and paragraph 36. 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms
(hereinafter referred to as "the Charter") and proposed its abolition.
II.
The Constitutional Court in accordance with section 69 of the Act on the Constitutional Court sent the proposal to the
opening of the proceedings, the parties-the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate
The Parliament of the Czech Republic and requested the opinion of the Ministry's
Agriculture.
In the Chamber of Deputies is an introduction rekapitulován the content of the proposal
the annulment of the contested legal provisions and, consequently, the legislative
the process leading to the adoption of this provision. Adopted amendments
to the extent that the contested provisions. According to the legislature was the law on the
hunting approved after duly carried out by the normotvorném process, and
The Chamber of Deputies acted in the belief that the law is in accordance with the
The Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter the Constitution) and the Charter.
The appellant's interpretation, as regards the right to protection against unauthorized
zasahováním to private and family life (article 10, paragraph 2, of the Charter),
According to the Chamber of deputies can be considered as very restrictive and in particular
useful only for individuals. The shooting of the fellowship is the civic
the Association of an existing under the applicable legislation, and is based on the
democratic principles to enable to apply to its members according to the
the law on associations of citizens and the statutes of the Association. Delegation
the powers of the general meeting of the Chamber of Deputies, the Committee does not consider hunting
illegal or in violation of the statutes; the only other option is the
on the selection of honebnímu Guild that its activities when deciding on
How to use company-including the conclusion, amendment or
termination of the contract on the lease of hunting ground, was effective. The honebního
the Guild may, however, the decision of the Committee to discuss the honebního on General
meeting of the honebního communities. It will be her decision to be considered for
illegal or contrary to the statutes, may, in accordance with section 22 paragraph 1(b). 8
the law on wildlife management to pursue the invalidity of the decision of the general catch
meeting of the Guild set procedure before an independent and impartial
the Court referred to in article. 36 of the Charter. For completeness, the Chamber of Deputies then said,
the same principle has been applied already in Act No. 225/1946 Coll.
hunting, and in section 10, paragraph 1. 3.
The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in its comments also reviewed the
the course of the legislative process before the second Chamber of the Parliament. He stated that
the issue of judicial review of a decision made in the framework of the honebního
the Guild has been the subject of discussion in the Senate bodies primarily in the
the Committee for territorial development, public administration and the environment.
The result of the discussion was the amendment of the said Committee, recommending that the
the full Senate to supplement the provisions of section 22, paragraph. 8 of the law on hunting of
the permissions of the members of honebního communities to pursue judicial review
the decision taken by the members of honebního communities outside the general meeting
(section 22, paragraph 7 of the law on hunting), which the Senate approved. To the contested
the provisions of § 21. 2 in the context of the provision of section 22(2). 8 of the law on
hunting has not been challenged the constitutional objection, and therefore the Senate in this direction
approve any amendments.
According to the Senate, it is certainly true that if the law on hunting
explicitly set permissions for members of honebního communities to pursue,
the Court said that the annulment of the decision of the Committee on how to honebního
use of the company-not by any doubts about
limitation of the rights of such persons, including doubts about the constitutionality of the contested
the provisions. However, even in the absence of such adjustments cannot be with
the petitioner identified. Decision honebního the Committee about how to use
company-according to § 21. 1 (a). (c)) of the law on hunting
in the opinion of the Senate can be regarded as a decision which hunting Committee
performs not within its own competence, but within the scope of the
the General Assembly, which this scope on it temporarily. The law on the
hunting does not preclude in any way the general meeting at any time, of its decision to
the migration scope and exercise this competence repeatedly in the context of the
your own decisions. If it can be inferred that the interpretation of the decisions
honebního of the Committee within the scope delegated to him is actually
temporary exercise of the competence of the general meeting, there is no reason why, at the same time
by analogy, the nedovodit and the honebního of the Committee's decision, issued in
under this scope is covered by section 22, paragraph. 8 of the law on
hunting. If the rights in favour of the members of honebního communities
interpret by using the constitutionally Conformal interpretation, does not appear the Senate proposal
reason.
In addition, the Senate recalled that the appellant in the context of the proposal on
repeal of § 21. 2 the law on hunting failed to propose to cancel
also the reference to this provision is contained in the provisions of section 22, paragraph. 5 of law
about hunting.
The Minister of agriculture, by letter of 2 July 2002. June 2005 a proposal for a
annulment of the contested provisions did, identified with arguments
the petitioner.
III.
The Constitutional Court in accordance with section 68, paragraph. 2 of the law on the Constitutional Court
dealt with the question of whether the law, which is namítána the unconstitutionality
the contested provision was adopted and published within the limits of the Constitution laid down
competence and constitutionally prescribed way.
This is the law no 449/2001 Coll., on game management, as amended
legislation (Act No. 320/2002 Coll., Act No. 59/2003 Coll. and Act No.
444/2005 Coll.). In this respect, the relevant Council prints,
těsnopiseckých news and information about the progress of the vote, the Constitutional Court found
the Chamber of Deputies approved the Bill on the day of its annual session
September 21, 2001, the Senate discussed the proposal at its meeting of 26 May. October 2001 and
returned it to the House of representatives with amendments on 30. October
2001. The draft law in the version approved by the Senate Chamber of Deputies
adopted at its meeting of 27 June. November 2001. After the signature of the President of the
of the Republic and the Prime Minister has been promulgated in the collection of laws in
the amount of the 168 under number 449/2001 Coll., the law in question was adopted, and
issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and the constitutionally prescribed
in a way. Adopted the amendment to the contested provisions did not
to the extent, therefore, by the Constitutional Court.
IV.
After this discovery came the Constitutional Court to assess the content of the contested
the provisions of the law in terms of its compliance with the constitutional order of the Czech
Republic [article 87, paragraph 1, of the Constitution)].
The whole of the provisions, part of which the applicant is challenging, as follows:
"section 21
The general meeting of honebního communities
(1) the competence of the general meeting belong to the
and choice and honebního) the revocation of the Mayor, who is also the Chairman of the
honebního Committee, Deputy Mayor of honebního and other members of the honebního
the Committee,
(b) approve the proposals of the Mayor of honebního) or honebního of the Committee on the
financial management and the use of the net proceeds,
(c)) to decide how to use company-including
the conclusion, amendment or termination of the contract on the lease of a hunting license,
(d) a decision to amend the articles of Association),
(e) the adoption of the decision of the owner) hunting land přičleněných to the
Wild Hunt for a member of the honebního community,
(f)) decisions on other issues, if so this law or
If it's reserves by the general meeting.
(2) the general meeting may delegate the competence referred to in paragraph 1 (b). (c)) on the
the shooting Committee. "
Being the applicant requests the annulment of the provisions of paragraph 2:
"The general meeting may delegate the competence referred to in paragraph 1 (b). (c)) on the
the shooting Committee. ".
Application for annulment of the contested provisions is justified only once
caveat: the transfer of competence of the general meeting of the Fellowship, honebního
against that decision of the communities brojit in court, on the
the shooting Committee, whose decision is not actionable in court, the hunting
the Fellowship of his majority to deny a member the right to challenge the decision of the General
meeting on how to use a hunting license, possibly with her disposition.
In this procedure the applicant sees the violation of article. 10, paragraph 1. 2 and article. 36
paragraph. 1 of the Charter.
With this view, the Constitutional Court does not identify.
The Constitutional Court notes that article 10 of the Charter is protected by the right to
the protection of private and family life, which can be primarily to understand
the privacy of the person to which you cannot, without the consent of or without
the express provisions of the law to intervene. This Privacy means
in particular, the integrity of the family and family cohabitation, integrity
dwellings, protecting postal or professional secrets. According to its paragraph
2 everyone has the right to not be in his private and family
life at all, i.e. that the State will provide guarantees for the protection of the person
rights.
The Constitutional Court of the nature of the rights of hunting and its legal adjustments already
dealt with, and it's in the plenum of the Constitutional Court finding, SP. zn. PL. TC 34/03
(note the red: competition No 49/2007 Coll.), when he stated that his
the essence of the protection of wildlife, as well as protection of wildlife management as a national
cultural heritage. Hunting is legal editing defined as
relationship to the wild beasts, which are part of the ecosystem, and its performance
It is bound on the approved territory of the hunting ground.
Exercise of the right of hunting, or participation in an association which aims at performance
rights and obligations with the myslivostí United, however, in terms of
the Constitution goes far beyond what can be collectively designated as the
privacy. Even if legal regulation does not constitute a modification as
extracurricular activities, but as a purposeful and regulated activities for the protection of
and the development of nature, there is the aspect of zájmovosti in the construction of editing
honebního Fellowship to the obvious, its membership is built on
a voluntary basis, with the possibility of any termination of membership, that is, on the
It can be regarded as the holder of the individual-is
social activity of the aprobovanou State to the protection and the development of one of the
components of the environment-the game.
In the case under examination, the appellant apparently believes that the intervention in the
the law on the protection of privacy is just not providing protection to the interests of
individuals within the Association (the honebního communities), which is a member of.
If it is, then you can consider the opinion of the appellant in the
this respect for the above peace and giving preference to tapered acceptable
the absolute protection of the interests of the individual against the interests of the Association as such.
The fact that a person voluntarily submits their interest within the
an Association of persons of the same, the specific interest, which is the exercise of the right
hunting and related obligations to protect wildlife, and by the
the entry into such an association or Guild accepts, that this
interest will promote the community as a whole, which will be on behalf of the
its members appear uniform, about intervention in the right to privacy
does not indicate. Does not indicate to him, even if it is the Fellowship organised
so, that is decided by the will of his matters most, possibly even
a qualified majority of its members, since the principle of the law is to bargain collectively
just the ability to promote the interests of individuals together, as one unit.
If this is all at least the basic internal mechanisms
the corresponding democratic principles, which are largely
shaped by on the principle of deciding by majority, not by the will of the violation of
the law on the protection of privacy in the plane of general chat. Give the absolute
priority the interest of individuals against the democratically expressed the interest of the majority of the
in this unit, would be contrary to the principle on which the Assembly
the right is based. In addition, the right of hunting cannot be considered
the moral right of the individual, it's about the right designed and regulated
public law for the protection of certain parts of the environment, which
is not dependent on the personality of a specific person or activity. Therefore,
The Constitutional Court considers that the contested provision is not in breach of article. 10
paragraph. 2 of the Charter.
As regards the alleged infringement of article 81(1). paragraph 36. 1 of the Charter, it is first necessary to
noted that the shooting of the fellowship is the interest association, namely-
under a special law which is the law on hunting, and this Act
regulated, therefore, the regulation of the General Law on associations (Law No.
83/1990 Coll. on Association of citizens, as amended)
is not the subject, it is still primarily an expression of constitutionally guaranteed rights
each freely associating in clubs, societies and other
associations within the meaning of article. 20 (2). 1 of the Charter, when these companies,
guilds or associations based on democratic principles. One of the
the fundamental principles on which it is based, is any association
the principle of self-government of such associations, namely, the principle according to which the Association
has permission to organize your own decisions and developments within the Association
originally, this permission is usually partially regulated by the
because of the public interest by law within the meaning of article. 20 (2). 3 of the Charter,
where is this from the State deemed necessary for reasons of the Charter
set (State security, the protection of public security and public
Okay, the prevention or the protection of the rights and freedoms
others.)
Even hunting Fellowship is a sui generis interest association,
established by a special Act for the purpose of the effective exercise of the right
hunting, which is protected by this law. Also the basic
the Act laid down the principles on which it is based, including the permissions
to regulate its internal affairs, while respecting the legal framework of the
separately, without the ingerence of the State. This freedom and at the same time the regulation is
reflected in the obligations of the honebního communities to create and approve
the statutes of the communities, which are presented to the register, and in
the anchoring of the minimum compulsory content of these articles of Association. Although the law
establishes the basic framework for the internal organisation of the communities of honebního and
defines the necessary powers of its organs, on the statutes of the still
It leaves the detailed organisation of the communities, in the framework of the law modification
laid down.
Hunting the fellowship is a legal person established under the law on
hunting, whose members may be the only owners or co-owners
contiguous land area of hunting grounds, which in total amounts to acreage
required by law for the formation of the company-[file contiguous
hunting land one or more owners as defined in decision
authority of the State administration of hunting, in which you can make the right hunting
under this Act-section 2 (a). I) of the Act on hunting] and which
provides law enforcement itself hunting, or hunting company
rents under this Act [section 19 (1) (a) and (b))) of the law on
hunting], while the right hunting law defines as
a summary of the rights and obligations of the beasts, purposefully, to protect the fish,
přivlastňovat's caught or found animals uhynulou, its developmental
stages and chutes antlers, as well as taking to the extent necessary, hunting
land [§ 2 h) of the Act on hunting]. The basic decision-making
authority of the honebního communities is, according to section 21 of the Act on hunting General
a bunch of honebního communities, which belongs to decide on organizational
issues of fellowship, as well as on the exercise of the rights of hunting itself and
the conditions under which it is exercised. The General Assembly, however, is not
on behalf of the communities and in the current adjustment of the law, authority,
who is Miss at regular or frequent intervals (according to § 22
paragraph. 1 of the law on hunting hunting convenes the Mayor
usually once a year), but only as needed. A prerequisite for its
the convocation is a statutory mechanism, anticipating not only that
members of the Fellowship of the holding of the general meeting in advance, but also finds out
that its convening may cause (section 22 (1) of the Act on hunting), and
that will be sufficient, according to the law the 15-day time limit for the preparation of the
the program of the general meeting, which is laid down in a way members announced
(see section 22 (1) and (2) of the Act on hunting). Even when the law permits, to
the general meeting shall decide on the matter per rollam voting (article 21, paragraph 7 of the law on
hunting), i.e., without physically convened, and this process requires
a slack time and preparation. In all hunting communities
then there are the other authority, which is hunting the Mayor. According to § 23 paragraph.
1 and 4 represents the hunting body externally, as well as caters to all
the Affairs of the honebního communities, if they are not reserved to the General
meeting; is obliged to follow the instructions of the general meeting, if they are in
accordance with the law and the statutes.
The Constitutional Court has no doubt that here, as is the case with other
legal entities, regardless of the law, according to which they are established
(the law on Association of citizens, the civil code, the commercial code or the
another regulation), for the internal administration of each legal person whose basic
authority is not sufficiently flexible to decide, even for hunting
the Fellowship, which has a larger number of members, the need for the existence of another
body, whose decisions would be more flexible, and yet the match
the majority opinion of the members of the Guild, while hunting this requirement
the Mayor as a monadic authority does not meet the. The law therefore constructs
the obligation for the hunting communities, which have more than 10 members,
to create the so-called. the shooting Committee (section 24 of the Act on hunting). The provisions of §
24 of the Act on hunting, it is clear that the really pretty
He's covering the general meeting deciding on matters of Fellowship (for his
convening Meanwhile, provisions for convening the general meeting likewise),
Although the shooting Committee shall, in matters of the Guild called.
a residual power, which otherwise belongs to the Mayor of honebnímu, which the Committee
chairs, with the exception of single-representation of honebního communities
outwardly. The shooting Committee is the executive body of the communities so that they have
a larger membership base, and where their internal administration not one
representative-hunting the Mayor and decisions of the general meeting, it would be
inflexible and inadequate for the management of the fellowship. Hunting Committee
While elected from among the members of the Guild at the general meeting of the Fellowship,
with his election (as to the election of the Mayor of honebního)
needs the approval of three-quarters of the members present.
Tříčtvrtinové quorum is necessary for the decision on migration
the competence of the general meeting referred to in paragraph 2, the provisions of the contested section 21
the law on hunting. In both cases, i.e., how to choose a honebního
the Committee, the delegation of the powers referred to in paragraph 2, the statutes of the
specify a higher number of votes needed for a decision.
For more details of the law does not regulate, thereby leaving the will of honebního
communities, whether in the context of its internal organization sets more
the control mechanisms laid down in the law, for example, in the form of higher
the quorum for a decision of the general meeting of the delegation of their powers, the conditions
under which such a decision may occur, or the conditions under which
hunting the Committee may only be delegated the power to undertake, including any
options to challenge the decision before the general meeting. Will honebního
the fellowship is autonomous in this respect, the only child of the framework
adjustment under the Act on hunting, which cannot be waived, however, which
does not mean that under the statutes of this adjustment could be fleshed out by
the needs and size of a particular Guild.
The transfer of the powers of the general meeting on the shooting Committee referred to in
the contested provisions has, as noted above, the importance of the purely practical.
It does not mean that by saying the majority will of the General Assembly
the demise of the law designed to appeal against
its decision, including the decision pursuant to § 21. 1 (a). (c)) of the Act
about hunting, that is, decisions about how to use company-,
including the conclusion, amendment or termination of the contract on the lease of a hunting license. This
the decision can still be considered a decision on the competence of the Supreme
authority of the honebního communities, the general meeting, even if it is just from the decision
This authority shall be exercised in a particular case, other authority honebního
Fellowship. If so, of the decision of the general meeting of honebního
communities to transfer its responsibilities to another body of the Guild-
the shooting Committee of the Fellowship, the transfer of powers to decide and to
transfer of appeal as against the decision of the general meeting is
established the legal protection in the form of an appeal to the Court,
matching not only the nature of the decision-making body, but also the seriousness of the
his decision-making for hunting the Fellowship as a whole. This legal
then transfer the scope of protection of the temporary to another internal authority
Fellowship without the character ceased to be in any way its decisions
the severity for the body, does not disappear.
Although the law on hunting explicitly appeal against a decision
honebního the Committee does not regulate, with regard to the nature of the decision-making
referred to in paragraph 1 (b). (c) section 21 of the Act) about hunting, its severity, and
the nature of the transfer of competence of the General Meeting Committee on hunting in this
decision making gives the possibility of constitutionally consistent interpretation, according to which the
If the decision referred to in paragraph 1 (b). (c) the provisions of section 21)
the law on hunting, is designed by the law against such decision
an appeal to the Court, regardless of whether this decision
the general meeting was made to honebního the Guild, or whether its
the scope of this decision (how to use company
private hunting grounds, including the conclusion, amendment or termination of the contract on the lease of
hunting ground) shifted the General Meeting Committee on hunting, and this decision
did the shooting Committee. The reason behind the annulment by the Court, however, continue to
remains only the illegality of the decision or its contradiction with the articles of Association,
annulling the law does not allow for another reason.
Yet the subject of the powers that may be on the hunting Committee
delegated in accordance with subparagraph (c)) § 21. 1 of the law on hunting, is for
such a conclusion is decisive. Deciding how to use a hunting license is
aside from deciding on the internal affairs of the Guild (i.e. recruitment
the articles of Association and the election of the members of the honebního Committee and the election of the Mayor of honebního),
the essential focus of the life of honebního communities. Membership is
According to the Act on hunting consists of only the owners or co-owners
hunting land, acreage of which allows the formation of a company-
(article 19, paragraph 1, of the Act on hunting), hunting the fellowship is created
for the purpose of recognition of the hunting ground, then the exercise of hunting in it or
rental company of hunting ground. Manages the hunting body
hunting itself, it is required to do all the measures under the law
about hunting to preserve the kind of game (section 4 of the Act on hunting), to
the protection of wildlife (section 8 of the Act on hunting), and that the obligations
users of the hunting ground (section 11 of the Act on hunting). Such activity corresponds to the
the term used in § 21. 1 (a). (c)) of the law on hunting, so far as
about how to use a hunting license, contains in itself, however, a number of factual
the acts leading to the fulfilment of legal obligations, often with even
the form of the immediate or rapid intervention (care of injured animals, rescue
the case, the measures to save the game, feeding the animals, etc.). Even if it is in
This hunting Fellowship and his Committee is bound, unless it is an emergency
measures, game-management plan, this plan it binds only
General and the next must be taking a hunting license and deciding how to
the use of flexible and customizable to the circumstances, which is not always in
decisions of the general meeting of the Guild honebního imaginable. Identically
even the negotiations on lease hunting ground and the conclusion of the contract on the lease of a hunting license, however,
the Constitutional Court is not considered a serious enough, that would be about it without further
the general meeting may only decide the Guild, but there must be
in the negotiations on the form of contract, its appendices, where appropriate, of the conditions
its termination or denunciation of the flexibility and adaptability of the
the situation, which is given by the honebnímu Committee as a smaller group of people (according to the
the law on hunting is a maximum of a six-membered, number of members, however, determine the
the statutes). The conclusion and termination of the contract then the law regulates some of the
terms and conditions (sections 32 and 33 of the law on hunting), and allows you to make general
meeting in deciding on the delegation of their powers in this direction
the shooting was the terms of the other Committee, whose non-observance may lead to the
result in the withdrawal of the powers.
The honebního Guild has to continue, while maintaining all the
democratic principles, enough options to the application of the protection of their
interests and their rights. From the above, however, is clear, inter alia, that
not every decision of the internal organ of the legal person, whether it is a
Association, or any other form, whose subject is the transfer of competences on
another of the authorities of this person, and automatically transfer the means of amending
against the decision of the authority of the resource, if it is designed by law.
This interpretation is perhaps, and only where, in terms of
the character of the transferred competencies can be inferred that the transfer of the
the high authority of the person at the top of the functionally of this
child (choice, establishment or appointment), and at the same time that this is a
the transfer of decision-making competencies of top Authority Act uniquely
imputed and so important that such a decision is of fundamental and
an undeniable influence on the Organization, essential course management and
the operation of legal persons as a whole or any of its members for a long
time in the future, by analogy, as is the case for decision-making on the use of
hunting ground, therefore, the sole subject of the functioning of the honebního communities.
The Constitutional Court therefore considers that the contested provision is not in conflict with
article. paragraph 36. 1 of the Charter.
On the basis of these considerations, the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that there is no reason for
compliance with the proposal for the repeal of § 21. 2 of law no 499/2001 Coll., on the
hunting, and therefore rejected.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
