24/1997.
FIND
The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic decided on 10. December 1996 the plenary about
the proposal of the Group of members of Parliament of the United Kingdom
on cancellation
and the words ") referred to in section 2 of the Act No. 68/1956 Coll. until 31 December 2006. 12.1991 "in section 2 of the
Act No. 175/1990 Coll. repealing Act No. 68/1956 Coll.
Organization of physical education, and to regulate certain further questions
regarding voluntary sports organizations,
(b)), the words "referred to in section 2 of the Act No. 68/1956 Coll. on the Organization of the body
education, to 31. 12.1991 "in section 1 (1). the Czech National Council Act No.
232/1991 Coll. on the conditions and modalities for the return of property rights
arising from Act No. 175/1990 Coll. repealing Act.
68/1956 Coll. on the Organization of physical education, and to regulate certain
other issues relating to the voluntary sports organisations,
(c)), the words "referred to in section 2 of the Act No. 68/1956 Coll. until 31 December 2006. 12.1991 "in section 2 of the
Act No. 254/1991 Coll., amending and supplementing Act No. 175/1990
Coll. repealing Act No. 68/1956 Coll. on the Organization of the body
education, and to regulate certain other relations related to the
voluntary sports organizations,
with the participation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom as a party and unity
Eagle Zlín-Malenovice, represented by JUDr. J. n., a lawyer in Zlin, as
intervention proceedings on the application for annulment of the words "referred to in § 2
Act No. 68/1956 Coll. "in section 2 of the Act No. 175/1990 Coll.
as follows:
The proposal is rejected.
Justification
On 15 December. December 1995 a group of 43 members of the Chamber of Deputies
Parliament of the Czech Republic under the leadership of JUDr. Ing. Jiri Karas ' brought
pursuant to article 87 paragraph 1. 1 (b). and the Constitution of the United States and) § 64 para. 1
(a). b) Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, the application for annulment:
and the words ") referred to in section 2 of the Act No. 68/1956 Coll. until 31 December 2006. 12.1991 "in section 2 of the
Act No. 175/1990 Coll. repealing Act No. 68/1956 Coll.
Organization of physical education, and to regulate certain further questions
regarding voluntary sports organizations,
(b)), the words "referred to in section 2 of the Act No. 68/1956 Coll. on the Organization of the body
education, to 31. 12.1991 "in section 1 (1). the Czech National Council Act No.
232/1991 Coll. on the conditions and modalities for the return of property rights
arising from Act No. 175/1990 Coll. repealing Act.
68/1956 Coll. on the Organization of physical education, and to regulate certain
other issues relating to the voluntary sports organisations,
(c)), the words "referred to in section 2 of the Act No. 68/1956 Coll. until 31 December 2006. 12.1991 "in section 2 of the
Act No. 254/1991 Coll., amending and supplementing Act No. 175/1990
Coll. repealing Act No. 68/1956 Coll. on the Organization of the body
education, and to regulate certain other relations related to the
voluntary sports organizations.
Due to the content of the proposal and the relevant passages of the laws of the constitutional
the Court considers that that petit of the proposal should sound as incorrectly, that shall be deleted:
1. the words "referred to in section 2 of the Act No. 68/1956 Coll. until 31 December 2006. December 1991 "in §
2 Act No. 175/1990 Coll. repealing Act No. 68/1956 Coll.
Organization of physical education, and to regulate certain other relationships
regarding voluntary sports organizations, as amended by Act No.
247/1991 Coll.,
2. the words "referred to in section 2 of the Act No. 68/1956 Coll. on the Organization of the body
education, to 31. December 1991 "in section 1 (1). 2 of the Act of the Czech National Council
No 232/1991 Coll. on the conditions and modalities for the return of property rights
arising from Act No. 175/1990 Coll. repealing Act.
68/1956 Coll. on the Organization of physical education, and to regulate certain
other relations related to the voluntary sports organisations, in
amended by Act of the Czech National Council No. 309/1991 Coll.
The inaccuracy of the remedies of the proposal lies in the fact that, under the body) and c) and their
the appellant sought annulment of the proposal one and the same, even if amended,
provisions of the Act and under point (b)) of the proposal, even though the text of the contested
the provisions of CITES in his amended by the text of the legal designation of
It is not obvious that the regulation was amended. Otherwise, however, is the proposal
meaningful and has all the formal and substantive legal requirements and can be
It is in this form, to discuss and decide about it. It was therefore not necessary and
appropriate to warn the plaintiff of the defect in design, having only
formal in nature and are raised only a certain inconsistency of the
legislativnětechnického point of view, and call on him to remove them.
Unity Eagle Zlín-Malenovice filed a constitutional complaint against the judgment
Regional Court in Brno from 16 June. February 1995 SP. zn. 13 What 306/94 and
along with it pursuant to section 74 of law No. 182/1993 Coll., the proposal to abolish the words
"referred to in section 2 of the Act No. 68/1956 Coll." in section 2 of the Act No. 175/1990 Coll.
In its resolution of 6 September 2000. February 1996, SP. zn. IV. TC 170/95 was the procedure for
a constitutional complaint is interrupted, and the proposal to repeal parts of the law
He was referred to the full Court pursuant to § 78 para. 1 Act No. 182/1993 Coll. Resolution
of 16 December 2002. February 1996, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 2/96, was amended this proposal in accordance with section
35 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll. rejected as inadmissible (obstacle
lis pendens). Unity Eagle Zlín-Malenovice has, however, in the appropriate section
control on the proposal for a group of MPs the status of intervener pursuant to §
28 para. 2 and § 35 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll.
The claimant argued a contradiction the contested provisions of the laws
a) with articles 1 and 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"), or
with similar provisions on human rights agreed in the Charter of
The United Nations, in the International Covenant on Civil and political
rights and in the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural
rights,
(b)) with articles 1, 3, 4, and 11 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (hereinafter referred to as
"The Charter") and with similar provisions on human rights agreed in
referred to international legal documents
and a proposal to repeal the legal provisions referred to justify in particular the
the following arguments:
The laws of the former Federal Assembly and the former Czech National Council
should create a legal basis for the return of the property rights of voluntary
physical education organization, which they have been deprived of legal regulations
adopted by the legislative body of the totalitarian State, at the time, no longer Act No.
198/1993 Coll., on the illegality of the Communist regime and on resistance against
It is called the time of the destruction of traditional values of European civilization,
conscious of the destruction and violation of human rights and freedoms, the moral and
economic decline, accompanied by judicial crimes and terror against the
holders of different opinions and destruction of traditional principles of ownership.
In fact, it was these laws largely legalized the status of created
the totalitarian regime, because the range of subjects required to return
property rights associations (social organizations) was defined so that
most new owners (holders) do not have this obligation. These legal
the legislation enacting the principles of an unacceptable for a civilized legal
the company, and it
1. the holder of the withdrawal of the assets it illegally may not return,
2. that the risk arising from the purchase of illegally withdrawn things may not bear
the buyer of this stuff, but its original owner (right),
3. that the Act confirmed the legal continuity between the original Club
(social organization), and the Club (Organization), that after November
1989 restored the activity, does not have the effectiveness with respect to property rights.
In the vast majority of cases of deprivation of property carried out by associations of authorities
at the time of the totalitarian regime, oppression, i.e.. from February 1948 until November
1989, as well as the abolition of guilds was unlawful, the appellant
because it took place in contravention with applicable law. Edit
the conditions and the way the return of the property rights, how it brought about the contested
legislation is by 1. January 1993, in fact,
from the very beginning, unconstitutional, because these laws, adopted by the
polistopadovými representative councils cannot be obliged to return
property rights associations to anyone who holds those assets, and even Ms.
State, and thus infringed the human rights guaranteed by international treaties.
Article 11 of the Charter guarantees everyone the right to own property and expropriation
or forced limitation of property rights only in the public interest,
on the basis of the law, and for compensation. It is clear from this edit and the right to
protection of ownership, which has to provide the State. If the State that your
obligation and legislatures adopted laws that conflict
with the principle of equality favours State, or some bodies against
other bodies (associations), it is a typical violation of the constitutional rules,
specifically, articles 1 and 11 of the Charter and article 96 of the Constitution. Inkriminovaná
the legal provisions violated the natural right to grossly social
organizations and associations for the return of property rights by fixing the circuit
entities required to return the assets so closely that the most State-of-
the property could not be returned, and there has been a violation of article 11 of the Charter of the
the protection of property rights and similar provisions of the international treaties.
The proposal indicates that the request is an extension of the circuit required
subjects in the context of the return of the property rights of voluntary organisations.
In essence, it's that the appellant had listed the laws save
the obligation to recover the property rights of voluntary organisations to anyone
who has this property in possession.
The party is next to the petitioner, the Parliament of the Czech Republic (§ 28
paragraph. 1, § 69 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll.). Laws, whose partial cancellation
It is suggested, although issued by the Federal Assembly of the Czech and Slovak
The Federal Republic and the Czech National Council, the Parliament's succession
The United States, however, derives from article. 3 (2). 1 constitutional law
The Czech National Council No. 4/1993 Coll. on measures associated with the dissolution of the
The Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court first examined under § 68 para. 2 of law No.
182/1993 Coll., the laws have been adopted and issued the contested within the limits of the Constitution
set out competences and constitutionally prescribed way. At the time of
the laws and their amendments were legislatures made competency
the provisions of the article. 29 et seq., and article. 102 et seq. the Constitutional Act No.
143/1968 Coll., on of the Czechoslovak Federation, in wording of later regulations.
Archival prints, from the Council of the Federal Assembly and
The Czech National Council, which the Constitutional Court has requested from the Office of the
the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, it was found that the meetings, which
about laws and their series of amendments voted later, participated in the
a sufficient number of members of Parliament, laws have been enacted the necessary number of votes
respective constitutional actors have been signed and have been duly promulgated in
The collection of laws. Laws, whose provisions the group members
proposes, have become a valid part of our legal order and are
It has not yet, as follows from article. 1 (1). 1 constitutional law No. 4/1993
SB.
According to § 42 para. 3 and section 69 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., the proposal was sent to the
Parliament of the Czech Republic with an invitation to comment. Then Chairman of the
The Chamber of Deputies Milan Uhde has delivered to the design of the following
opinion:
Act No. 175/1990 Coll. adopted the former Federal Assembly of the Czech and
Slovak Federal Republic on 9 April. May 1990 and became effective
on 1 January 2004. June 1990. The aim of the Act was the necessity for the immediate termination of
Act No. 68/1956 Coll. and by removing legislative pretext which would
could be the recipient organizations for a cancelled Czech Union
physical education used to brake the natural democratic development in
the field of organization and management of physical culture in our country. At the time of the adoption of the
the law was not its individual provisions in conflict with a valid
The Constitution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic or with the Charter
fundamental rights and freedoms, as the Constitutional Act No. 23/1991 Coll., which
For example, he was the Federal Charter by the Assembly of the CSFR accepted 9. January 1991
and entered into force on 8 July 2006. February 1991. Act No. 254/1991 Coll., adopted
former Federal Assembly of the CSFR on 31 December 2004. in May 1991, with effect from
June 14th, 1991 followed, firstly, extend the period for making a claim
for the successor to the organization referred to in section 2 of the Act No. 68/1956 Coll. on
one year (in fact, it was about half a year), and established the moratorium
any transfer of the economic rights referred to legal successors. Law
The Czech National Council No. 232/1991 Coll., adopted on 22 November. May 1991 with
effect from 1. June 1991 has been issued for the implementation of Act No. 175/1990
Coll. of the Czech National Council Act No. 309/1991 Coll., adopted on 8 June 1998. July
1991, with effect from 9. August 1991 responded to legislativnětechnické
adjustments resulting from the adoption of Act No. 254/1991 Coll. all three
referred to the laws were not at the time of their adoption, contradict the then valid
The Constitution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic; However, arises
doubt as to whether they were fully in line with the then already effective constitutional
Act No. 23/1991 Coll. For this state of affairs must express an opinion,
that legislatures have acted in the belief that laws have been adopted in the
accordance with the then valid Constitution of the Czech and Slovak Federal
Of the Republic. It is up to the Constitutional Court, in the context of the examination of the proposal
a group of MPs, to assess the constitutionality of the contested acts in terms of their
accordance with the Constitution and the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and issued by the competent
decision.
From other documents requested from the Office of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament
The United States, it was found that on 18 July 2005. May 1993 members of the George
Karas and Jiří Stadler presented the principles of the law on the recovery of assets
associations, social organisations and other civic association (House
print 363). Principle No. 4 reads as follows: "the obligation of the person who on the day of
the effectiveness of the law societies, to own property, and on the basis of
the written invitation of authorized, but not later than 6 months ". The principles of the law
přikázány have been organising committee to discuss the Budget Committee,
Committee on Science, education, culture, youth and sport and the Committee on
public administration, regional development and the environment.
The Committee on Budgets, in its resolution of 23 March. June 1993 # 96 only
noted that the draft law discussed policy, Committee on Science, education,
culture, youth and sport on 27. January 1994, resolution No. 132
decided that the principles of the Act will not be discussed, and the Committee for public
Administration, regional development and the environment did not accept to print 363
no resolution. The Organising Committee of 3 December 2004. March 1994 adopted resolution No.
297, which took note of the opinion of the Committee, and to order the President of the
The Chamber of Deputies, to the petitioners Act policy
the return of the assets of the associations, social organisations and other civil
by the Association. Nothing else is in this matter on the soil of the legislature
kick.
Furthermore, it was requested pursuant to § 48 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll. observations
The Ministry of education, youth and sports of the Czech Republic as
the central body of State administration. The Ministry in its observations, in particular
points to the complexity of the solution of potential new cases of restitution
under the law of return of the assets again resulting from the voluntary
organizations.
The Constitutional Court assessed the proposal from a group of MPs at the Cancel cited
the provisions of the said laws for their compliance with the constitutional
laws and international treaties on human rights and fundamental
freedoms, which the Czech Republic is bound, pursuant to § 68 para. 2 of the Act
No. 182/1993 Coll.
In terms of legislation the restitution, relied on by the legislatures of the
the fundamental concept that the monitoring of public values is guided by the idea that
the aim is to alleviate the effects of the restitution of certain property injustices
caused in the years 1948-1989. Specifically, this concept expressed
in the preamble to law No. 87/1991 Coll. on extra-judicial rehabilitation, and
No. 229/1991 regulating ownership of land and other
agricultural property. In the case under examination are the beneficiaries,
Unlike other restitution laws, legal persons. Circuit
the obliged entities, the legislature defined the way that expresses its
legitimate political will on the basis of the above principle, the objective of
the Act is to mitigate the effects of some of the grievances.
In its decision-making activity (e.g. find out April 2, 1996 in the matter of PL. ÚS
47/95) the Constitutional Court is of the opinion that the legislature cannot be restricted
When you define the entities to which the Act applies. In the matter of PL. TC 47/95
The Constitutional Court was based on the opinion that it is not a differentiation of character
the legal standards, but part of its own definition of eligible people, which can be
by analogy, applicable to the present case now, where the law defines
the category of persons liable. That the legislature could act when creating
to do otherwise, cannot in itself be regarded as an advantage or
disadvantage a particular group of subjects.
The Constitutional Court also dealt with the general practice of the courts in this
area and found that under the No 9/1996 Collections of court decisions and
the opinions, which for the purpose of unification of the case-law of the general courts
issued by the Supreme Court, was published the judgment of the regional court in Hradec
Kings of 5 November. May 1994, SP. zn. 13 What 88/94, which contains
the following legal opinion:
"Under the provisions of section 2 of the Act No. 254/1991 Coll. returning property
rights of the Czech village of Sokol and others again resulting from the voluntary
organizations, which they have been deprived of law No. 187/1949 Coll., no 71/1952
Coll. and no 68/1956 Coll., according to the State as of 31. March 1948.
Claims for refund referred to property rights need to be applied to
the successor to the organisations referred to in section 2 of the Act No. 68/1956 Coll. in
December 31, 1991.
Mandatory legal successor is any entity that such seized from
assets at the date of the effectiveness of Act No. 175/1990 Coll. held. "
From this it can be inferred that he is entitled to the return of property in a timely manner
applied by an authorized organization with a defined subject, by law, is
indecisive, what types of legal succession (succession of universal or
the singular) restitution claims monitor (e.g. the judgment in the High Court in
Prague of 15 July. in May 1996, SP. zn. 7 Cmo 131/94).
As regards the interpretation of the law, the Constitutional Court notes its finding
of 26 March. March 1996 pl. TC 48/95, which States that in a situation where certain
the provisions of the law permits two interpretations, with one
It is in accordance with constitutional laws and international treaties referred to in article
10 of the Constitution, and the second is contrary thereto, is not given a reason for the cancellation of this
provisions. In its application, it is the task of the courts to interpret the
the provisions of constitutionally Conformal manner.
In the opinion of the Constitutional Court of the circuit of the entities required to return
the assets of the new voluntary organizations is not defined so narrowly,
as claimed by the appellant, and the obligatory body may be the State, if the
by taking over assets of the withdrawal according to said laws became a legal
the successor to the organization referred to in section 2 of the Act No. 68/1956 Coll., and this
property held on the date of the effectiveness of Act No. 175/1990 Coll., i.e. 1. June
1990.
For these reasons, the Constitutional Court concluded that the circuit required
people in those laws has been established on the basis of legitimate political
the will of the legislature and that the contested provisions cited laws are not in
contrary to constitutional acts and international treaties under article. 10
The Constitution and do not interfere with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.
Therefore, the proposal was a group of members pursuant to section 70 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993
Coll. rejected.
Against the decision of the Constitutional Court cannot be appealed.
The President of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.