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 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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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. "
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
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.
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
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
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.
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,
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
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.
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