Advanced Search

In The Matter Of The Application For Revocation Part Of Ust. Section 2 Of The Act No. 175/1990 Coll.

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zrušení části ust. § 2 zákona č. 173/1990 Sb.

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$40 per month.
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.