In The Matter Of The Application For Revocation Of Section 22 Paragraph 1. 3 Of Law No. 186/sb.

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zrušení § 22 odst. 3 zákona č. 186/2013 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.
393/2016 Sb.



FIND



The Constitutional Court



On behalf of the Republic of



The Constitutional Court ruled under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/16 on 11. October 2016 in plenary

consisting of the President of the Court, Pavel Rychetského and judges Louis David,

Jaroslav Fenyka (reporter judge), Josef Fiala, John Philip,

Jaromír Jirsy, Jana Sládečka, Vladimir Musil, Radovan Suchánka,

Catherine Šimáčkové, Vojtěch Šimíčka, Milady Tomková, Uhlir and David

Jiří Zemánek on the proposal for a. M., represented by Mgr. et Bc. Filip

Schmidt, LL. M., lawyer, established Hellenic 1799/4, Prague 2-

The vineyards, on the repeal of section 22 paragraph 1. 3 of Act No. 186/2013 Coll., on the State

citizenship of the Czech Republic and amending certain laws (the law on the State

citizenship of the United States), with the participation of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament

The Czech Republic and the Czech Senate as participants

the management and Government of the Czech Republic and the Ombudsman as

the interveners,



as follows:



The proposal to repeal the provisions of § 22 para. 3 of law No. 186/Coll.

the citizenship of the Czech Republic and amending some laws (law on

the citizenship of the Czech Republic), is rejected.



Justification



(I).



Recap of a constitutional complaint the petitioner and the course of the proceedings before the

The Constitutional Court



1. the appellant in the timely filed constitutional complaint of 1 July. 9.2015

annulment of decision of the Minister of the Interior, of 30 November 2005. 6.2015 no j.

MV-22900-4/VS-2015 and the decision of the Ministry of the Interior of 1 July. 12.2014

No VS-66/835.3/2-2012. Proceedings on constitutional complaints is conducted under the sp.

Zn. III. TC 2660/15. With a proposal for the abolition of the said decisions,

the claimant also seeks the repeal of § 22 para. 3 of law No. 186/Sb.

of the citizenship of the Czech Republic and amending some laws (law on

the citizenship of the Czech Republic), (hereinafter referred to as "the law of the State

citizenship "), and in particular for the following reasons:



2. By decision of the Minister of the Interior from June 30. 6.2015 no j.

MV-22900-4/VS-2015 was rejected the complainant's breakdown against a decision

The Ministry of Interior of 1 July. 12.2014 no VS-66/835.3/2-2012

the complainant's application was rejected on the granting of citizenship of the Czech

States because of national security in accordance with section 22 paragraph 1. 3 of the law on

citizenship (hereinafter referred to as ' the contested provisions ').



3. the appellant in her constitutional complaint States that the reason for the refusal

his application for citizenship was the fact that the opinions of the Police

The United States and the intelligence services of the Czech Republic, which

According to the Ministry of the Interior of the contested provisions on the procedure for granting

citizenship, contained the information that the complainant

threatens the security of the State. Whereas, the information

subject to confidentiality in accordance with Act No. 412/2005 Coll., on the protection of classified

information and security, as amended,

(hereinafter referred to as the "law on the protection of classified information"), in accordance with the

the contested provisions did not become part of the file and this opinion in

of the decision of the Interior Ministry only said that to

rejection of the application has occurred because of a threat to State security. In this

context the applicant argues that, in any case, knowingly safety

the State does not interfere with, but does not have the ability to oppose the procedure according to the contested

the provisions of the defence, as it is neglected for his right to a fair

the process of, respectively, the right to information and the grounds for the decision. According to the

the appellant is, therefore, necessary that the person applying for citizenship

had the possibility of sound, because constitutionally consistent review of the administrative

the decision, or at least the ability to know the rationale for such a decision.



4. In connection with the above objection points out the appellant on the judgment of the

The Supreme Administrative Court of 20 October. 6.2007, SP. zn. 6 Azs 142/2006

the preamble states that "the fact that one of the evidence on which the

the decision has to be based, it is classified a reality within the meaning of the law on

classified facts ... cannot be detrimental to the realization of the basic

the rights of a party to be able to comment on all carried out by the

the evidence ". The applicant also points to the finding of the Constitutional Court, SP. zn.

PL. ÚS 41/02 of 28 October 1999. 1.2004 (N 10/32 SbNU 61; 98/2004 Sb.)

the lawyers ' security clearances, according to which "the position of the defence counsel in

criminal proceedings, i.e.. in particular its procedural privileges depends on the

the position of the (rights) accused. Possible exceptions by lawyers

the basic question remains open, and that access by the accused to classified

the facts that are the content of evidence in criminal proceedings.

The limitations of such an approach from the perspective of article. 37 para. 3 and article. 38 para. 2

Of the Charter, as well as the article. 6 (1). 3 (b). (c)) of the Convention is hardly

imaginable ". Further points out the find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 11/2000

12.7. 2001 (N 113/23 SbNU 105; 322/2001 Coll.), in whose preamble

The Constitutional Court stated that according to his beliefs, "represents a

protection of classified information and the conditions imposed on persons with

the following matters will be handled, so a specific area, that neither

from the constitutional point of view it is not possible to guarantee all the procedural rights of

These people to such an extent as is the case with other professions and work

disputes of their employees. On the other hand, however, nor the specifics of protection

classified information cannot lead to a conscious resignation to constitutional

protection of the rights of people ".



5. the appellant in her constitutional complaint also States that the opinions

The Czech Republic Police and intelligence services of the Czech Republic

could not meet, nothing to indicate or argue against them and at the same time he is

denied and judicial protection, since, according to § 26 of the Citizenship Act

the decision rejecting the application for the grant of citizenship of the Czech

the Republic according to the contested provisions excluded from the review by the Court. In

this context, the complainant refers to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative

of the Court of 25 June. 11.2011 SP. zn. 7 As 31/2011, according to which "in the

security management is necessary to find a balance between two legitimate,

but other conflicting interests. On the one hand, the interest in ensuring

a fair trial for the one whose security eligibility is

investigated, and on the other side of the interest in the confidentiality of the information needed to

the protection of the public interest. This balance, however, in any case, you cannot

to achieve, if it does not provide effective judicial, and hence on the Executive Branch

independent and in a dispute between a party and the Executive, the impartial

review the relevance of the information, on the basis of which it is in the security

management decided ... The appellant could not effectively reply

the illegality of certain findings, does not know if or what is their content. In

This specific situation, it must be the Court, he's covering '

the activity of the party to the proceedings and will examine the relevance of classified information

from all points of view, which is due to the nature of the case appears to be that vital ".



6. the appellant in his constitutional complaint, that is, debt forgiveness

the guarantee of citizenship, but argues that in his case

There has been a refusal of citizenship arbitrary manner when he was

I know the reason for the refusal and could not seek review of the decision on its

not giving an otherwise than only formally lodged in decomposition.



7. in the light of the above, the appellant in her constitutional complaint

The Constitutional Court suggests that issued the award, which the Minister's decision

the Interior of 30 November 2005. 6.2015 no MV-22900-4/VS-2015 and the decision

The Ministry of Interior of 1 July. 12.2014 no VS-66/835.3/2-2012

deleted, and also proposes within the meaning of § 64 para. 1 (b). (e)), respectively, § 74

Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended,

(hereinafter referred to as the "law on the Constitutional Court") to take the award, which cancels the

the provisions of § 22 para. 3 of the Citizenship Act.



8. In its resolution of 16 December 2004. 2.2016, SP. zn. III. TC 2660/15 reached III.

Chamber of the Constitutional Court concluded that the application of section 22 paragraph 1. 3 of the law on

the State of citizenship of the occurrence of the event which is the subject of the constitutional

complaints, so the proposal of the applicant to the annulment of the contested provisions

He advanced to the decision of the plenum of the Constitutional Court according to article. 87 para. 1 (b).

and the Constitution of the United States).



II.



Representation of the parties



9. The Constitutional Court in order to assess the case called on the parties to

their comments on the draft to the annulment of the contested provisions.



10. the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the "Senate") as a participant

in its observations, management stated that the draft of the Citizenship Act was

The Senate referred to the Chamber of Deputies on 24. 4. in 2013. Organizational

This proposal as Senate Committee print no. 87 (9. term)

He ordered to hear the Committee on Foreign Affairs, defence and security

as the Committee and also the guarantee of constitutional legal Committee. The guarantee

the Committee discussed the Bill at its meeting on 15 December. 5.2013, and accepted the

resolution No. 52, which advised the Senate to approve the Bill as amended by the

a transferred him to the Chamber of Deputies (Senate document No No 87/1).

Constitutionally-legal Committee discussed the Bill at its meeting on 15 December. 5.

2013, and adopted resolution No. 62, which recommended a return to the Senate a proposal


the Bill the House of representatives with amendments (Senate document No No.

87/2). One of the amendments adopted by the Committee was the change

the provisions of § 26 of the draft law in order to allow judicial review of even the most

the administrative decision to reject an application for the grant of

citizenship of the United States occurred according to the contested provision by reason of the

threat to State security.



11. The Senate has discussed the draft of the Citizenship Act on its 10. a meeting of the

in 9. term of 16 April 2004. 5. in 2013. In the course of the general debate has not been

challenged the constitutionality of the contested provisions explicitly, but the discussion has

focused on the relevant provisions of section 26 of the Bill and brought it

Amendment of constitutional legal Committee. Its content was

the introduction of judicial review of administrative decisions, when the request for

the grant of citizenship is rejected because of a threat to State security

on the basis of the opinion of the police of the Czech Republic or the intelligence services,

It contains classified information. The adoption of the amendment

was supported by several senators in their performances on the grounds that

the proposed introduction of judicial review of administrative decisions

It is necessary having regard to the constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair

the process is a defense against possible abuse of powers in the

matters of nationality and is also in accordance with the case law of the constitutional

the Court, according to which the exclusion from judicial review odůvodňované

the safety aspects of the subject of criticism.



12. Once the general debate has been voted on the proposal submitted by

the guarantee Committee approve a Bill as a transferred

The Chamber of Deputies. This proposal was not accepted and therefore opened

detailed debate in which they were submitted a draft law amendment

proposals. After their detailed debate were votes on the submitted

the amendments and at the conclusion of the draft law on the return of the

the House with the adopted amendments that the Senate adopted its

resolution No. 207 of 16 June. 5. in 2013, when the vote taken. # 13 of

65 senators present voted for the proposal and 52 against the senators was 5.

Among the amendments was adopted and the amendment relating to

the provisions of § 26 of the draft law and to allow the judicial review of administrative

the decision to reject an application for the grant of citizenship was

According to the contested provisions because of a threat to State security

(Amendment to annex 5 of the Senate resolution No. 207 of 16 June. 5.

2013).



13. The Chamber of Deputies on the draft law, once again voted on its 54.

meeting on 11 July. 6.2013, while the Senate version has refused, and continued to

your approved the text of the draft law originally. Subsequently, the law was

sent to the President of the Republic, which signed it on 20 April. 6.2013.

The law was promulgated in the collection of laws under no. 186/2013 Coll. Senate Finally

He said that during the procedure the hearing of the Citizenship Act

progressed within the limits of the Constitution of the Czech Republic set out competences and

constitutionally prescribed way.



14. The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as

"Chamber of Deputies") as a party in its observations on the draft

only the zrekapitulovala of the legislative procedure, which stated that the

the draft of the Citizenship Act passed before his announcement of the constitutionally

prescribed procedure. Specifically, the Chamber of Deputies indicated that the proposal

of the Citizenship Act was circulated to members as print no 827 of the day

10.10. 2012. the first reading of the draft law was made on 4 October. 12.

2012, when it was determined the period for examination of the application committees for 60 days.

In that period it constitutionally legal Committee and Committee on safety

discuss and recommend the House of representatives approved a Bill in

the text of their proposed amendments, none of which are contested

provisions does not touch. The Bill passed through both General and detailed debate

in the second reading held on 20. 3. in 2013. In a detailed debate, speakers

with its amendments, 4 MEPs-none of the presented proposals

the Government does not touch the proposed text of the contested provisions. The proposal for the

the rejection of the Bill was filed.



15. the third reading of the draft law on citizenship was made the day

27.3. 2013, when was the Bill as amended by the amendments adopted

proposals approved. The Chamber of Deputies referred the Bill to the Senate the day

24.4. 2013. the Committee on Foreign Affairs, defence and security design

the law discussed and recommended it be approved as adopted by the

The Chamber of Deputies. Constitutionally-legal Committee discussed the Bill and

recommended it be approved as amended by the amendments adopted by

that, however, did not concern the Government of the proposed provisions of § 22 para. 3.

The Senate Bill has been examined on its 10. meeting on 16. 5.2013 and returned

to the Chamber of Deputies as it adopted amendments.

The draft law, in the version approved by the Senate was the Chamber of Deputies

received 27 June. 5. in 2013. On the proposal of the law, in the version approved by the Senate

the Chamber of Deputies voted on 11 July. 6.2013, and continued on the original

the draft law. President of the Republic signed the Act on 20 April. 6.2013.

The law was subsequently delivered to the signature of the Prime Minister, on 26 April. 6.2013.



III.



The attitude of the Government and the public ochrankyně rights to the design



16. in accordance with the provisions of § 69 para. 2 and 3 of the law on the Constitutional Court

notify the Constitutional Court notes of 29 March. 2. the Government of the Czech Republic 2016

and the Ombudsman on the ongoing proceedings, noting, in

the period within which they can enter into the proceedings as interveners and, where appropriate,

also on the proposal for comment.



17. On 31 December 2004. 3. The Constitutional Court has received a communication from 2016, Minister for human

rights, equal opportunities and legislation that the Government of Jiří Dienstbier on

its meeting on 30 November. 3. discuss proposal for 2016 your input in the management of the

conducted before the Constitutional Court under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/16 and adopted to it

resolution No. 280, which approved its accession to the said control and

at the same time adopted its comments on the proposal to repeal section 22 of the paragraph. 3 of the law

on nationality.



18. the Government of the non-31. 3.2016 announced the Constitutional Court that the

Enter as the intervener in the proceedings. At the outset of my statement to the

the case stated that the contested provisions of the Citizenship Act is

in accordance with article 6(1). 11 of the European Convention on nationality, proclaimed under

No 76/2004 Coll., according to which each State party shall ensure that the

a decision on the acquisition, retention, disposal, acquisition or the authentication again

his citizenship included a written justification. In this

context the Government refers to the explanatory report to the Council of Europe

The European Convention on nationality, which provisions of article. 11

States that, in decisions relating to national security is given only

minimum information. Judicial review of decisions in matters of the State

citizenship is not article. 12 of the European Convention on nationality

required, since according to him, each State party shall ensure that decisions on the

the acquisition, retention, loss, then reopened the acquisition or verify its State

citizenship could be properly or judicially reviewed pursuant to its

national law. This requirement is already populated with the option to submit a

the breakdown against the decision of the Interior Ministry, which is rejected

application for the grant of the nationality of the United States because of the

security of the State.



19. the Government in its statement also referred to the case law of the Constitutional Court

in matters of deciding to grant citizenship, according to which "in cases

When the státoobčanský relationship does not arise ex lege (by law), but on the basis of

decision of the competent authority of the State, the State has the inalienable right to

decide whether to grant citizenship to a person, and if they do not,

does not infringe any right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, the constitutional

laws or an international agreement within the meaning of article 87(1). 10 the Constitution of the United

of the Republic. Such a procedure is not contradictory, nor the European Convention on

citizenship "(the resolution of the Constitutional Court, SP. zn. IV. TC 586/1999 of

on 8 June 1998. 3.2000, likewise also the resolution SP. zn. II. TC 624/06 dated

17.5. 2007; both available at http://nalus.usoud.cz). Also, neither Convention

on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not constitute according to the

the Government's right to the grant of citizenship (see e.g. the judgment in

The European Court of human rights of 12 October. 1, 1999 in the matter of Karassev

against Finland). The Government further points out also on legislation in Poland,

According to that decision, backed in cases stipulated by law

for safety reasons do not justify (article 107 of the code of administrative proceedings

of 14 July 1999. 7.1960, as amended, in conjunction with article. 31 and

36 of the Citizenship Act of 2 July. 4.2009). A number of laws

then contains an explicit prohibition on granting citizenship to foreigners,

who endanger public order, security or integrity of the State. This is

for example. the Bulgarian, Finnish, Italian, Hungarian, Dutch, Polish,

Greek, Slovenian and Swiss law. In detail, this ban on edits

German, Austrian or eg. the Latvian legislation.




20. the Government further points out the fact that Czech legislation

does not allow the withdrawal of the nationality of the foreigner who has been State

citizenship of the Czech Republic is granted, even if it is subsequently determined that

a security risk for the Czech Republic, or would subsequently

He became. It is therefore logical that before executing any request for a positive

the grant of citizenship is carefully examined and the safety aspect.

The Government further States that from 1. 1.2014, when the law on citizenship has acquired

efficiency, to date, the Ministry of the Interior received a total of 9 634

applications for the grant of citizenship of the Czech Republic for this period

then, it was only in 17 cases, decided to reject an application because of

threat to State security, pursuant to section 22(1) of the 3 of the law on the State

citizenship. In the framework of the decay was then in 4 cases

the first instance decision is revoked when it was found that the safety

risk in relation to the applicant's delay (in the other two

cases, the Minister of the Interior on the filed on the date of the expression of decomposition

the Government has so far not decided).



21. With regard to the protection of the essential security interests of the State

represents the contested provision according to the Government, in comparison with the General

regulations on administrative proceedings and reasonable restrictions on legitimate procedural

rights of the interested party and the content requirements of the decision.

If it was accepted that the facts related to the threats

the security of the State, its sovereignty and territorial integrity,

democratic foundations, the lives, health or property values

given concrete form in the preamble to the decision, this should result in

the disclosure of classified information in the scheme of the Act on the protection of classified

information. In addition, it should be emphasized that the provision of the opinions of some of the

the intelligence service or the relevant Department of the police of the Czech Republic, although in

anonymised form, would result in a violation or a threat

operatively investigation activities of the security services. In this context,

It is then necessary to emphasize that these services in addition to its own findings

have the operational knowledge, obtained on the basis of cooperation

with foreign services. Any publication of any of the documents or

other documents arising out of the activities of these foreign services would lead to

a major threat to the functioning of the cooperation between the services of the Czech Republic and

foreign services and could cause the United Services will

future to dispose of information that could have a major character

to ensure the safety of the Czech Republic.



22. the Government points out that the contested provisions of the applicant

a finding that the decision on non-compliance of his application is the negative

the opinion of some of the security services. Each applicant has the opportunity to provide

an appeal against the decision to deliver judgments, in the framework of the

druhoinstančního control is the mj. examined whether a security risk for

the applicant persists and is of a nature that precludes the grant of

citizenship. Review státobezpečnostního the opinion of the Minister of the Interior

in the context of proceedings brought by the decomposition of in this regard is not according to the Government only

formal Affairs. Therefore, it is guaranteed the right to review of a decision,

guaranteed by article 12 of the European Convention on nationality, and even in the

relation to the examination of the opinions of the security services and the police of the Czech

Republic, and in the opinion of the Government and within the limits of the principles of a fair trial

(the legality, of the prohibition of misuse of powers, the protection of legitimate expectations), and with it the

taking into account the need to protect third parties, and the security interests of the State.

On the contrary, the applicant's right to defend its rights and interests is in good

extent, having regard to the particularities associated with an interest in the conservation of

security of the State.



23. In this connection, the Government points out that the contested provision is

conceived as a compromise [or the terminology of Constitutional Court

SP. zn. PL. ÚS 31/03 of 11 February 1999. 2.2004 (N 16/32 SbNU 143; 105/2004

SB.) -politically acceptable and accepted the result of the "Optimization"], which is

on the one hand respected the applicant's right to procedural justification

the decision, however, is also stressed by the provisions in question in order to

to the maximum extent contributed to protect the security of the United States, its

sovereignty and territorial integrity, democratic foundations, lives,

health and property values, but all of the above objects

protection are undoubtedly essential to the relevance of the Special

a scheme for the management of the opinion, on the basis of these values are

protected. It, including the possible impact on the protection of the life of those who the

the facts re-examined, and the right of a party to get acquainted with all the

the supporting documents, is required as the values in the constitutional conformity

the contested provisions.



24. in its observations, the Government further points out that in assessing

whether the contested provisions in accordance with the constitutional order, it is necessary to

also take into account the Constitutional Act No. 110/1998 Coll., on the safety of United

Republic, as amended by Constitutional Act No. 300/2000 Coll., according to art. 1

the Constitutional Act on the safety of the United States is the basic obligations

State ensuring the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Czech Republic,

protection of its democratic foundations and protection of the lives, health and

property values. This represents a commitment by the State. neopominutelný

corrective legislature when adopting laws, especially those whose

the application has a significant safety aspects. The aim of the legislator must be

such legislation, which the public authorities to comply with their

tasks to the fullest extent permissible in a democratic legal State, and

both in individual cases (that will have a crucial administrative

available relevant information), so in the complex of their activities

(the fact that use of such information will not mean other-other-

a safety hazard). However, it may be in some cases the procedure for

the grant of citizenship linked to the necessity of a restriction

procedural rights of foreigners. It is necessary to prioritize the protection of fundamental

security interests of the United States, it is clear from the circumstances,

on the one hand, it is a basic obligation to state expressly laid down in the

article. 1 of the constitutional law on the security of the United States, while on the other

hand, it is settled case-law of the Constitutional Court, from which it is apparent that the

There is no fundamental right, that a sovereign State could violate

the fact that foreigners shall not grant citizenship. If, however, in connection with the

This autonomous decisions of the State should be vice versa before protection

the security interests of the State preferred the procedural rights of foreigners

(the applicant), it would mean the resignation of the Czech Republic on its base

the obligation arising from article. 1 cited Constitutional Act.



25. Relevant facts, whether the applicant does not endanger

the security of the State, its sovereignty and territorial integrity, democratic

the basics, the lives, health or assets, the Ministry of the Interior

will never have enough information from its

custom activities, and so it was necessary to provide that requests (en bloc,

always, unless they are children under the age of 15 years) the opinions of the police and

the intelligence services. If those opinions contain classified

the information in the following section 17 of the administrative code (which predicts that

special law may provide that the portion of the documents or records

kept separately outside of the file) explicitly provides that the opinion

The Czech Republic Police and intelligence services of the Czech Republic

don't become part of the file. A similar adjustment is included for example. in Act No.

325/1999 Coll., on asylum, as amended, law No.

61/1988 Coll. on mining activities, explosives and the State Mining Administration,

as amended, law No 38/1994 Col., on foreign

trade in military material and the addition of Act No. 455/1991 Coll., on the

trades (Trade Act), as amended

regulations, and Act No. 140/1961 Coll., the criminal act, as amended

Regulations (as amended), laws, etc. Therefore, this adjustment cannot be

in the opinion of the Government be regarded as unconstitutional. Only sets the system

the communication between the authorities of the State and modifies the treatment of administrative authority, with

the documents.



26. The legislator in the contested provisions of the presumuje, that if the secret

the information is indicative of a threat to the above concerns, the disclosure will be

also have very serious consequences in relation to the safety of the Czech

of the Republic. If the decision is justified, in accordance with this provision,

cannot be closed, that is completely unjustified; on the contrary, such a justification

It is clear to that party, for what reason is the decision of the

released and that the originator of the information is one of the security forces of the Czech

States referred to in the Act. A similar adjustment can also be found in the law on

protection of classified information, according to the provisions of § 122 para. 3, the

in the event that they are some of the reasons of the decision classified

the information in the statement shall indicate only a reference to the documents for release

decisions and their classification. In this context, the Government, in its


representation quotes Constitutional Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 31/03 of 11 February 1999.

2. in 2004, according to which "the Constitution protected value is the protection of the interests of the

The United States as a sovereign State (article 1, paragraph 1, of the Constitution).

The task of the legislature and, by extension, the Government is able to optimize

dissenting action of the safeguard mechanisms of the two values, in other words,

narrow it down to the smallest possible room for possible arbitrage in the acts

public authorities, while ensuring effective protection of the interests of the State ". In

the observations also retrieved a resolution of the Constitutional Court SP. zn. III.

CS 3044/10 of 18 February 2004. 11.2010 (available at http://nalus.usoud.cz)

the Constitutional Court according to which "respects the fact that with regard to the

the specifics and the importance of decision-making in matters of classified information, when

It is very clear the security interest of the State, it is not always possible to guarantee

all common procedural guarantees of a fair trial ".



27. According to the observations of the Government protects the confidentiality of the information. in terms of the

its contents, in terms of the fact that this information is known, and the State of

the viewpoint of appreciation, the State considers the information so severe that

It classifies as a secret. The procedure laid down in the contested

the provisions of these conditions are respected. When you replace this

procedure the procedure by another (for example, "aggregate" or "anonymizing" data

as mentioned in the constitutional complaint) probably cannot avoid

either its result very similar to what follows from an existing

the text of the contested provision, or that will guarantee the protection of

classified information of the above views to a lesser extent.



28. In conclusion, his observations of the Government notes that news services

specific options are available for information retrieval. These

the options are specific for the intelligence service of the natural, the other

authorities, however, similar permissions does not belong, which can by default mean

that these other authorities will not be able to information provided by the intelligence

Verify the service. If the legislature decided that intelligence

services obtained information to their relevance in different

situations and procedures (for international protection, the management of

safety material, etc.), the Government shall be deemed to be correct, when by law

the prescribed procedure is implemented — and when the information intelligence services

(i) given the relevance of the Act. If this

the conclusion was correct, rather, it evokes the question of the need for news

services.



29. in the light of the above, the Government does not see any contradiction between the contested

provisions and the constitutional order. The Government maintains the opinion that the

restrictions on the right of a party to get familiar with the documents for

the decision is determined by the interest of the State to protect the safety, and recommends

Therefore, the proposal to repeal the provisions of § 22 para. 3 of the law on the State

citizenship is rejected.



30. The Ombudsman of the non-9. 3.2016 announced

The Constitutional Court, that will use its right to intervene. On your

observations of 8 June. 4.2016 stated that enter into the proceedings on the application for

annulment of the contested provisions are decided on the basis of

specific cases which the Ombudsman and deals.

The Ombudsman points out in this context case

under SP. zn. 7/2005/SZD, in which as well as being a public

the Ombudsman noted that "practice, which pulls back on any

justification in the context of the examination of the application for the grant of

citizenship of the United States in terms of national security, I consider

Napoleon, as well as efforts to its legal entrenchment (see draft

wording of the law on acquisition and loss of nationality, that

elaborated by the Ministry of the Interior), and with reference to one of the basic

the principles of the rule of law in the material, which is to respect the principle of

the predictability of law and the exclusion of space for possible arbitrariness of

party executive power ... it is necessary to reflect the legitimate public interest in

on the protection of classified information, or information. However, this does not mean,

that can be considered in the safety aspect of the decision, completely

disregard, and is on the crucial administrative organ, to find an appropriate

a path that would bring this public interest (interest) interested in

private, IE. interested applicant, who in many cases at all

they have no idea why his application was rejected ".



31. another case in which the Ombudsman in its observations

refers to is the complainant's case, the State of the citizen of Ukraine, which is

He turned to the Ombudsman in 2012. In the framework of the investigation

(held under SP. zn. 6171/20012/GTC/MV), the Ombudsman found

the Ministry of the Interior in this case, the Court nepředkládalo all

the evidence, on the basis of an application for the grant of citizenship was rejected,

and the justification of the decision of the stated reasons for the wildcard. Your procedure as

in fact, denied a party the right to judicial protection. Public

the Ombudsman further notes that currently deals with the stimulus

(registered under SP. zn. 5761/2015/GTC/MV) State citizen of Benin, whose

the application for the grant of citizenship was rejected by the Ministry of the Interior of the

because of a threat to State security in proceedings under the Act on the State

citizenship. Investigation procedure of the Ministry of the Interior in these matters

However, at present, prevents the negative attitude of the Ministry of the Interior, which

the Ombudsman refuses access to classified information, to

the basis should be a request for the grant of citizenship is rejected.

In the opinion of the Ministry of the Interior is not access to classified information,

on the basis of rejecting a request for the grant of citizenship by

the contested provisions, necessary for the performance of the duties of the public defender

rights.



32. With regard to the according the practice of the Ombudsman in its

expression sums up that the Ombudsman has dealt with the problem

almost continuously and repeatedly pointed out the lack of justification

the decision of the Ministry of the Interior in connection with the consideration of the application of the

the granting of citizenship of the Czech Republic in terms of safety

State. However, neither the Ombudsman's inquiry (with regard to the

problematic co-operation executive authorities in the framework of the investigation and the absence of

any regulatory powers of the Ombudsman in these cases)

cannot replace judicial review of a decision issued in the administrative

the judiciary. External control in these matters of public

the Ombudsman considers that the Ombudsman only for emergency,

non-system solution, which is a consequence of the current legal regulation of conditions

the acquisition of citizenship.



33. the right of the participant to get acquainted with the decision and the possibility of

comment on them (i.e. the right to be heard) considers the public protector

rights for the very essence of the right to a fair trial. Legislation which

party to the proceedings does not allow you to become familiar with the decision, respectively.

the reasons for the decision taken, makes it impossible to make against such

the decision effectively defended. The consequence of such legislation, which

at the same time eliminates the possibility of judicial review of the denial of rights, a phenomenon essence

a subscriber to a fair trial within the meaning of article 87(1). paragraph 36. 1 and article. 38 para.

2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. The Ombudsman will

the petitioner's opinion, agrees with that, by the opinion of the police of the Czech

States and the intelligence services of the Czech Republic is, according to the contested

provisions for the administrative body binding, occurs in the administrative

and to violations of the principle of free assessment of evidence and material policy

the truth. The legislation contained in the contested provision unacceptable

way opens up the space for the waywardness of the executive authorities in the application of

State power, which, in the Ombudsman's opinion, the nature of things

is contrary to the basic principles of the democratic rule of law. In this

the context of the quotes above, the Ombudsman referred to the part of the

Supreme Administrative Court judgment of 25 June 2002. 11.2011 sp.

Zn. 7 As 31/2011.



34. The Ombudsman also points out in its observations on the

the ambiguity of substantive reasons that led the legislature to establish a significantly

a different (lower) procedural standard for parties to proceedings pursuant to

the contested provisions, and that in comparison with the law proceedings.

security clearances, contained in the Act on the protection of classified

information. The Ombudsman considers that the procedural adjustment

security screening in the Act on the protection of classified information is

sufficiently deal with the confidentiality of certain information requirements,

so with the requirement to ensure a fair trial. In this context,

the Ombudsman further submits that the legal regulation of security

audits also survived before the European Court of human rights (judgment in

things Regner against the Czech Republic from 26 March. 11.2015 # 35393/11).



35. In conclusion, their observations the Ombudsman States that the

considers that the contested provision itself is not unconstitutional. He adds,

that neither the provisions of § 26 of the Citizenship Act is probably not in itself


each other unconstitutional. A breach of the article. paragraph 36. 1 and article. 38 para. 2 of the Charter of

fundamental rights and freedoms occurs through the merger of these two provisions.

If the request for the grant of citizenship is rejected because of

threat to State security, the applicant in the administrative procedure to

carried out on evidence cannot express, because the evidence is not

included in the file. However, it cannot express themselves or within the framework of the

control, because the judicial review in this case is excluded by law.

The right of a party to a fair process is so broken. Public

the Ombudsman therefore proposes that the Constitutional Court, the contested provisions

set aside.



IV.



A replica of the applicant



36. The above observations posted by Constitutional Court of the complainants note

and to any replica. The appellant, however, the option to send to the Constitutional Court

replica.



In the.



The abandonment of an oral hearing



37. After the above rekapitulovaném the course of proceedings, the Constitutional Court decided to

the conclusion that there is no need to hold an oral hearing in the matter, as it did not bring

For more or better and clearer clarification of things than how she

from the written acts of the claimant, the parties and interveners

control. Having regard to the wording of section 44 of the Act on the Constitutional Court ruled Constitutional

the Court, without holding an oral hearing.



Vi.



The diction of the contested provisions



38. the contested provisions of § 22 para. 3 of the Citizenship Act:



"The application for the grant of citizenship of the Czech Republic, the

applicants 15 years of age, the Ministry's requests the opinion of the police of the Czech

States and the intelligence services of the Czech Republic; These opinions shall

don't become part of the file, if they contain classified information. In

the case that in proceeding on the basis of the opinion of the police of the Czech

Republic or the intelligence services, which contains classified information,

it clear that the applicant threatens the safety of the State, its sovereignty and

territorial integrity, democratic foundations, the lives, health, or property

values, in the grounds of the decision only indicates that the rejection of the application

occurred because of a threat to State security. "



VI.



The assessment of the petitioner to the locus standi of the submission of the proposal



39. as already mentioned above, the appellant filed an application for annulment

the contested provisions, together with a constitutional complaint pursuant to section 72 and

following the law on the Constitutional Court. His locus standi is so

based on the provisions of § 64 para. 1 (b). (e)), or section 74 of the Act on the constitutional

the Court. In accordance with these provisions, therefore, the Constitutional Court had to first

to examine whether the conditions for the submission of such a proposal in the case of

the complainant (appellant) met.



40. The basic premise of the request pursuant to section 74 of the Act

No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48/2002 Coll., is

"application" of the contested legislation. This means that only up to

the basis of application of the Regulation (actual fact) is released

the decision, measure or other intervention of a public authority, which are

the subject of a constitutional complaint, and that is reflected in the individual legal

the realm of the complainant, i.e. negatively. There has been a violation of his constitutional

guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms. Between the constitutional complaints in the contested

decision or other interference by a public authority and the provisions of

legislation designed to repeal there must be a close link in the

meaning that if it wasn't for the contested provisions of the legislation, it would not be

issued or made, the contested decision or other action of the authority

of public authority.



41. In the present case, having regard to the subject matter of the dispute-which

the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Ministry of the Interior and the Minister of

the Interior, on the basis of which it was not granted his application for the grant of

citizenship of the Czech Republic because of a threat to State security

According to section 22 para. 3 of the Citizenship Act-the application of the contested

provisions has occurred, and therefore the application of the contested provisions occurred

the fact that is the subject of a constitutional complaint. In this part of the design

the objections put forward is so actively open to the claimant.



42. Although the applicant formally in its proposal, the proposed remedies

only section 22(2). 3 of the Citizenship Act, in its proposal, the

It also objected to the exclusion of judicial review of a decision made pursuant to

§ 22 para. 3 of the Citizenship Act, which is contained in section 26

of the Citizenship Act. Also the ochrankyně rights in its

the above expression of the proposed cancellation of the contested provisions with

reference to section 26 of the Citizenship Act. However, the Constitutional Court in its

established case-law highlights the linking of the Petite, not its design

the grounds, i.e.. the arguments which the applicant States. Therefore assesses

Although the proposal from other aspects of the protection of constitutionality than are

listed in the preamble of the proposal, but cannot decide on the cancellation of the other

provisions than the remedies listed in the proposal. An exception to the

that is a situation where, because of the cancellation of a specific legal

the provisions of the Constitutional Court of provisions of the derogačním other, content

dependent on the previous, reasonable sense, IE. lost

the merits of their normative, and thus has been given a reason for the

the abolition of the legal provisions, and that without it were a procedure

Ultra petitum. The validity of such provision shall cease to exist on the basis of the

cessante ratione legis cessat principle lex ipsa, derogations made by

The Constitutional Court therefore has the only registration, technical character [cf.

for example. find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 59/2000 of 20 December 2000. 6.2001 (N 90/22 SbNU

249; 278/2001 Coll.) or the discovery of 27 June. 1.2015 SP. zn. PL. ÚS 16/14

(N 15/76 SbNU 197; 99/2015 Sb.)]. However, the proposal under consideration with regard to the

the above is not such a case. The provisions of § 26 of the law on the State

citizenship is not a provision that would only legislatively-technically

the provisions of § 22 para. 3 of the Citizenship Act, which revocation is

proposed, pick up.



43. The above conclusion of the Constitutional Court adds that, even if

when its motion for annulment the applicant Petite section 26 of the Act on the State

citizenship could be suggested in this part of his proposal acceptable.

Constitutional complaint challenged the decision of the Ministry of the Interior and the Minister of

the Interior is not a consequence of the application of section 26 of the Act on the State

citizenship, respectively, the provisions of § 26 of the Citizenship Act was not in

the preceding procedure applied, and nedeterminovalo content and effects

the contested decisions in the legal sphere of the petitioner. The present case is therefore

to be distinguished from the Constitutional Court of 23 November 2005. 11.1999, SP. zn. PL.

ÚS 28/98 (N 161/16 SbNU 185; 2/2000 Coll.), which was as admissible

proposal to repeal the provisions found to be determining the exclusion from the Court of

review which was filed together with the constitutional complaints against the

the decision of the General Court, which was stopped to the action

the claimant against the previous decision of the public authority.

The appellant in that case argued that the decision of the General

the Court has been infringed his right to judicial protection, in the context of the

application of the contested provisions concerning the exclusion from judicial review, on the

the basis of which the proceedings have been stopped. In the present

things, however, the action against the contested decision, the constitutional complaint is filed

was not.



44. in the light of the above, the Constitutional Court on this point underlines

the ancillary nature of the proposal to repeal parts of the law in relation to the

a constitutional complaint pursuant to section 74 of law No. 182/1993 Coll., on the constitutional

the Tribunal, as amended by Act No. 48/2002 Coll., does not allow Constitutional Court

to deal with those from the opposition put forward, which are directed against the closing of the

judicial review laid down by section 26 of the Citizenship Act, which

the complainant in this type of proceedings for review of the standards is not actively

open to the.



VIII.



The constitutional conformity of the legislative process



45. Pursuant to § 68 para. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, in

amended by Act No. 48/2002 Coll., Constitutional Court-in addition to the assessment of compliance

the content of the contested law with constitutional law-checks whether a law was

adopted and published within the limits of the Constitution of the United States set out competences and

constitutionally prescribed way.



46. given that the applicant did not defect to the legislative

the process of the Constitution of the United States even exceeded the prescribed competencies

the legislature, not taking into account the principles of procedural economy this

the question of closer to explore and it is sufficient, in addition to taking into account the expression of

submitted by the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, formal verification during

the legislative process of publicly available information sources on

http://www.psp.cz.



47. the draft Act No. 186/2013 Coll., on state citizenship of the Czech Republic and

amending some laws (the law on the citizenship of the Czech Republic),

containing the contested provisions of § 22 para. 3, the Chamber of Deputies duly

approved at its meeting June 27. 3.2013 (order No. 1616).

The Senate proposal back with amendments, the Chamber of Deputies, which

It adopted at its meeting held on 11 July. 6.2013 (resolution No. 1699).

President of the Republic signed the Act adopted on 20 April. 6.2013. After the signature


the Prime Minister has been promulgated in the collection of laws on the amount of 77 under the

number 186/Sb.



48. the contested provisions of § 22 para. 3 of the Citizenship Act was

thus adopted and published within the limits laid down by the Constitution of the United States

competency and constitutionally prescribed way.



IX.



Legal assessment of the Constitutional Court



49. the contested provisions of § 22 para. 3 of the Citizenship Act

provides that in the event that, in the proceeding on the basis of the opinion of the police

The United States, or the intelligence services, which includes classified

the information emerged that threatens the safety of the applicant State, its

the sovereignty and territorial integrity, democratic foundations, the lives, health,

or material assets, in the grounds of the decision only indicates that the

rejection of the application has occurred because of a threat to State security, and

These opinions do not become part of the file.



50. According to the explanatory memorandum to the law on nationality of the contested

provision allows the Interior Ministry to request supporting documents to assess

If the applicant does not jeopardize important State interests and does not constitute for the Czech

Republic security risk. From the explanatory memorandum further submitted that

This procedure is used exclusively to protect essential security interests

State and as such is a legitimate and proportionate restrictions; "you cannot

allowed to the applicant, which threatens the basic

security interests of the State, could become familiar with the content of the opinion of the police

The United States, or intelligence service, when such a procedure could

operatively-search actions seriously endanger the police of the Czech Republic and

the intelligence services and as a result of human lives. From the point of view of the protection of

those interests could not be the opinion of the police of the Czech Republic or

intelligence services or information in these opinions referred to in

the procedure for the grant of citizenship (and possibly also in the subsequent decay)

mention in detail or refer to the information in the summaries

the decision, when the request will be rejected because of a safety hazard

the State, the protection of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, democratic

the foundations and the protection of the lives, health and property values, as placing

such facts in justification of the decision would result in

the disclosure of classified information, which are in these opinions

included, which would be in terms of the security of the State of the far side. In

of these cases, the Ministry only stating that the application was rejected

for these reasons, which shall ensure that the reasons for the decision

include at least the basic information about what was the reason for the

rejection of the application "(explanatory memorandum to the Act on citizenship).



51. the applicant to his claim of unconstitutionality of section 22 paragraph 1. 3 of the law

citizenship in its proposal states that knowingly in any way

does not undermine the security of the State, but not against the option procedure referred to in

the contested provisions of the defence, as it is neglected for his right to

communication of the reasons for its decision.



52. From the case-law of the Constitutional Court, to which the Government in its observations

points out, it follows that in cases where the státoobčanský relationship does not arise ex

lege, but on the basis of the decision of the competent authority of the State (and so it is

even in the case of the applicant), the State has the inalienable right to decide whether

citizenship shall be granted to a person, and if they do, does not infringe any

the fundamental rights. In other words, there is no basic law which would

a sovereign State could violate by foreigners citizenship its

the decision not to grant (the resolution of 8 June 1993. 3.2000, SP. zn. IV. TC 586/99

or the resolution of 17 December 1999. 5.2007, SP. zn. II. TC 624/06). Out of the said

However, it cannot be inferred that it is not necessary to put on the grounds of the decision

in the matter of the acquisition of citizenship-to be referred to in article. 11 of the European

the Convention on nationality always part of that decision-criteria

arising from existing case-law of the Constitutional Court.



53. According to the case-law of the Constitutional Court, the law on the grounds of the decision

and the prohibition of arbitrariness of public authorities related to the right to a fair

process, guaranteed in article. paragraph 36. 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and

freedoms, and are generally inferred from technique to the rule of law in the

meaning of article 87(1). 1 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic [e.g. find SP. zn. III. TC 84/94

of 20 December. 6.1995 (N 34/3 SbNU 257), finding SP. zn. I. ÚS 50/03 of

13.6. 2006 (N 120/41 SbNU 499) or find SP. zn. III. TC 258/99 of

on 21 February 2006. 10.1999 (N 148/16 SbNU 99)], in which it is not permitted to make

a State committing an authoritative intervention in the legal sphere of the individual without

without this intervention, and without that, without

individuals familiar with his logical and justice amended

legal basis (cf.. Wagner, E., Prince, H., Langášek, T.,

POSPÍŠIL, i. and team. The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms: commentary.

Wolters Kluwer, 2012, to the article. 36, and Svoboda, p. Constitutional foundations of the administrative

proceedings in the Czech Republic: the right to a fair trial and the United Board

control. Prague: Linde, 2007, p. 326). How the Constitutional Court in its case-law

repeatedly stressed, one of the principles that represent a part of the right to

due process (article 36, paragraph 1, of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms), and

exclusive discretion in decision-making is necessary continuity between

by the findings and considerations in assessing the evidence on the one hand, and

the findings of law on the other hand, expressed in the preamble to decision

a public authority [cf. e.g. award of 30 November 2005. 11.1995 SP. zn. III.

TC 166/95 (N 79/4 SbNU 255)].



54. Scientific literature to justify a decision of an administrative authority on

States that "represents a reflection of the right to be heard, which establishes the obligation to

the administrative authority to ensure participants in the management of the necessary procedural rights.

The preamble then has, inter alia, a testament to how it was in the course of proceedings

the said rights of participants ensured, and becomes one of the essential

rights of the interested party. The essential criterion in relation to the preamble

remains the overall persuasiveness of the decision, because the request

trust in public administration. Without transparency, respectively

knowledge themes options decision is difficult to reflect on good governance

in relation to, and generally managed ' the addressees of the decision of Justice "

(S, s., Hejč, d. and Bražina, r. justification of administrative decision:

the revitalization of the Institute with a long tradition. Lawyer No. 10/2016, page 899,

906).



55. As opposed to the interest of the individuals referred to be trained that the reasons

led to the adoption of a decision of a public authority, however, in the present case

It stands above the security interest of the State, explicitly expressed in the article.

1 of the constitutional law on the security of the United States, according to which the

ensuring the sovereignty and territorial integrity, the protection of the Czech Republic

its democratic foundations and protection of the lives, health and property

the values of the basic obligations of the State. The security interest of the State is also

The Constitution of the United States protected the value of the [protection of the interests of the Czech

the Republic as a sovereign State according to art. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution of the United

Republic; CF.. find of the day 11. 2.2004, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 31/03 (N 16/32

SbNU 143; 105/2004 Sb.)]. This national interest represents the interest of the

existential, that legitimizes the exact legal restrictions of the realm of the individual;

Indeed, as a result, it is the State that protects the individual's position.

If the Constitutional Court ruled that the Constitution of the modern democratic

the rule of law represents a social contract based on

the minimum value and institutional consensus [cf. find SP. zn.

PL. ÚS 33/97 of 17 February. 12.1997 (N 163/9 SbNU 399, 407; 30/1998 Coll.)],

can be used under this term, inter alia, to understand how the interest of the State, and it

protected persons on its own secure existence; to protect this

the interests of the State must have the relevant tools. One of them is even

the area of the protection of classified information.



56. In the light of the above, therefore, you cannot on the one hand allow

absolute and bezvýjimečný the legal prohibition of the marketing of any reasons

the decision of the public authority, on the other hand, however, it is necessary to

reflect the legitimate public interest in the protection of classified information,

and is therefore, from this perspective, the permissible limit in the form of legal

the prohibition of placing such reasons, the publication of which would be so interested in

threatened. The Constitutional Court must therefore assess whether, taking into account the

those considerations, the applicant's interest to grant citizenship and security

the interest of the State in the contested legislation constitutionally Conformal manner

reflected, or whether they are balanced to each other (cf. Constitutional

of the Court of 12 July 2005. 7.2001, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 11/2000).



57. The Constitutional Court in connection with the assessment of the constitutionality of the contested

the provisions of the recalls that already in the past, similar things when

set aside the provisions of Act No. 148/1998 Coll., on classified facts and

amending certain laws, as amended, which required the

The National Security Bureau, to never disclose to the person concerned

the reasons for refusing the certificate to come into contact with classified information,

among other things, for its conflict with article. 1 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic. The Constitutional Court

in this case conceded that the proper and detailed in the preamble to the notice of


refusing certification might in some cases could seriously

threaten State interests, but in the opinion of the Constitutional Court was not always

no need to divulge such information to the person concerned the reasons why it has not been found to be a person

eligible for access to classified information, because the reasons were not

According to the annulled provisions communicated or, in cases where this would obviously

not to be damaged or important interests of the State, nor the interests of third parties. It was

on the contrary, rather exceptional, that the communication of these reasons may lead to

the real threat to the interests of the State (Constitutional Court of 12 December. 7.

2001, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 11/2000).



58. In the present case, however, it is now about the situation obviously different than what

It has been submitted for review to the Constitutional Court in the above case, if indicated

some of the conclusions of the cited award on this case now

will be applied. The difference lies in the fact that the contested provisions in the now

the present case does not store the Ministry of the Interior, to nesdělovalo no

reasons for non-compliance of the application for the granting of citizenship, but rather to nesdělovalo

only those reasons the application for granting citizenship which

a result of the opinions of the police and intelligence services of the Czech Republic

The United States, whose content is classified information, according to which

the applicant threatens the safety of the State, its sovereignty and territorial

integrity, democratic foundations, the lives, health or property

values. In doing so, it should be stressed that, in order to this

the restrictions, you must accept the risk of the individual values listed here,

that represent a security risk for the State, to achieve a similarly

a high level. Only in this case, the reason for the failure of the application

not in detail but in the preamble to the decision, the only notes that the

rejection of the application has occurred because of a threat to State security. In all

other cases of non-compliance of the application for granting citizenship to

failure to comply with the conditions laid down by the law on nationality, the reasons

failure in the preamble to that decision are properly placed.



59. to therefore be Denied pursuant to the contested provision only

information that threatens the safety of the applicant State, its

the sovereignty and territorial integrity, democratic foundations, life, health

or property values. Such a definition of the security risks in the contested

the provision is very general, but it can be attributed to the fact that

the meaning of each of the specific security risks over time can

change, with some security risks can appear brand new

and some relevance may fade into the background (cf. findings from

on 12 June 2006. 7.2001, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 11/2000).



60. However, in the assessment as follows, in General, security

risks, or when assessing the opinions of the police of the Czech Republic and

the intelligence services of the Czech Republic, whether they indicate that it is

the condition of a security risk, and the application should therefore be

rejected, the crucial administrative authority in individual cases

respect the principle of proportionality, and to distinguish the various stages of

security risks. Exclusion from the grounds then can according to the contested

the provisions apply only in the case where it is relevant, and

not completely marginal security risk. Only in this case

in fact, the expression of security reason, for which the administrative

the authority shall reject the application, may in particular cases constitute an

threat to State security or third parties (cf.. Molek, p. and Prince,

In awarding citizenship-on the way to the State Court from grace

přezkoumatelnému administrative discretion. Lawyer No. 2/2005, p. 154), and only in the

this case may be a statutory exemption from the obligations specifically include

the reason for the negative decision, in the light of the above, legitimate.



61. the procedure described in the previous paragraph has lead to the fact that a specific

reasons the applicant for citizenship requests will not be communicated only in

those cases where there is real concern that would make them accessible to

could affect the security of the State or third parties. With regard to the said

monitors the challenged legislation is a legitimate objective of the safety

interests of the State. To achieve this, at the same time chose the rational, and

not arbitrary means, because of the reasons for the decision excludes

only the information for which a request is rejected because of threat

security of the State, taking in the grounds at least generally state that to

rejection of the application has occurred because of a threat to State security. Referred to

a compromise between the interest of individuals to the statement of reasons of the refusal

the decision on the one hand, and between the security interests of the State, on the

Second, the Constitutional Court considers, in the light of the above, for a constitutionally

Conformal.



62. The Constitutional Court therefore concluded that the challenged legislation is

the manifestation of any contrary action of the optimization of protection

the mechanisms of both the Constitution of the United States protected values, when

on the contrary, it would be excessive if the law on nationality to ensure

a full justification for rejecting the application because of a threat to State security

at the expense of the protection of the interests of the State, which would have had to request as follows

perceived fair trial rights unreservedly retreat (cf..

find of the day 11. 2.2004, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 31/03). The Constitutional Court does not consider the

Therefore, the contested provision for dissenting with the article. paragraph 36. 1 of the Charter

fundamental rights and freedoms or with the principle of the rule of law in the material

meaning of article 87(1). 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic.



63. the Constitutional Court did not find that the contested provisions of the Act

constitute a violation of the constitutional order authorizing it to use

derogatory jurisdiction. The Constitutional Court on this point

reiterates that he was not entitled to deal with the objections that circuit

were directed against the exclusion of judicial review provided for in section 26 of the Act on

citizenship (see section VII). This finding

Therefore, it is not an obstacle to that section 26 of the Citizenship Act to

the future the subject of litigation review in proceedings for review of constitutionality.



X.



The conclusion of the



64. based on the above reasons, the Constitutional Court the proposal landed on the cancellation

the provisions of § 22 para. 3 of Act No. 186/2013 Coll., citizenship

The Czech Republic and amending some laws (law on citizenship

The United States), dismissed (section 70, paragraph 2, of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the

The Constitutional Court).



The President of the Constitutional Court:



JUDr. Rychetský in r.



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

as amended, a decision of the plenary, the judges adopted a

Catherine Simackova and Vojtěch Prince and his justification for judge Louis

David.

Related Laws