In The Matter Of An Application For Annulment Of Point E) Decree The Village Of Karlštejn

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zrušení bodu e) vyhlášky obce Karlštejn

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.
141/1994 Coll.



FIND



The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic



On behalf of the United States



The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic decided in plenary on 14 June 2005. June 1994 on the

the design of the head of the District Office in Beroun for annulment of point (e)) in General

binding decrees the village of Karlstejn, the charge for the admission to the Castle,

adopted on 19 December. February 1991,



as follows:



The village of Karlstein in the Decree on local charges of 19 May. February 1991

cancelled date of publication of this finding in the collection of laws of the Czech Republic

the provisions of point e), as amended by:



"The rate of the fee on admission to karlstejn Castle Czech crowns-2.0 from one

tickets.



Fee is due 15 days after the quarter of each year. "



Justification



1. the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic received on 29. 7. the 1993 proposal, the head of

District Office in Beroun for annulment of part of generally binding decrees of the village

(local authority) Karlštejn on local charges of 19 May. 2.1991,

as regards the fees from admission to the Castle; subject to the order has been

determination of local taxes on the basis of Act No. 564/1990 Coll., on

local fees. The proposal was accompanied by submission of 18 September. 11.1993,

that closer rationalized submitted the request.



On 14 June 2005. 2. the 1992 suspended the District Office in Beroun pursuant to § 62 para. 1

Act No. 367/1990 Coll., on municipalities, power referred to in the Decree,

regarding the charges on admission to karlstejn Castle, for lack of

Act No. 564/1990 Coll.



The village of Karlstejn has not carried out at the time the change referred to Decree, and

Therefore, the head of the District Office in Beroun turned the day 13 11. 1992,

According to the provisions of the Act on municipalities, to the Czech National Council. In

the meaning of communication from the Chamber of deputies from December 17. 2. the 1993 then submit thing

in accordance with article 6(1). 87 para. 1 (b). (b)) of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC, to the decision of the Constitutional

the Court.



2. In accordance with the provisions of article. 87 para. 1 (b). (b)) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic

shall be decided by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic on the abolition of other laws

regulations, including the regulations, cities and towns, where they are in conflict with the constitutional

by law, by the law or international agreement under article. 10 of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC.



The Municipal Council of the village of Karlstejn has approved a decree on local fees

on 19 December. 2. the 1991 pursuant to § 36 odst. 1 (b). f) of Act No. 367/1990 Coll., on

municipalities, as amended, as the Ordinance in matters

a separate jurisdiction. According to § 14 para. 1 (b). h) this law include

determination of the types of local taxes and their rates under a special

in a separate Act, the scope of the community, so that the municipality to issue a decree was

entitled to according to explicit provisions of the Act, as well as in the

meaning of article 87(1). paragraph 104. 3 of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC, according to which the Council

to issue, within the limits of its competence, generally binding decrees. Special

by law, according to which it was obliged to do as above, is

Act No. 564/1990 Coll., on local charges, which States that

municipalities can levy fees on it, among them charges of

admission.



The condition of the generally binding decrees is according to § 16 para. 3

of the Act on municipalities, that the decree must be hoisted on board

the Municipal Office for 15 days, and the date of publication of the first day

her posting on the official Board and shall take effect on the 15th day of

following the date of its publication. According to a statement of the municipal office in

The history of 22 March. 2. the 1994 and District Office in Beroun from 24 September.

February 1994 was hoisted from the decree in question 19. 2. the 1991 to 19. 3.

in 1991, which was a statutory condition is fulfilled and Ordinance came into force.



District Office in Beroun has suspended pursuant to § 62 para. 1 of Act No. 367/1990

Coll., on municipalities the power to Decree on local charges of the village of Karlštejn

on 19 December. 2.1991, issued in individual municipalities, in the part on

fees from admission to the Castle [point e) Decree], for lack of

Act No. 564/1990 Coll., on local charges.



In point (e))-fee on admission in the Decree States:



"Natural and legal persons on admission to cultural, sporting and

sales events and actions of a similar nature. The fee is charged from the actions,

whose entire proceeds is determined by the charitable and public benefit

purposes.



The rate of the fee



-from admission to the dance and theatrical performances organized by the

local organizations is provided for fee 100 Czech Crowns per event.

Fee is due within 10 days after the event,



-from the entrance fee from all other events (excluding dance and theatre events

organized by local organizations) is provided for a fee of 20% of the total

the amount of the selected ticket. Fee is due within 10 days after the

action,



-from admission to the castle of karlstejn 2 Czech crowns from a single tickets. The fee is

payable within 15 days after the quarter of each year. "



The contradiction of the Decree of the law was found in the fact that the above text,

relating to the admission to the castle of Karlstein is in conflict with the law No.

565/1990 Coll. on local charges, in particular with its paragraph 6 (1). 1, in

which States:



"The admission fee is levied on admission to cultural, sporting and

sales events and actions of a similar nature. Of the action of which all proceeds

It is intended for charitable purposes and public benefit, with a fee

does not apply. "



District Office in Beroun sees this contradiction in the fact that the Act

assumes collection of the fee on admission in the case of

a single cultural event, for example. the exhibition, dance, a specific

theatrical performances, etc., but not on admission to a permanent

exposure in facilities permanent. In addition, the resources of the

selected admission to the castles and palaces designed for public benefit purposes

(financing the repair and maintenance of objects of protected through monument authorities) and in

that case, the fee does not apply. This your opinion against the opinion of the

the Ministry of Finance of 4 February. 9.1991.



According to § 64 para. 3 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, the proposal

on the abolition of the law, or of its individual provisions,

issued by the municipalities in its individual scope, also head of the district

the Office, so the proposal is brought by the person entitled. I was satisfied the condition that

such a proposal must be a legal regulation, which was issued in

under its separate powers. Because they were found to be within the meaning of section 42

paragraph. 1 the reasons for the rejection of the proposal, the Constitutional Court accepted the proposal to

consultation.



The Constitutional Court, after collecting the documents supporting the proposal, the head of the District Office

in Beroun has required the consent of both parties, in order to

refrain from oral proceedings within the meaning of § 44 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993

SB. having regard to the fact that from the oral proceedings could not be expect

further clarification of the matter. Both parties expressed their agreement with this

on 12 June 2006. 5. the 1994 and 17. 5.1994.



3. The Constitutional Court assessed the legal reasons which led the District Office in

Beroun to the suspension of parts of the contested Decree, and came to the following

conclusions:



The predecessor of the admission fees pursuant to section 6 of Act No. 564/1990 Coll.,

appears to be a municipal levy from allowing dances and productions, which

has always existed.



Her edit, made by law No 82/1952 Coll. and Decree. No 67/1966 Coll.

provided that the fee levied on admission to cultural production

mostly entertainment and commercial nature, carried out in one lump sum and

repeatedly, such as. dance, folk festivals, shows and

Dance entertainment programmes (section 6). Now a valid edit

characterizes the fee slightly in the broader concept of when to

an enumeration also includes sports and sales event.



Despite a certain extension of the areas of possible charges cannot be

the term "cultural events" may be interpreted extensively. With regard to the

terminology used by the relevant legal provisions can be inferred that

the legislature understands content as cultural event or production company

the theme of the character. This is shown for example. by law No 82/1957 Coll. on

entertainments, performances and folk entertainment, artistických, as amended by

amended, or from the search. No 117/1991 Coll. on the organisation of public

productions.



Therefore, you cannot charge a fee for admission from the cultural sights and tours

visit the Castle or the castle can be considered cultural event within the meaning of the law on

local fees.



The Constitutional Court agrees with the opinion of the Ministry of Finance of the CZECH REPUBLIC of 4.

9. in 1991, the law on local fees assumes collection of the fee

on admission in the case of a single cultural event, for example.

the exhibition, dance, theatre, etc.-specific, not

However, admission to the permanent exhibition in the premises of a lasting nature.

In addition, resources from the admission to the castles

uniquely designed for public benefit purposes, with a focus on

funding for the repair and maintenance of objects of protected through monument authorities and in

that case, the fee does not apply.



It also corresponds to the explanatory memorandum, the draft law on local government

the charges, from which it follows that municipalities require the collection of a fee from

admission to fit local circumstances affect desirable direction on

Organization of cultural and sports events at the site. In doing so, it is necessary to

be based on the fact that it is in the interest of the citizens of the community to have the possibility to


to organise and participate in high-quality cultural and sporting events and is in the

the interest of cultural and sports organizations, municipal authorities and to

the population in this respect. To support actions which

the proceeds will be used for the charitable and public benefit purposes,

proposes the following actions from fee to free them.



On the basis of the above, the Constitutional Court upheld the proposal

the head of the District Office in Beroun from 28 June. 7. the 1993 and ruled

as stated above.



In the course of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court found that the decree in question was

marked as Decree of the municipal office in Karlstein and signed

the Mayor, while the Decree should be issued as a separate

the scope of the municipality marked as Decree the village of Karlštejn and signed

the Mayor and his Deputy, or the other Councillors in the meaning of the Act on municipalities.

Further, the Court found that the Ordinance still contains provisions on

dislokačním fee, which was abolished by Act No. 337/1992 Coll., with

effect from 1. 1.1993. Because these deficiencies were the subject of

the suspension of the said Decree, made by the Chief of the District Office

in Beroun, could the constitutional court decide about them.



III.



Different views



Different opinion of judge JUDr. In Paul



The principle that the Constitutional Court in its decision not to go over the proposal to

repeal of legislation put forward by law by authorized participants

control (no eat iudex ultra petitum partium), cannot be applied to the Constitutional Court

apply.



He knows the policy referred to in § 153 paragraph limited. 2. s. l., according to which

the Court may exceed the design of participants and attributed more than what

They claim only if the procedure was meant to initiate without an application,

or if from law follows the method of settlement

the relationship between the parties. It follows from this that the theoretical basis of referred

the principle is the right of a participant in such a disposition of property disputes, in

which the applicant guesthouse Act (plea Petite) may determine the

the limits of my claim, and thus limits of adjudication. Where this

the applicant does not have the option of disposal (so-called former undisputed cases

proceedings can be initiated without an application) or where the

method of settlement follows directly from the law, that principle or under.

row does not apply. This policy does not apply in all cases or in appeal

the proceedings before the Court of appeal (article 212, paragraph 1, of the row).



That, in civil proceedings that principle applies only in certain

the above property disputes flows safely from the words of § 153 para.

2. (srv. attributed to more). The Constitutional Court in accordance with the express

the provisions of § 78 para. 2 of the Act. No. 182/1993 Coll. is not bound to proposals

participants in the constitutional complaint, and has the right to, in connection with making decisions about

such a complaint-the procedure according to the law-to decide and repealing

laws, other legal acts or individual provisions thereof.

A fortiori, it can make its own motion in proceedings for annulment of laws or

other legislation.



Should therefore be decided, taking into account the information in the last paragraph

in the preamble, of the cancellation of the entire order, not just part of it.



The President of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic:



JUDr. Kessler v. r.



The right to a different opinion with your connections on behalf of the decision

under section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, judge

JUDr. Vladimir Paul.

Related Laws