204/1996 Coll. the Plenum of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic on behalf of the Czech Republic The Czech Constitutional Court ruled on 10 July 1996 at the session: on the proposal of 26 protect the of the Parliament of the Czech Republic it annul the generally binding decree of 19 October 1994 of Nachod on the banning of While , Nazi and fascist propaganda in the town of Nachod as follows: Decree of 19 October 1994 of Nachod on the banning of Nazi and Fascist While, propaganda in the town of Nachod repeals the day this Judgment in the Official Gazette. The Group of 26 protect the Kennel justification of the Parliament of the Czech Republic on 15. 3.1996, proposed in accordance with § 64 para. 2 point. (b)) Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court began proceedings that cancel the decree of the town of Nachod dated 19. 10.1994, while prohibiting Nazi and Fascist propaganda in the town of Nachod. The wording of the contested ordinance as follows: section 1, While Nazi and Fascist propaganda in the city prohibited. § 2, While Nazi and Fascist propaganda means: a) requirements for the forcible change of the constitutional order, (b)), the use of symbols such criminal movement in their promotion, c) questioning of crime schemes that the movements represented. section 3 of This decree was approved by the city council at the town of Nachod its public meeting on 19 October 1994. The decree was published in the information box in Nachod Municipal Authority on 24 January 1995. This Decree shall take effect on the 15th day after the date of publication. In its proposal filed pursuant to § 64 para it. 2 point. (b)) Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, and a group of municipalities protect the states that authorized it to issue generally binding decrees on independent of the municipality is indeed enshrined in Art. 104 sec. 3 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, at the same time is limited by the scope, which can be defined only by law (art. 104, paragraph 1, of the Constitution). This law is first and foremost Czech National Council Act No. 367/1990 Coll., On municipalities, which in § 13 para. 2 states that in the exercise of powers in a community governed by laws and other generally binding legal regulations issued by the central authorities to implement them. According to § 16 para. 2 must be of such a decree laws and that legislation in the line. Circle the things entrusted it and separate powers of municipalities (towns) is restricted to the section 14 and section 15 of the general sentiment. Act. According to the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court declared in its judgment Pl US 26/93, may be out of a sense of legal authorization municipal councils that issue decrees inferred that the mandate should be interpreted restrictively, since it applies only to cases in which the community does not act as a body authorized to determine the responsibilities of the citizen and unilateral commands and prohibitions. Propaganda means the networking days 2011, explaining that the public and from recommending some of the ideas, opinions, etc. In order to gain followers. Under Art. 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter") the right to freedom of speech, ie. The right to express his opinions in speech, writing, printing, painting or other means, as well as the freedom to seek, receive and impart ideas and information without regardless of frontiers. Under Art. 17 par 4 may be freedom of expression and the right to seek and disseminate information restricted by law, if it is a measure in a democratic society for protecting the rights and freedoms of others, national security, public security, public health or morals. Similarly, under Article. 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, promulgated under no. 120/1976 Coll., Has every right to hold opinions without interference and the freedom to impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or the press or through any other media of his choice. This right may be restricted by law only in special cases [under section 3.), and (b)) feeling. Article]. The right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article also. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, promulgated under no. 209/1992 Coll. The exercise of this right may be restricted by law under the conditions set out in paragraph. 2 of this article (law as provided in paragraph 2 of this article (the interest of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of the others, for preventing confidential information or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary). Restrictions and protection of freedom of expression was performed including the provisions of § 198, section 260 and section 261 of the Criminal Code, as well as section 16 of the Press Law No. 81/1966 Coll., section 5. and) Act No. 468/1991 Coll., on radio and television broadcasting, § 2 para. 1 and 2 of Law No. 172/1990 Coll., on universities. In this regard, the contested ordinance its flexible wording also interferes with the right of the results of creative intellectual activity protected without limitation on the provisions of this Article. paragraph 34. 1 of the Charter. The contested decree is also contrary to the provisions of Article. 2.4 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic and Art. 2 paragraph. 3 of the Charter, according to which everyone can do what is not prohibited by law (not a regulatory regulation), and can not be forced to do anything, What the law does not obleege. Is it also conflict with the provisions of Art. 4, paragraph. 1 of the Charter, under which duties can be imposed only by law and within its limit and only if the fundamental rights and freedoms. Contested decree town of Nachod been violated in particular the provisions of Article. 2.4 and Art. 104 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, the provisions of Art. 2.2 and 3, Art. 4, paragraph. 1 and 2, Art. 17 paragraph. 1, 2 and 4, Art. paragraph 34. 1 of the Charter, § 13 para. 2 and § 16 para. 2 Act No. 367/1990 Coll., on municipalities, as amended laws in Art. 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, published under no. 120/1976 Coll., and Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, promulgated under no. 209/1992 Coll. For these reasons, and to protect the group of proposed the annulment of the contested ordinance. The city of Nachod said that a decree banning the Nazi and Fascist While, propaganda in the town of Nachod council adopted at its 28th session on 19. 10.1994. The council then had 30 members at the time that the Decree was attended by 20 members. The decree was approved by 17 votes in favor, 3 against the head. The decree was published on the official board on 24. 1. in 1995, and has been removed 14. 2.1995. Pursuant this section 68 para. 2 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., On the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court considers in deciding the content of the law, or else regulation in terms of their compliance with constitutional laws, international treaties under Art. 10 of the Constitution, respectively. laws, the case of another piece of legislation and determines whether they were passed and issued within the bounds of constitutionally provided jurisdiction and in a constitutionally prescribed manner. In this regard, the minutes of the municipal council held on 19. 10.1994 in Nachod, the Constitutional Court found that the contested ordinance was approved at that hearing, by 17 votes in favor, 3 against and no abstentions. Because the municipal council at that time had 30 members, 20 of whom were present negotiations, it can be stated that the contested ordinance was adopted in a qualified manner (section 38 par. 5 of the Act No. 367/1990 Coll., As amended). The Constitutional Court found that the contested ordinance was proper manner posted on the notice board of the Municipal Office in Nachod of 24 1, 1995, and removed on 14. 2.1995, therefore became effective on 8. 2.1995 (§ 16 par 3, 4 of the Act). The Constitutional Court therefore finds that the contested regulation was adopted and issued constitutionally prescribed manner. The Constitutional Court also addressed the issue of locus standi of the proposal, although some of the petitioners currently have protect-as a Member of the Chamber of Protect do not hold. In accordance with previously judikovaným view of the opinion that at the time of submission of the proposal undoubtedly all the appellants were members of the Chamber of Protect, and therefore the proposal was in accordance with § 64 para. 2 point. (b)) Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, filed by authorized persons. In the Constitutional Court, however, has not been contested ordinance adopted and issued within the bounds of constitutionally provided jurisdiction this issue generally binding regulations so that the council of municipalities can issue only within the limits of their competence. This activity is closely regulated by Act No. 367/1990 Coll., On municipalities (Municipal Establishment), as amended, so that it is a separate application (§ 13 et seq. Of the Act) or delegated powers (article 21 et seq. of the Act). The issue generally binding regulations on matters pertaining this delegated authority, the municipality may only under the authority of the law and within its limits (section 24 para. 1 of the Act). Such is the case of the issuance of the ordinance within delegated powers in this case apparently not. The Constitutional Court considered therefore also question whether the contested decree can be considered generally binding ordinance on matters falling under municipal jurisdiction [§ 14 para. 1 point. i) of the Act]. Municipal jurisdiction is governed by the provisions. section 14 of the Act, so that paragraph. 1 of this provision, the individual activities belonging to the autonomous powers given demonstratively, while paragraph. 2 is a municipal jurisdiction extensively adjusted so that the municipalities separate application also provides in its area of economic, social and cultural development, the protection and creation of a healthy environment, with the exception of those activities that are special laws conferred on other bodies such as the state administration. In the Constitutional Court can hardly be considered that under municipal jurisdiction can be understood as a ban on activities which basically is nothing more than a paraphrase of the on-board the elements of the offenses listed in section 260 and section 261 of the Penalties Code. By the decree issued such content, therefore exceeded the limits of the city of Nachod set of competencies of the Czech Constitution and by Act No. 367/1990 Coll., On municipalities (Municipal Establishment), as amended. The Constitutional Court adds that he wants this village in this direction explicitly express their political will, it can possibly make other adequate means, but not a legislative act. Based on the above, therefore, the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that the contested decree is contrary that Article 104 Para. 3 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, the provisions of § 13, § 14 and § 16 para. 2 Act No. 367/1990 Coll., On Municipalities (Municipal Establishment), as amended. Without the need to look at other reasons reported in the draft, decided that the town of Nachod decree dated 19. 10.1994, while prohibiting Nazi and Fascist propaganda in the town of Nachod repeals the day this Judgment in the Official Gazette (article 70 para. 1 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court). Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. Kessler vr