57/1999 Coll.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the United States
The Constitutional Court ruled on 10. March 1999 in the plenary on the proposal of the district
Court of Prague 1 to repeal § 8 paragraph. 6 of law No. 87/1991 Coll. on
extrajudicial rehabilitation,
as follows:
The provisions of § 8 para. 6 of law No. 87/1991 Coll. on extra-judicial
rehabilitation, is repealed on the date of publication of this finding in the collection
laws.
Justification
(I).
On 14 June 2005. October 1998 the Constitutional Court delivered a draft of the circuit court
Prague 1, submitted pursuant to article. 95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to
"the Constitution") and pursuant to § 64 para. 4 of law No. 182/1993 Coll., on the constitutional
the Court. As is apparent from the design, is this Court recognized the dispute since 1992
Prosecutor m. l. against the Office of the President of the Republic. By this action, the
the applicant as a person entitled under section 3 of Act No. 87/1991 Coll. on
extrajudicial rehabilitation, seeks the conclusion of an agreement on the issue of
real estate in the cadastral district of Prague 1-Hradcany, the so-called.
Lobkovického Palace and two urban plots. The defendant rejects the
the required property issue, the applicants on the grounds that they are part of
national cultural monuments "Prague Castle", which is written in the State
list of immovable cultural monuments under the ev. # 1-922, with reference
to section 8 (2). 6 of law No. 87/1991.
Resolution SP. zn. 10 C 195/92 of 12 October 1992. August 1998 the District Court of
Threshold 1 proceedings and file together with a proposal to repeal § 8 paragraph. 6
Act No. 87/1991 Coll. stepped to the Constitutional Court, if concluded,
that provision, which should be used in settling the dispute, is in
contrary to the Constitution.
The applicant mainly contends that the so-called. restitution laws issued to remedy
some property-related injustices that have occurred in the so-called. relevant period,
are in relation to the General civil provisions special adjustment.
These laws can be divided into two groups. The first group are
laws for correction of property-related injustices do not foresee special
legal action and to move assets to intended beneficiaries of
the law. The second group to which it belongs and law No. 87/1991 Coll., form
laws that, conversely, that the assets were returned, require that the
who feels entitled to release, in the prescribed manner called holder
asset to its release.
Law No. 87/1991 Coll. specifies in section 3 that the authorised person can only be
natural person whose case went into the ownership of the State under conditions
specified in § 6 of this Act, provided that the applicant has the State
citizenship of the Czech Republic. The provisions of § 8 para. 6 of this law, however,
It provides that "the thing that is declared a national cultural monument, the
will not issue until the time when the Czech National Council and the Slovak National Council
they adopt a new law on the management and protection of the national cultural monuments. "
According to the opinion of the Court, this provision already almost 8 years hinders a particular circuit
authorised persons to realize their right to redress for grievances, which is in the
contrary to the purpose of this Act, which is expressed in his introductory
in part a, § 1. A group of eligible persons is with their claims
relegated to indefinite time, moreover in a manner rather
vague because it is not certain when and whether they will be presumed by law
accepted. Nor is it clear whether the legislature had in mind the adoption of
the complex new law, or the law only changing and supplementing the
yet valid law No. 20/1987 Coll. on State care monument. In doing so,
by comparing the wording of this provision (... shall be issued until...)
§ 8 paragraph diction. 1, 3 and 4 of the same Act (... shall not be issued, ...
do not generate.) It can be concluded that it was not meant that things
declared a national monument are or will be the things that issue
You cannot. This conclusion also supports § 8 para. 5 of this Act, which
a person whose case issue cannot be, grants the right to financial compensation under
§ 13 para. 1.
Of all of the above reasons, the applicant is of the opinion that section 8 (2). 6
Act No. 87/1991 Coll. contradicts the article. 1 of the Constitution, as well as the article. 1, art. 3 (2).
1 and article. 4 (4). 2 and 3, of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (hereinafter referred to as
"The Charter").
II.
The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in its observations
It stated that the contested provision was incorporated into the law at the time of his
consideration of the legislature, as in the original proposal
law or such a provision in the explanatory memorandum. According to its
opinion, this provision does not dispute the fact that the applicant is the person
authorized by law. This provision only for clearly defined
circle the things with the national cultural heritage regulates the conditions for
their issue. Therefore, the legislature did not intend to retire completely or
to restrict a specific group of authorized persons at the expense of the other, whether
determination of unfair terms or their discrimination. The evident
the intention was to issue these things only after the approval of the new legislation
management and protection of cultural monuments, when the existing legislation
their protection does not provide in a satisfactory manner. In the opinion of
The Chamber of Deputies, it is obvious that it is an entirely new law and
not just a novel, which is indicative of the importance which the legislature
This matter attaches. If this is unclear to the time fence
acceptance, the Chamber of Deputies does not consider such an adjustment for rozpornou with
the democratic principles of the legislative process, on the contrary, rozpornou would
fixed a deadline to be considered for the adoption of new legislation.
For these reasons, do not share the opinion of the Chamber of deputies of the applicant that the
the contested provision is contrary to article. 1 of the Constitution, or article. 1, art. 3 (2). 1
or article. 4 (4). 2 and 3 of the Charter. In conclusion, it is considered that the
Act No. 87/1991 was approved by the required majority of members
the legislature and has been properly declared. It is up to the Constitutional Court, in order to
to assess the constitutionality of the contested provisions and issued the appropriate decision.
In the opinion, which according to § 48 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll.
Judge-Rapporteur asked the Ministry of culture, States that in accordance with the
resolution of the Government No. 632 of 30 November 2005. September 1998 on the Legislative Plan
the work of the Government for the remainder of 1998 and for 1999, and about the Vision
the legislative work of the Government for the years 2000 to 2002 is preparing the Ministry of
the culture of the draft substantive intent of the law on the protection of cultural monuments. This
the proposal will be submitted to the Government for consideration in June 1999. For this reason,
the Ministry recommended not to § 8 paragraph. 6 of law No. 87/1991.
cancelled, but proposes to wait for new laws.
III.
The plenary especially the Constitutional Court found that it is not necessary to deal with
the fact that Act No. 87/1991 Coll. was issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down
competency and constitutionally in the prescribed manner, for the fulfilment of these
conditions had already stated in its findings, the renowned under no. 164/1994
Coll. and no. 153/1998 Coll.
As for the thing itself, of which it was examined, the Constitutional Court concluded that the
the proposal is justified. This conclusion is based on the following constitutional court
arguments:
Law No. 20/1987 Coll. on State care monument, provides in paragraph 4 that
determining what is to be regarded as a national monument, it performs
Government by regulation. In section 9 are set out specific obligations
the owner of the cultural relics, section 13 of the pre-emption of the State to these
things, and article 15, paragraph 2. 3 modifies the procedure in cases where the owner of the
neglects the care of the national cultural monument. The latter provision
in certain cases, also allows the expropriation of assets. In the interim
the provisions of § 42 para. 2 then States that the national cultural monuments
declared under the former legislation shall be considered as the national
cultural heritage under this Act.
According to the implementation decrees, Ministry of culture of the Czech Socialist
No. 66/1988 Coll. is leading a central list of cultural monuments, in
which also features a cultural monument is declared
"national".
Therefore, the status quo is such that about what it will be. National
cultural heritage issued the beneficiaries, shall be decided by the Government, actually,
that regulation may omit certain things from the list, respectively.
Declaration of a national cultural monument and limit or advanced. As an example,
such a procedure can include regulation of the Government of the Czech Republic No. 404/1992
Coll., which from its original definition, that is a national cultural monument
the entire old town square in Prague, it was determined that this character
It will continue to have only the Kinsky Palace, the old town hall and Church
Our Lady before Týn, and similar to the way it was limited by the statement
the historic centre of Camp as a national cultural monument. The next
such measures of Government Regulation No. 262/1995 Coll. concerning for example.
the Chateau Zbraslav. Mllerovy villas from Adolf Loos in
Prague-Střešovice, klementinum, Villa Tugendhat in Brno, Telč and locks
Kroměříž, the resort area in Beskydy mountains, and many other objects in the Czech
Republic. Government Regulation No. 171/1998 Coll. then redefinition (more precisely
speaking of Europe) the definition of national cultural monuments Castle and fortress
Špilberk in Brno, a Slavic fortified settlement in Mikulčice, the Rotunda in Znojmo,
The monument of j. a. Comenius in Fulnek, and other objects, so that the
they were conceived and number of buildings, which will continue to these monuments
form and under § 8 para. 6 of Act No. 87/1991 Coll. still is not
possible issue.
The Government Ordinance, that is, formally, the normative legal act are de facto
issued by individual administrative acts which, as a result, some of the
the persons concerned to open the way for restitution by a particular asset is
from the list of national cultural monuments launched, or its
the range of defined otherwise. The provisions of § 8 para. 6 of Act No. 87/1991 Coll.,
originally intentioned as provisions blocking obviously, therefore, the Government may, in the
really get around. From what has been stated, it follows that in the present
There are several subgroups among the restituenty, which consists mainly of
those who have exercised their rights to property, which at the time of the claim
has been a national cultural monument and it is not yet (which is the case that
Court, that this proposal), persons
was a after claiming the property from the list of national
cultural sites earmarked, and finally a person that their claims
disregard for the existence of the provisions of § 8 para. 6 of law No.
87/1991 and for which, in the opinion of the Supreme Court cannot be
to the demise of claim expiry (Cpjn 50/1993, publ. No 7-8/1993,
page 254, paragraph 11 Collections of court decisions and opinions).
Ústavností definition of the circle of beneficiaries in the Act No. 87/1991 Coll.,
he find pl. ÚS 3/94 (TC, 1, 279-291). On the question of whether there is a
the legal reason for the exclusion of certain entities from the circle of those
otherwise, the characters in a specific title of the meet, said the restitution of the constitutional
the Court in the negative, when expressed, that the framework of a possible restriction is given only article.
11 (1) 2 of the Charter, i.e.. that certain things can only be owned by
citizens of the Czech Republic. It deduced that the Charter "without authorising
the legislator to determine the other terms of the acquisition of property (whether in the
the restitution process, or in General) ". For these reasons, the condition was
residence declared by the rozpornou with the article. 11 (1) 2 of the Charter.
In finding pl. TC 33/96 (TC, 8, 163 et seq.). The Constitutional Court held that the
no reason to deviate from that opinion, and further recalled its
the decision, in which he explained the content of the constitutional principle of equality,
in particular, pl. ÚS 16/93 (TC, 1, 194-195, 205-206), pl. TC 36/93 (TC,
1, 179), pl. ÚS 5/95 (TC, 4, 218), pl. ÚS 9/95 (TC, 5, 137). In all
These findings, it is concluded that this principle understands the Constitutional Court
as has been expressed already in the Constitutional Court of the CZECHOSLOVAK FEDERAL REPUBLIC (ČSFR, TC, 1992, no. 11):
"The State of affairs is certainly in the interest of the security of their functions, decided that
a certain group will provide fewer benefits than others. Even here, however, must not
do freely ... can happen only with reference to
public value. ". The Constitutional Court thus understood as equality equality of citizens
the relative, the content of this concept into the field of constitutional law
the concept of varying subjects and rights. In doing so, firstly, the perspective
indicates the exclusion of arbitrariness and the second aspect, especially in the inequalities in
social relationships, prejudice of a fundamental right or freedom.
Plenum of the Constitutional Court stated that even in this case has no reason
the mentioned legal opinions change. In view of this conclusion, then the decision on the
application for annulment of § 8 para. 6 involve mainly to assess whether
single out a specific group of authorized persons from the right to release the things
in General, the odůvodňované by the existing provisions for the protection of cultural
monuments is not sufficient, in the sense of the above legal
opinions and principles.
In the analysis of the applicable legislation, yet it is obvious that for the Declaration
certain immovable or movable property as a national cultural monument is not
decisive, what has this thing to the ownership regime. This is about the law, which
the owner establishes certain restrictions and special arrangements in cases
that did not take care of this thing properly. Though the law No. 20/1987
SB. was in a completely different social and economic conditions and
some of its provisions are no doubt already neaplikovatelná, gives from
the opinion of the Constitutional Court of the State of insufficient resources to protect cultural
values, while respecting the rights of the restituentů. The obligation of the owner of the cultural
sights (i.e. national) properly care for its conservation and maintenance
It follows from section 9 of law No. 20/1987 Coll., where are also
extensive permissions heritage preservation institutions in relation to the owner of that
their obligations to fulfil. In section 13 of the law of the State of priority is based on the
purchase of cultural monuments, etc. Although it is questionable whether any in this
the Act provided for restrictions are compatible with the article. 11 (1) 4 of the Charter, it is not
the existing legislation is so useless that was the reason for the
the creation of a special group of restituentů. Rather it can be said that the law of the State
limiting the owner are often on the border of constitutionality. This will, however,
The Constitutional Court is bound by the scope of the proposal, the deal could not.
The Constitutional Court therefore does not share the view of the legislature, that the national cultural
monuments is given reasonable grounds for their exclusion from normal mode
of the restitution process. Force adjustment will therefore appear as the arbitrariness
the legislature, which without compelling reasons and arguments of a particular group
the former owners or their legal successors discriminates, without
There was the interest in protecting public values. In this regard, it is
Therefore, the contested provisions in breach of article. 1 of the Constitution, as well as with the article. 1
Of the Charter.
The Constitutional Court considered the reasons given for sufficient to cancel
the contested provisions, without considering whether or not a matter of constitutional law
the concept of "the silence of the legislator, that is, the fact that this
the provisions of the new law was not expected after about 8 years of age
issued, as well as by whether they prompted former Federal legislator
were mandatory at the time of its release, or even at the time of the present. Your opinion
the eight-year silence, the legislature, therefore, the Constitutional Court expressed only by
the enforceability of the operative part of the contested provisions laid
(article 58, paragraph 1, and article 70, paragraph 1, of Act No. 182/1993 Coll.).
The President of the Constitutional Court:
in the z.. Haboob in r.
Vice Chairman
Different opinion in this matter pursuant to section 14 of Act No. 182/1993
Coll., on the Constitutional Court, judge JUDr. Vladimir Paul.
