In The Matter Of The Application For Revocation Under The Provisions Of Act No. 235/2004 Coll.

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zrušení části ustanovení zákona č. 237/2004 Sb.

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.
10/2010 Sb.



FIND



The Constitutional Court



On behalf of the Republic of



The Constitutional Court ruled on 1 May 2004. December 2009 in plenary in the composition of Stanislav

Package, Francis Skinner, Turgut Güttler, Pavel Holländer, Ivana Janů,

Vladimir Crust, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodým, Miloslav

Excellent, Pavel Rychetský and Michael April decided to design

the Supreme Administrative Court of the petitioner under art. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the

cancellation of part of the provisions of point 2 of article. XXIX, part of the twenty-ninth, Bill

No 237/2004 Coll., amending, in connection with the adoption of the law of

the added value of changing some laws and adopt some other measures

and amending Act No. 353/2003 SB., on the Excise Tax Act, as amended by Act No.

479/2003 Coll., and Act No. 337/1992 Coll., on real estate tax, as amended by

amended, the words "of the Czech pension insurance",



as follows:



The proposal is rejected.



Justification:



(I).



1. the applicant, in accordance with article 7(2). 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC sought to

The Constitutional Court for non-compliance with article. 1 and article. 30 the Charter of rights and

set aside the part of the provisions on the freedoms of point 2 of article. XXIX, part of the twenty-ninth,

Act No. 235/2004 Coll., amending, in connection with the adoption of the law on

value added tax amending some laws and take some more

measures and amending Act No. 356/2003 SB., on the Excise Tax Act, as amended by

Act No. 484/2003 Coll., and Act No. 337/1992 Coll., on real estate tax,

as amended, "in the words of the Czech pension

insurance ". The appellant did so in the context of proceedings on appeal

the complaint against the judgment of the regional court in České Budějovice, dated

February 2, 2005, no. 2 Cad 144/2004-18, which was rejected by the action

PhDr. V. k. (Note: that is, from 20. 4.2004 citizen United

the Republic) against the decision of the Czech social security administration, which

was refused the applicant's request to grant a one-time contribution

1000 Czk retired pursuant to article. XXIX of Act No. 235/2004 Coll.



2. the crux of the matter lies in the fact that, in the framework of Act No. 235/2004 Coll.,

amending certain laws in connection with the adoption of the law of

value added tax and certain other measures, shall be adopted and amended by law No.

353/2003 SB., on the Excise Tax Act, as amended by Act No. 483/2003 Coll., and

Act No. 337/1992 Coll., on real estate tax, as amended

infringements in the twenty-ninth article. XXIX adopted an adjustment called

"a one-time contribution by pensioners", whose purpose was to provide

the State of pensions poživatelům a one-time assistance in connection with the

changes in the amount of value added tax. According to the adopted legislation

entitled pensioners (in the amount of $ 1000) has a natural person who

is entitled to payment of a pension (part of income) from the Czech pension

insurance for at least part of the June, 2004. In the case, in the context of the

addressing Supreme Administrative Court submitted the above proposal to the Constitutional Court,

apply the right to a one-time contribution by the person who nepobírala

pension from the Czech pension insurance, but from the Slovak pension

insurance.



3. the applicant-the Supreme Administrative Court said that, in the present proceedings

decide on the right to a one-time contribution by pensioners, namely on the right to

material security in old age, which falls within the broader framework of the right to material

the security referred to in article. 30 paragraph 2. 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. (I)

When the plaintiff recognizes that the nature of the social

right, where the understanding of the principle of equality has a slightly wider limits than in

fundamental rights and freedoms, nevertheless, considers that the contested part of the

test the constitutionality of a provision does not go through.



4. the appellant in fact took the view that, if the provision of

a one-time contribution of pensioners of changes of value added tax,

then the addressee of this one-time bailout is a person living on the territory of the State,

that changes in the amount of the value added tax law; entitled to

the contribution must therefore have mainly pensioners living on the territory of the United

States regardless of whether they are entitled to the payment of income (section

pension) of the Czech pension insurance or from a foreign, for example. the Slovak

pension insurance. Otherwise, the-in the opinion of the claimant-receiving

legislation in breach of Regulation No 1408/1971, the EEC which has

to prevent a citizen permanently resident in the Member State of the EU, has been excluded

the benefits of belonging to the other its people only because it is

a pensioner and paid by the other Member State. Further expressed

of the opinion that in the present case there was also a breach of article 17 of the Treaty

between the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic on social security

(no 228/1993 Coll.) and article 11 of the administrative arrangement for the implementation of the Treaty,

as the State social dose within the meaning of article 17 of the Treaty in terms of

its purpose, as well as the compensation question in 2004. The fact that the Group

retirees who live permanently on the territory of the Czech Republic, but they are not eligible

to the payment of a pension from the pension insurance, the Czech law are entitled to

a one-time allowance is being paid, your rapporteur considers the inequality that

objective and reasonable grounds.



5. the applicant has concluded that in the present case will subsequently need to

the positive intervention of the legislator to eliminate unjustified inequalities

among the pensioners living on the territory of the Czech Republic; First, it is necessary to

delete from the law discriminatory nature of the contested provision. Therefore,

He suggested that the Constitutional Court cited a provision in the contested parts of the abolished.



II.



6. the Constitutional Court requested the observations lodged a proposal to the Chamber of Deputies

the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.



And.



7. The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in its observations

States that Act No. 235/2004 Coll. was adopted in connection with the adoption

the new law on value added tax. As a result of changes in the amount of the tax

value added tax was on a proposal from the Committee on Budgets adopted measures,

whose purpose was to low-income groups of the population, i.e.. families with

children who receive child allowance and single pensioners

to compensate for the changes in the amount of the VAT. Social compensation, in an act called the

"a one-time contribution by pensioners ' benefit from the State budget.

The legislature provided that the recipients of this contribution

fall all citizens, who, especially in terms of his age, on

under other circumstances are no longer gainfully employed or only to a limited degree,

and who still contribute, or who have in the past contributed to the State

the budget in the form of the payment of social security contributions. The next

the criterion was that the recipients have met the legal conditions for

payment of the pension from the pension insurance. It follows that between

the recipient of the contribution, which presented a single filling and not

recurring transactions originating in the nature of retirement benefits,

not included those citizens who are low-wage

a group of residents, but the conditions for the payment of the pension may, or

citizens or residents of the United States, who materially

zabezpečováni pension benefits, but were from a foreign pension

the system, to which they contributed, but not from the Czech pension

the system of which they were not parties after such period, in order to fulfil the conditions

for the granting of a pension.



8. The Chamber of Deputies, adding that the legislature commissioned the payment

the contribution of social security institutions, mainly due to the fact

that these institutions have in its records the beneficiary (beneficiaries) of pensions and

It was not to be so costly to build new and one-time registration

recipients of the allowance only for a one-time payment of this contribution, and with the

regard to economy. From the fact that the legislature commissioned

payment of the contribution of the social security institutions, cannot be inferred that the

This post has been included in the social security benefits. It is therefore

improper to rely on the Interstate Agreement between the Czech Republic and

The Slovak Republic on social security (famous under no.

228/1993 Coll.), since this Treaty does not apply to that post.



9. The Chamber of Deputies, therefore, considers that the opinion of the applicant-

The Supreme Administrative Court on a one-time kompensační post

retired as a State social benefit within the meaning of the Treaty between the Czech

Republic and the Slovak Republic and of the administrative arrangement for the implementation

of the Treaty, and a voucher for a breach of Regulation No 1408/1971 to the article. 1 and

30 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms are not correct; his proposal is therefore

unfounded.



10. The Chamber of Deputies finally said it voted on the law No.

237/2004 Coll. on its 27. meeting of 27 June. February 2004. The law was approved,

as for him out of 163 members of Parliament and MPs present voted 83 and 66

It was against. About the law returned back to the President of the Republic voted

The Chamber of Deputies on 22 November. April 2004 at its 30. meeting. From the present

184 votes for the law 131 and 51 against. In this state of things

not according to the Chamber of Deputies than the opinion that the legislative

the Corps acted in the belief that the law is adopted in accordance with the Constitution,

the constitutional order and our rule of law. It is up to the Constitutional Court, in order to


the constitutionality of the contested provisions.



(B).



11. the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in its statement said that the proposal

the law, part of which is designed to cancel, submit the Government Of

House of Commons 5. November 2003 and after its approval in the Chamber of Deputies

has been delivered to the Senate on 12 June 2006. March 2004. In the Senate, the Bill was as

Senate print no. 305 discussed in two committees, the Committee for

economy, agriculture and transport, and in the Committee for the European

integration. Committee on economy, agriculture and transport as the Committee

the guarantee in its resolution recommended the Senate return the draft Bill

The Chamber of Deputies with amendments adopted by the Committee

(amendments were part of the twenty-ninth, which seeks

design of the Supreme Administrative Court). The Committee for European integration then

He recommended the Senate adopt a resolution draft law to pursue if the

The Senate approved a draft law on value added tax. The Senate

presented by the draft law discussed at its 14. meeting on 1 May 2004. April 2004 and

After the performance of the representative of the petitioner and the rapporteurs of the two committees adopted the

the resolution of the draft law is to dwell on. This resolution, for which of the 73

present senators voted against was 23 and 39 senators, was adopted

After the Senate approved the previous point when discussing the draft law

about value added tax.



12. The Chamber further stated that in the draft law submitted by the Government to

The Chamber of Deputies was not included on a one-time

the contribution of pensioners, against which proposed the Supreme Administrative Court.

This adjustment was added to the Bill in the form of amendment

When his hearing in the House of representatives, along with some

other modifications pointing to solutions of certain social compensation

changes in the amount of value added tax. For this reason,

These changes have not been presented in the explanatory memorandum, which would be closer

proposed modification to clarify. In the general location of the proposed adjustment was

only mentioned in the debate when discussing the draft law on the taxation of

value added tax (i.e. other than printing to which should be added),

and the contents of several speeches showed that this was a change that

the result of the negotiations were initiated by the former ruling coalition in

Koloděje on 1 May 2004. February 2004. From the available data concerning this

the negotiations then it follows that the parties agree that the coalition Government in the framework of the 2.

phase of the reform of public finances together to promote the governmental and parliamentary

the level of certain measures, among which was also two measures relating to

subject matter hereof; It was about the measures under point 6 and 8 of this

text:



13.



6. To mitigate the impact of VAT harmonisation and other changes will be taken

the following measures: (a)), from 1. May 2004 will be increased parental

post about 1.000,-CZK per month, (b)) to 1. June 2004 will be paid

a one-off children's addition of 2.000,-CZK for each child to families that

meet the entitlement to the payment of child benefit, c) 1. June 2004 will be

paid a one-time extraordinary income of EUR 1.000,-CZK for each

pensioners (including pensions, widows ', orphans ' and disability). 8.

the indexation of pensions in 2005 will be taken into account that are made to tax changes.



14. The Senate said, adding that in this sense was also the adjustment for

pensioners is presented as a one-time compensatory measures for

the remaining part of the year 2004, with the fact that in the course of the year cannot be pensions

for example, and that for the next period will be the consequences of changes in the sales tax for

a pensioner in the indexation of pensions. According to the Senate is quite beyond doubt

If the tax change for the period after 2004, dealt with in

the indexation of pensions (and it certainly has been, since the increase of pensions

shall be carried out with regard to the growth of consumer prices, and increase their SALES TAX

growth affects), then the subsequent compensation concerned only foreigners who were granted

pensions, receipt of a pension from the Czech pension insurance, as well

as was the case with a one-time contribution of pensioners. In terms of the

the above can be inferred, that compensation for pensioners has been from the beginning

conceived not as a State social benefit outside the system

pension insurance, but as the cash due under

the benefits provided by the pension insurance, which has the nature of an increase

pensions (whether in the form of a lump sum paid benefits or increase

regular benefits); in this sense, it would be useful-by

the opinion of the Senate-assess the merits of the application. Can be

argue with the view that, in cases where certain Czech Republic

the economic impact of fiscal adjustment plans to compensate for some groups

citizens, for example, poživatelům pensions, cannot appropriate compensation

bind only to those cases where it is a pensioner from Czech

pension insurance. It is quite obvious that such compensation are

received with regard to this, what is the amount of pensions granted under

legislation in force in the Czech Republic, and this fact is

taken into account when deciding on the appropriate compensation and its amount. If

It is a pensioner living on the territory of the Czech Republic,

receiving pensions granted according to the laws of another State, the amount of

their income is, of course, depend on what is law

the competent State relating to the conditions of eligibility for a pension and the amount thereof. In

in many cases, the beneficiaries of pensions from abroad have pensions

several times higher than the average income in the Czech Republic, and

in many cases, on the contrary, their income is lower. From this point of view can be

consider that if appropriate compensation is taken with regard to

What is the amount of pensions provided under the legislation in force in the United

the Republic is such an approach of the legislature based on objective and

reasonable grounds, and adaptation of a conforming to the constitutional principle of

equality.



15. Senate-namítanému edit in question to non-compliance with Regulation No.

1408/1971, the EEC-deduced that if this adjustment is understood as a cash

the performance benefits provided by the pension insurance, which has the nature of

the increase provided by the pensions (indexation of pensions), it can hardly

seen as a contradiction with that regulation; It is in the article. 11 provides that

"rules for revalorisation provided by the legislation of a Member State

will apply to benefits due under these regulations and shall be

on account of the provisions of this Regulation. "



16. The Senate and continued to breach of article namítanému. 17 agreement between the

The Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic on social security and

article. 11 administrative arrangement has said that it is an international agreement,

that is from the Czech Republic to the European Union, as it does not

follows from article. 6 of Regulation No 1408/1971 of the EEC. Within the meaning of article 87(1). 7 (2). 2

(a). (c) of the Regulation) of the Treaty applies only to her article. 20

(concerning the period before the split the ČSFR obtained security), which is

listed in annex III. Regulation, as the provisions of the Convention on social

secure, which remains in effect regardless of the article. 6 of the regulation. From

This point of view is said to be the claimant's argument about the violation of the

editing with that Treaty somewhat misleading.



17. The Chamber concluded that there is a Constitutional Court to the constitutionality of the proposal

the contested parts of the provisions in paragraph 2 of the article. XXIX, part of the twenty-ninth, Bill

No 237/2004 Coll., to assess and, if compliance with the submitted proposal

decided, to what date the contested part of the provisions of the Act be repealed,

Since it would require to make corresponding changes in other

the provisions of the article. XXIX of Act No. 235/2004 Coll.



(C).



18. The Constitutional Court's opinion on the proposal and requested the Ministry of labour and

Social Affairs and the Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic (§ 49 paragraph 1

Act No. 182/1993 Coll.).



19. The Ministry of labour and Social Affairs at the outset (also) stated that

part twenty-ninth (the one-time post retired) was to

the law in question added in the Chamber of Deputies, on the basis of

resolution of the Committee on Budgets (resolution No. 339 of 25. meetings of the financial

the Committee of 11 July. February 2004) and to this part of the Act is therefore not to

available in the explanatory memorandum. Basis (i.e. paragrafovaný) for this

the resolution was prepared in the Ministry of labour and Social Affairs, including the

a one-time contribution to the child (part of the twenty-eighth of Act No. 235/2004

SB.).



20. the substance of the Ministry stated that Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71

(hereinafter referred to as ' the regulation ') defines in article 13(1). 1 (b). t) the concept of "benefit" and

"pensions". Contribution under law No. 235/2004 Coll., has a clear

the nature of the benefits referred to in that provision, as it represents a

form of indexation of income (in the case of a one-off payment), and

Therefore, you must treat this contribution according to the principles contained in the

This regulation as with income (e.g. you must pay and allowance

abroad). However, it is the responsibility of each State to determine how it will be constructed

its pensions and what valorisation (including forms of indexation) pensions


carried out. The regulation does not provide for editing anywhere tanned for custom

pensions (including indexation) must be carried out for foreign pensions

If the beneficiaries of the foreign income is staying in the territory of the State (here in the United

Republic). In the provisions of article. 3 regulation enshrined the principle of equality in the

treatment, which provides that persons residing in the territory of the Member States, on the

related provisions of the regulation are subject to the same obligations and

enjoy the same benefits under the legislation of a Member State as a State

the Roma of the State concerned; in accordance with this principle, therefore, the adjustment

contribution in the Act No. 237/2004 Coll., which is not bound to stay or

nationality, but on a different condition, IE. for payment of a pension from

the Czech pension are insured. Therefore, the Czech Republic had not infringed the EU law

(IE. that Regulation), if the contribution to the foreign pensions would not admit.

The legitimacy of the opinion that the contribution should be treated as income and

that contribution (as a form of indexation) does not belong to foreign pensions, however,

It is necessary to provide it to all private pensions (i.e. even to pensions

paid to a foreign country, if the pensioner is living abroad), illustrated by

the Ministry of the fact that the Slovak Republic-admittedly after some time

and after consultation with the authorities of the EU-recognized its obligation to pay under

EU law similar to the Slovak post (according to the national law limited

only the beneficiaries of Slovak pensions with permanent residency in the Slovak Republic) and the

Slovak pensions paid abroad (i.e. even in the Czech Republic). Conflict with the

Regulation is therefore not cited in the opinion of the Ministry of labour and

Social Affairs given.



21. Ministry-to article. 17 of the Treaty between the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic on social

Security (hereinafter referred to as the "Treaty")-stated that the agreement applies to

State social benefits. From the article. XXIX of Act No. 235/2004 Coll., however,

to indicate that the post had the character of State social benefits, i.e..

benefits paid from a separate system, as it assumes the article. Article 2, point (l)

of the Treaty. On the contrary, of the Regulation (see above) suggests that the post has given

to their pension benefits. nature of the conditions Added that law No.

235/2004 Coll., came into effect on the date of the Treaty of accession of the Czech

States to the EU comes into force (i.e., the date of 1 May 2004); that date was

the Treaty replaced by Community legislation (i.e. whether or not regulation, as it

Regulation in article. 6 specifically States, with the exceptions listed in annex III.

Regulation, event, in annex 5 to Regulation No 574/72 and article. 17 to

These annexes/exceptions/not included). This means that since the Czech

Republic to the EU is not a contract (including article 17) apply, as it was

replaced by a regulation, and it could not therefore be in June 2004 contrary to the

the Treaty.



22. Ministry-to the allegation of breach of the principle of equality and the

the absence of objective and reasonable grounds and conditions of receipt of pensions

the Czech pension insurance-explained that the purpose of the Act.

237/2004 Coll. was mj. in one lump sum to compensate for the increase in the cost of living

in connection with changes in the rate of value added tax, or to facilitate the

(ease) transition to a single price increase as a result of the new tax rate

value added tax, and the one-time provision laid down

monetary amounts, IE. contribution. This post while not (in particular

for the high financial and technical complexity) designed for all

the population (as it once did at the time of its introduction of State compensation

post), but only for certain groups of people that already

they do not have income from own work, rely on social

benefits and the rise of the prices are therefore the most affected. The legislature therefore

He acknowledged the contribution to offset the rise of the prices of their dependent children (article.

ARTICLE XXVIII of the Act No. 235/2004 Coll., i.e.. on condition of payment of child allowance

under the Act on State social support, namely the children benefiting from this

a batch from the Czech system, which is set to a specific income situation

family) and poživatelům pensions from pension insurance, i.e. the Czech.

pensions which are bound to the last work in the Czech

Republic and which are subject to an adjustment in line with revenue and pricing in the United

Republic (Note: contribution, as stated above, is not an area and is not

bound for example. on age or other facts). Pensions are generally

the result of past economic activity in a given State and react on the

current income and price levels of that State. The level of income of persons,

that are beneficiaries of pensions from other countries should in the first place

guarantee State pension system to these persons in the past

contribute and from which i draw now. Indexation of pensions (including

increasing by a fixed amount) is set by the development of income and prices in

State pension is paid, and never (and this is true in all countries)

not take into consideration the development of income and prices in the State, where a pension is paid (i.e..

valorisation is not differentiated according to the State of residence of the pensioner;

pensions paid abroad, therefore increase even if abroad to

the rise of income or not); If indexation should be

carried out and to take account of this development in the State of residence of the beneficiaries

the pension paid to the other State, would amount to a double, and the valorisation of the

i would be technical difficulties because the State of residence of the pensioner is not paid

foreign income, and in particular to the fact there is no legal or factual

reason.



23. The Ministry added that the existence of the contribution and the amount was

designed with knowing what are the average earnings of persons for whom

paid Czech pension; income levels of people who receive a pension from

a foreign State, the legislature did and didn't address could not (in addition

pensions of these people are in some cases much higher

than the average Czech income). Persons who were not connected with the

the Czech system of pension insurance and pay taxes and insurance on the

the Czech social insurance, would therefore not be eligible for assistance only

because they are paid a pension from a foreign pension insurance,

that is in no way associated with removal of taxes or insurance premiums to the Government

the budget of the United States. Pensions are subject to the legal regime of the always

State, including valuing pensions, IE. do not increase or vice versa

do not limit the pensions paid to the other State. The stated purpose of the contribution, and

that the foreign pension is not bound, nor on the last or on the current

level of income and prices in the Czech Republic, therefore, are the reasons for the existence of

the conditions mentioned above in receipt of income from the Czech pension insurance.



24. The Ministry continued, and reported that the whole structure of the

article. XXIX of Act No. 235/2004 Coll., is thus associated with the payment of a pension from

the Czech pension insurance and the deletion of those words would become

article. XXIX of Act No. 235/2004 Coll., basically neaplikovatelný. For example, the

According to the article. XXIX paragraph 5, payment of the contribution was the authority of the

social security, which is responsible for the payment of a pension in June

2004; If it is not paid a pension from the pension insurance, the Czech

jerking off would determine the contribution payer. If the fallen off condition

payment of the pension of the Czech pension insurance, moreover, would become a circuit

authorised persons very vague (e.g. the stipulation is not permanent

stay on the territory of the Czech Republic, which would be in relation to the States of the EU and to

the Contracting States has been problematic), which would mean legal uncertainty.

Due to the article. XXIX point 8 (entitlement to payment of the allowance ceases on the day 30.

June 2005) by the deletion of the words of the Act No. 237/2004 Sb.

was also the inequality between persons who have submitted a claim in a timely manner (and which

the deletion of the words in question would have helped), and management is not yet over, and

persons who have not submitted a claim and that, therefore, entitlement to the allowance referred to in

This made the passage of time has lapsed.



25. Finally, the Ministry pointed out the claimant's opinion, that in the

the case is to be a positive intervention by the legislature to remove the

unjustified inequality between pensioners living in the territory of the United

of the Republic. To do this, it can be noted that, in view of the time already the original

purpose of the contribution (the purpose of the allowance was to help cope with the

price increases as a result of changes in the value added tax in 2004).

To carry out the amendment of Act No. 235/2004 Coll., effective with the first of the year

2008 and change while backward circle the beneficiaries and solve technical

Questions (e.g., to determine in the case of foreign contribution payer of pensions and

the technique of payment in relation to the article. XXIX, point 6 of Act No. 235/2004 Coll.) (I)

questions the claim under art. XXIX point 8 of Act No. 235/2004 Coll., would no longer be in the

Currently, taking into account the purpose and amount of the contribution (1000 Eur)

not the meaning; In addition, it would be in this situation should be assessed by analogy

the condition laid down in article 4(1). ARTICLE XXVIII, section 2, that it is not based on inequality

the contribution of the child and the contribution of pensioners). The Ministry of labour and social

Therefore, this amendment to the things it considers unfairly low and suggests that the

The Constitutional Court of the petitioner-the Supreme Administrative Court has rejected.



(D).



26. the Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic in its brief statement to the

the proposal stated that the provisions in question may have a discriminatory


character; considers, however, that account should be taken of the fact that

is already essentially a "vapor" (according to the article. XXIX, paragraph 2. 8 the investigation

the Act expires are entitled to payment of the allowance pensioners 30. 6.2005), and

any cancellation of the words "of the Czech pension insurance" would be nothing

did not solve. However, the Ministry stressed that any change that would

It meant extending the right to a pensioner receiving a pension from

the Slovak, but also from other pension schemes in the Czech

States, would mean an increase in expenditure from the State budget, which is for

the Ministry of finance with regard to the need for the stabilization of public

the budgets of the unacceptable. Therefore, the Ministry of finance with the proposal

the claimant does not agree.



III.



27. The Constitutional Court soon as possible in accordance with § 68 para. 2 of the Act on the constitutional

the Court examined whether the Act for which the appellant argues the unconstitutionality

under its provisions, was accepted and published within the limits of the Constitution laid down

competency and constitutionally prescribed way. Found (inter alia, the observations of the

The Chamber of Deputies and Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, as well as from the

the relevant Council prints, těsnopiseckých, resolutions and reports data on

during the vote of both Chambers), that the contested act was adopted and issued

The Constitution, in the prescribed manner and within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence,

While observing the quorums, laid down in article 4(1). paragraph 39. 1 and 2 of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC. Law

He was named on 23 December 2005. 4.2004 in the collection of laws under no. 78 in the amount

237/2004 Sb.



28. the Constitutional Court, however, on the other hand, he found that the impugned law

the adjustment was added to the Bill in the form of an amendment to

When discussing the Act No. 235/2004 Coll., in the Chamber of Deputies. With

taking into account the principles expressed in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 79/06 (collection

the findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, Volume 44, finding no. 30; p. 349, and

seq., promulgated under Act No. 37/2007 Sb.) He concluded that the legislation

mark. "přílepek" and thus in principle-for violating-common

the principles of the legislative process. However, the Constitutional Court here applied the test

adequacy in relation to other principles, protected the constitutional order

in particular, the principle of legitimate expectation of citizens in law, legal certainty and the

the principle of acquired rights. In this context also deduced that it was a legal

ad hoc adjustment, which is no longer consumed. Therefore, to the annulment of the contested

part of the Act from the formal reason didn't take.



IV.



29. the provisions of point 2 of the article. XXIX, part of the twenty-ninth, law No.

237/2004 Coll., amending, in connection with the adoption of the law of

the added value of changing some laws and adopt some other measures

and amending Act No. 353/2003 SB., on the Excise Tax Act, as amended by Act No.

479/2003 Coll., and Act No. 337/1992 Coll., on real estate tax, as amended by

amended, reads as follows (the proposal challenged the portion underlined):



A pensioner is entitled to an individual who is entitled to payment

income (part of income) from the Czech pension insurance (hereinafter referred to as

"pension") at least for part of June 2004. If the pensioner in this

the month of entitlement to payment of more pensions, pensioner only post belongs

once.



In the.



30. The Constitutional Court took the view that the proposal is not justified.



31. the task of the Constitutional Court was to consider whether the contested legal

the adjustment is not able to break the principle of the equality in rights, in General,

expressed in article 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, according to which

people are free and equal in dignity and in rights particularized (in

Article 3 of the Charter in the first paragraph) and that, in effect,

except in relation to those articles-on discrimination affecting

the right to adequate material security in old age pursuant to article. 30 paragraph 2. 1

Of the Charter.



32. the Constitutional Court has already in many of its decisions (see e.g. in finding sp.

Zn. PL. ÚS 33/96, collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court of the CZECH REPUBLIC, volume

8, finding no 67, pp. 163 et seq., promulgated under Act No. 185/1997.) closer

He explained the content of the constitutional principle of equality. It must be particularly

again, that is identified with the understanding of equality, as expressed

The Constitutional Court of CZECHOSLOVAKIA in its award of 8. 10.1992, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 22/92

(published under no. 11 Collections resolutions and findings of the TC of CZECHOSLOVAKIA), according to

which "is a matter of State security in the interest of their functions held

that a certain group will provide fewer benefits than others. Even here, however, must not

follow completely arbitrarily. If the law specifies the benefit of one

groups and at the same time lays down the obligations of the other, may be disproportionate, so

the State only with reference to public value. " The Constitutional Court dismissed

the absolute understanding of the principle of equality and equality as a category

the relative, which requires in particular the Elimination of unjustified differences and

the exclusion of arbitrariness. The content of the principle of equality has moved into the area by

constitutional aspects of the differentiation of the bodies and the concept of rights.

The distinction in the access to certain rights, therefore, must not be the result of

arbitrariness, does not follow from it, however, a categorical conclusion that everyone had to

be granted any right (cf. below, find SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

15/02). Article 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms cannot, moreover,

be interpreted in isolation from the other general articles 2 to 4 of the Charter, but

on the contrary, you must hold as a single whole. From modifying these General

provisions, it is clear that neither the basic value listed in the protected

Article 3 of the Charter did not conceive them ústavodárce as an absolute. In the matter of the sp.

Zn. PL. ÚS 4/95 (collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court of the CZECH REPUBLIC, volume 3,

find no 29, p. 209 et seq., promulgated under no. 169/1995 Sb.) The constitutional

the Court among others. the Court held that the inequality in social relations, in order to

touch the fundamental human rights, must reach the intensity,

challenging, at least in a certain direction, already the very essence of equality. It

usually happens when there is a violation of and a violation of equality

another of the basic law.



33. As stated in the report, the Constitutional Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 15/02 (collection

the findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court of the CZECH REPUBLIC, volume 29, no. 11, pp. 79 and

seq., promulgated under Act No. 40/2003 Coll.), the principle of equality is legally

philosophical postulátem, which is in the plane of positive rights guaranteed by the

the prohibition of discrimination. Equality is not a constant, as it passes through the categories

the development, which its contents especially in the area of political and

social notes significantly. Likewise, international instruments on

human rights and the many decisions of international control organs

based on the fact that not every difference in treatment with different actors can be

to qualify as a violation of the principle of equality, such as unlawful

discrimination of some subjects in comparison with other bodies. In order to

violation has occurred, several conditions must be met, in particular,

the situation that the different entities that are in the same or

a comparable situation be treated differently without

objective and reasonable grounds to put forward a different approach. Here you can

supplement-as is clear from the foregoing that the finding-that the European Court of

human rights in its established case-law, similarly notes that the

the difference in treatment between persons located in analogous or

comparable situations is discriminatory if it has no objective and

reasonable justification, i.e.. If it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if

the means used are proportionate to the aim pursued. Also The Un Committee

for human rights in the application of article 4(1). 26 Pact, has repeatedly expressed the view that

the exclusion of arbitrary power lies in the fact that it does not apply to discrimination outside

reasonable and objective criteria (



reasonable and objective criteria

).



34. The legislature has, however, some room for thought, whether in the area of

social rights will mandate a preferential treatment. Must ensure

to favouring the approach was based on the mentioned objective and

reasonable grounds (a legitimate objective of the legislature) and that between this objective and

the means to achieve the (legal) relationship existed

of proportionality. In the area of civil and political rights and freedoms already

imanentně is characterized by the obligation of the State to refrain from intervention in them,

exists for the preferential treatment with some bodies generally only

the minimum space. By contrast, in the field of economic rights,

social, cultural and minority, in which the State is contrary to the active

intervention-as they have obligated to remove some aspects of inequality

between different groups of complex socially, culturally, professionally or otherwise

stratified society-the legislature has much more logically

a validation of their ideas about the acceptable limits of the factual

inequality within it (cf. judgment of the Constitutional Court SP. zn.

PL. ÚS 15/02).



35. Under the viewing angle from above expressed the fundamental principles and previously

adopted the conclusions of the Constitutional Court, therefore, the Constitutional Court assessed whether

the contested legislation is unwarranted, or the expression of the State arbitrariness

whether it's a legitimate effort to reasonably preferential access and not a

unconstitutional distinction between the parties concerned, that is not based on

objective and reasonable grounds and aspects. The exclusion of arbitrariness

lies in the fact that we cannot apply any privilege or


discrimination outside of reasonable and objective criteria. From the postulátu of equality

Although it does not-as has already been stated above-general request

equality for all is all, however, it follows from the requirement that the right

for no reason does not specifically favour or neznevýhodňovalo some before others.



36. In view of all things lies-as above in detail in summary-in the legal

modify, according to which (in the sense of the passage of Act No. 235/2004 Coll.)

was the purpose of mj. in one lump sum to compensate for the increase in the cost of living in the

changes in the amount of value added tax, or to facilitate the

the transition to a one-time increase in prices as a result of the new value added tax rates

values, and one-time license grant specified amounts of money

i.e.. contribution. This post while not conceived as an area specified by the

for all the inhabitants of the United States, but only for certain groups of

people, in General, do not have that income from self employment, and

may be most affected by the rise of prices. The legislature therefore admitted

poživatelům of the Czech pension insurance.



37. With regard to the collected documents to the case and the observations

the competent authorities of the State concerned (cf. above) agrees (i)

The Constitutional Court's view, that the lump sum compensation for

the pensioner was not conceived from the outset as a social dose of standing

excluding the pension insurance scheme, but as-though somewhat

-implementation in the framework of the Czech pension benefits

insurance (Note: the post was to be paid as well as abroad),

Therefore, with regard to this, what is the amount of pensions granted under legal

Edit valid in the Czech Republic; recipients of foreign pensions, living on the

the territory of the Czech Republic, could not relate to. This approach can be

be considered as a single quasi retirement. valorisation Logically and from

nature of the substance, as it reminded the Ministry of labour and

Social Affairs, that the amount thereof is designed with the knowledge of what

the average income of persons to whom a pension is payable to a Czech; levels

income of persons who receive a pension from a foreign country, often are limited in

significantly different from the pension of the Czech legislature, did not engage in nor

the deal could not.



38. In that procedure, the legislature cannot be based on the belief of the constitutional

the Court held no unjustifiable discrimination; It is actually a

no doubt the responsibility of each State to determine what the indexation of pensions,

responding to current income and price levels of a particular State

will be carried out. The chosen procedure can be considered legitimate and carried out

in a manner that is proportionate to its purpose. Ad absurdum in all, in the case of

compliance with the proposal, that is, in essence, in the case of the granting of this

one-off compensation and poživatelům of Slovak (and other foreign)

pensions, living on the territory of the Czech Republic, in contrast, can

rightly feel discriminated against other groups of people, not only

pensioners, would not be accepted if the solution area.



39. With regard to the alleged non-compliance by the applicant does not hold water namítaný

the contested legislation, with art. 17 of the Treaty between the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic on social

security, since this contract concerned only State

social benefits, but allowance should, as explained above,

the character of the performance of the pension. It should also agree with the views of the Senate

Parliament of the Czech Republic and the Ministry of labour and Social Affairs, which

in their observations, inter alia, recalled the case of an international agreement,

that is from the Czech Republic to the European Union, as it does not

follows from article. 6 of Regulation No 1408/1971 of the EEC. The petitioner's objections

regarding the non-compliance of the law with this regulation then just

I reiterate that the regulation does not provide for editing anywhere tanned in

own pensions (including indexation) must be carried out for pensions

foreign beneficiaries of foreign income, if he lives in the territory of

of a particular State. It is in accordance with the principle of equality of treatment,

in this regulation, if the requirements in the Act No. 237/2004 Coll.

is not bound to residence or nationality, but on a different condition,

i.e.. to the payment of a pension from the Czech pension are insured. After all, you cannot

overlook, that European Union law the reference criterion for the assessment of

the constitutionality of laws and other legislation for the Constitutional Court is not.



40. the Constitutional Court also points out that the amount of the amounts in question itself, i.e.

1000 Czk (approx. 40 Euro), plus a lump sum to be paid, can barely establish,

When it comes to the individual, such an unjustified inequality that could

hit the constitutional plane, even in relation to the State budget

This is not a negligible amount. For the public interest can then undoubtedly

be considered as effective management of funds intended for

payment of pensions in an amount prescribed by the regulations.



41. therefore, the Constitutional Court rejected the proposal.



42. The Constitutional Court has come to the conclusion that from the oral proceedings could not be expect

further clarification of the matter and, therefore, with the agreement of the participants dropped from him.



The President of the Constitutional Court:



JUDr. Rychetský in r.

Related Laws