The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic held on 12 June 2006. June 1996 in plenary in
draft groups 31 members of Parliament of the United
Republic for annulment of generally binding decrees of 24 September Jicin town.
January 1995 to ban communist, Nazi and fascist propaganda on the
the town of Jičín
The town of Jičín Decree of 24 April. January 1995 to ban communist,
Nazi and fascist propaganda on the territory of the town of Jičín is deleted
date of publication of this finding in the statute book.
A group of 31 deputies of Parliament of the United Kingdom
It proposed that the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic has started proceedings for cancellation
Decree of 24 September Jicin town. 1. the 1995 to ban communist,
Nazi and fascist propaganda on the territory of the town of Jičín.
The text of the contested Decree is as follows:
The Town Of Jičín
on the prohibition of Communist, Nazi and fascist propaganda on the territory
the town of Jičín
The Communist, Nazi and fascist propaganda on the territory of the city
The Communist, Nazi and fascist propaganda means:
and change requests) of the constitutional order,
(b) the use of the symbols of these criminal) movement in their promotion,
c) questioning the crime schemes which this movement could have imagined.
The Decree shall enter into force on the fifteenth day following the date of its
In Jicin on 24. January 1995
In its application filed pursuant to § 64 para. 2 (a). (b)). No. 182/1993
Coll., on the Constitutional Court, members of the Group States that the permission of the village
issue generally binding decrees in matters of individual municipalities
Although enshrined in article. paragraph 104. 3 of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC, at the same time, however, is limited
which can be established only by law (article 104, paragraph 1,
Of the Constitution). This Act is primarily the Act No. 367/1990 Coll., on
municipalities (municipal establishment), as amended by later regulations (hereinafter referred to as "the Act.
No. 367/1990 Coll. "), in which the provisions of § 13 para. 2 it is stated that when
individual performance is a municipality governed by just laws and generally binding
the law, issued by the central authorities to implement them. According to the
§ 16 para. 2 this Act shall be of such a decree in accordance with the laws of
and that legislation. The new provisions of section 17 of the Act on municipalities, in
the text of the Act. No 279/1995 Coll., extends the jurisdiction of municipalities generally binding
the decree to restrict or prohibit activities that may disturb the
public order in some publicly accessible areas in the village. This
extended jurisdiction, however, only apply to the local public
Okay, as is apparent from the provisions of § 14 para. 1 (b). o) of the Act on
municipalities, and it is therefore common ground that "activities" within the meaning of section 17 of the new wording of
do not exercise the right to "express their opinions by Word, print, printing, image
or in any other way, as well as the freedom to seek, receive and impart
ideas and information regardless of frontiers of the State "according to the article. Article 17(1). 1, 2
The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms ("the Charter"). According to the article. 17
paragraph. 4 of the Charter may be freedom of speech and the right to seek and disseminate
information limited by law in the case of measures in the Democratic
society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, security
State, public safety, public health and morality. This
the law is the law of the corresponding with the article. 19 of the International Covenant on
Civil and political rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Covenant"), which may be
limited by law in the special cases referred to in paragraph 1. 3 (b). a) and
(b)) article. 19 of the Covenant. Such a right to freedom of expression guarantees also article. 10
Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention")
with the fact that the exercise of this right may be restricted only by law and only for the
the conditions laid down in paragraph 1. 2 article. 10. In addition, the proposal states that
the contested Decree extends also to the rights to the results of creative intellectual
activities, which are protected by the provisions of article without any restrictions. 34
paragraph. 1 of the Charter. Subsequently, it states that the contested Decree is in violation of and
with the provisions of article 8(1). 2 (2). 4 of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC and article. 2 (2). 3 of the Charter, in accordance with
each may do whatever is not prohibited by law, IE. not the norm
lower legal force, as the Decree, and vice versa, must not be forced to do
something that does not impose the law. Finally, the proposal states that the challenged
the decree is contrary to the provisions of article 8(1). 4 (4). 1 of the Charter, according to which
obligations can be imposed only under the law and within the limits
and just when the preservation of fundamental rights and freedoms. The contested Decree of
Jičín was violated, in particular the provisions of article. 2 (2). 4 and article. 104
The Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC, the provisions of article. 2 (2). 2 and 3, article. 4 (4). 1 and 2, article. 17
paragraph. 1, 2 and 4 and article. 34 of the Charter, the provisions of § 13 para. 2 and § 16 para. 2
Cust. No. 367/1990 Coll., the provisions of article. 19 of the Covenant, as well as the provisions of article.
10 of the Convention. For these reasons the Group of Deputies has proposed cancellation of the contested
The town of Jičín in its observations, that this is a serious
issues, and, therefore, would be an appropriate thing to discuss according to § 44 Cust. No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, at a hearing. At the oral proceedings
first of all, they argued, then failure to comply with procedural conditions on the part of management
the appellants ' (a group of at least 25 members) and later on the merits
pointed to section 17 of the Act. No. 367/1990 Coll., as amended by the Act. No 279/1995 Coll.
that is, in their opinion also applies to the activities defined in the contested
the Decree, with the understanding that the purpose of this Ordinance is to protect public order,
on the basis of reasonable grounds for concern before the violation. In addition, if you are
in the Decree příkladmo made the penalties as in § 198, section 198a, section 260 and section 261
the criminal code, cannot be challenged the Ordinance in violation of the law.
Completely at the end of the city has proposed to refuse the draft, a group of MPs.
As regards the objection of Jicin, concerning the lack of procedural
the eligibility of the applicant, it must be noted at the outset that the Constitutional Court with this
objection ... and refers to the findings of the Constitutional Court of CZECHOSLOVAKIA in the
matters kept under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 1/92, pl. TC 95/92 and PL. TC 22/92,
that deal with it, with the fact that the Constitutional Court takes over in them referred to
the conclusion that critical to the submission of the proposal is the time of the request to which the
with the legal conditions of time-clamped, which arises from the interpretation of the Act. No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, and in particular from the fact that the law does not specify the
reducing the number of members who submitted the proposal, as the reason for stopping the
Once the proceedings and also from the fact that the requirement of the protection of constitutionality
corresponds to the Constitutional Court because of general interest in the already started things
According to the provisions of § 68 para. 2 of the Act. No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,
assessing the Constitutional Court when deciding the content of the law or other legal
prescription for their compliance with the constitutional laws, international
the contracts referred to in article. 10 of the Constitution, or. laws, if it is a different legal
prescription, and figuring out whether they have been accepted and issued within the limits of the Constitution
set out competences and constitutionally prescribed way. In this direction of
the minutes of the second meeting of the City Council, to be held December 24. 1.
in 1995, the Constitutional Court found that the contested Decree was
approved at that meeting 12 votes from a total of 20 user online
Members, 4 were against, and 2 abstained, and 2 votes
They ignored. Whereas, the Town Council has a total of 21
Members, it can be concluded that the contested Decree was adopted
in a qualified manner (article 38, paragraph 5, of Act No. 367/1990 Coll.). Because
the Decree was properly posted up on an official notice board in the day 25.
1.1995 and removed 10 June. 2.1995, entered into force on 9 April. 2.1995 (§
Article 16(1). 3 and 4 of the Act. No. 367/1990 Coll.). The Constitutional Court therefore considers that the
the contested regulation was adopted and issued by the constitutionally prescribed way.
On the other hand, however, has not been challenged, in the opinion of the Constitutional Decree
the Court adopted and published within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence. The Constitution of the
down in this respect in article 79 paragraph 2. 3, the authorities of the local and regional authorities,
as well as the ministries and other administrative authorities, on the basis of and in
the limits of the law, legislate if they are empowered by law to do so.
Due to the inclusion of this article into the head of a third, governing power
the powerful, it may be considered that the municipality carries on State administration in the range
provided for by special laws. By contrast, article 104 of the Constitution, which
paragraph 3 provides that the Council may, within the limits of its competence
issue generally binding decrees, is included in the title of the seventh on territorial
self-government. In Act No. 367/1990 Coll. is referred to the competence of territorial authorities
Government to issue normative legal acts indicated in the title of the second with
called "Scope", so that the scope of the individual (section 13
and subs. Cust. No. 367/1990 Coll.) or about the scope of the devolved (paragraph 21 et seq..
Cust. No. 367/1990 Coll.). Issue generally binding decrees on matters
belonging to the by, the municipality only on the basis of
authorization in the Act and within the limits (section 24 (1) of Act No. 367/1990 Coll.).
The case of issue generally binding decrees within the delegated
the scope of the present case is clearly not due to lack of
legal authorization. The Constitutional Court therefore also dealt with the question of whether the
the contested decree can be considered as generally binding Decree in cases
belonging to separate the scope of [section 14, paragraph 1, point b i) Cust.
No. 367/1990 Coll.]. Separate the scope of municipalities is regulated in the provisions of §
14 Cust. No. 367/1990 Coll., in paragraph 1 of this provision are
individual activities belonging to the individual listed
demonstratively, while in paragraph 1. 2 is a separate scope of the village
extensively modified so that the municipality in a separate scope of further
ensures in its territorial jurisdiction, the economic, social and cultural
development, the protection and the creation of a healthy environment, with the exception of those
the activities that are assigned to other departments of special laws such as the performance of the
the State administration. In the opinion of the Constitutional Court can hardly be considered that under the
autonomy is essential to understand the prohibition of activities that in the
essence is nothing more than a restatement of the constituent elements of criminal
the acts listed in section 260 and section 261 of the tr. By a decree of such
the content published by the town of Jičín has exceeded the limits of the Constitution and by Act No.
367/1990 Coll. established competencies. To do this, the Constitutional Court States that the
to a village in this way explicitly manifest their political will, can
to do so in other adequate means.
Because of the above, the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that the contested
the decree is in breach of article. paragraph 104. 3 of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC, the provisions of § 13,
14 and § 16 para. 2 of the Act. No. 367/1990 Coll., and therefore, without the need to
many of the reasons given in the proposal, decided by Decree
the town of Jičín, of 24 September. 1. the 1995 to ban communist, Nazi, and
fascist propaganda on the territory of the town of Jičín is repealed on the date of its publication in the
This finding, in the journal of laws (section 70 (1) of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the
The Constitutional Court).
The President of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.