The Constitutional Court found No. 112 / 2013 Coll.
Findings of the Constitutional Court of 2 April 2013 sp. zn.
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
30.04.2013
112
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
The Constitutional Court decided under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 6 / 13 on 2 April 2013 in plenary composed of Stanislav Balík, Vlasta Formánková, Vojen Güttler, Pavel Holländer, Ivana Janů, Vladimir Korka, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodemí, Pavel Rychetský, Miloslav Excellent and Michaela Židlická as a party to the proceedings, represented by JUdr. Jiřanl, a lawyer, AK with the seat of Čs. legii 172, 339 01 Klatova, on the abolition of the provisions of Article II (4) of the Act No. 300 / 2011 Coll., amending Act No. 202 / 1990 Coll., as a Deputy Chamber of the Parliament of the Czech Republic as a party of Procedure,
as follows:
Article II (4) of Act No. 300 / 2011 Coll., amending Act No. 202 / 1990 Coll., on Lottery and other similar games, as amended, and other related laws, shall be deleted from the date of the publication of this finding in the Collection of Laws.
Reasons
Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
Previous proceedings on constitutional complaints
1. On 20 June 2012, the Constitutional Court received a constitutional complaint from the City of Klatov against another intervention by the Ministry of Finance (hereinafter referred to as "the Ministry '), which is discussed by the Constitutional Court under point IV of the ÚS 2315 / 12. In accordance with the provisions of § 74 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., the complainant joined with the Constitutional Complaints, a proposal to repeal Article II (4) of Act No. 300 / 2011 Coll., amending Act No. 202 / 1990 Coll., on Lottery and other similar games, as amended, and other related laws (hereinafter referred to as" the contested provision').
2. IV. The Chamber of the Constitutional Court concluded that the application of the contested provision of the law had brought about a fact which was the subject of a constitutional complaint. At the same time, as it considered that the constitutional complaint was not manifestly unfounded and capable of any other substantive review, it stated that the proposal to repeal the contested provision had to be dealt with in substance. Therefore, by order of 16.1.2013, sp. zn. IV. ÚS 2315 / 12 suspended the proceedings on a constitutional complaint and forwarded the complainant's proposal to annul the contested provision to the Constitutional Court.
Arguments of the appellant
3. The unconstitutional nature of the contested provision was seen by the appellant in that, in conjunction with the administrative practice of the Ministry of Finance (whose intervention was primarily attacked by a constitutional complaint), it temporarily suspended existing, constitutionally guaranteed and the Constitutional Court recognised the possibility of municipalities to regulate the operation of interactive video lottery terminals on its territory.
4. The contested provision, according to the appellant, prevents the review and possible abolition by the Ministry of Authorisations to run interactive video lottery terminals, although according to the case-law of the Constitutional Court [finding sp. zn. Pl. Pl. ÚS 29 / 10 of 14.6.2011 (N 110 / 61 SbNU 625, 202 / 2011 Coll.), finding sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 56 / 10 of 7.9.2011 (N 151 / 62 SbNU 315, 293 / 2011 Coll.) or finding sp. ÚS 22 / 11 of 27.9.2011 (N 169 / 62 SbNU 489, 328 / 2011 Sb.)] is a question whose regulation falls within the constitutionally guaranteed powers of the municipalities. In this context, the appellant paraphrased in detail the legal conclusions contained in the cited findings and confirming the constitutional guarantees of the municipality's right to self-administration.
5. The appellant also held that the contested provision did not infringe only the right of municipalities to self-administration within the meaning of Articles 8 and 100 (1) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution), but also the provisions of Article 89 (2) of the Constitution, according to which enforceable decisions of the Constitutional Court are binding on all the institutions and persons. Although the findings of the Constitutional Court aimed primarily at municipalities and ministries of the Interior and Finance, according to the appellant, it is not possible to look at the fact that at least in the finding of the sp. zl. This view was therefore to be respected by the legislator when adopting the law of which the contested provision is part.
Observations of the parties
6. The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic ("the Chamber of Deputies') spoke on the proposal on 19 February 2013. She described the course of discussion of the draft law then published under No. 300 / 2011 Coll., and in short she reminded the explanatory note to the draft law attached. On the contested provision, it stated that the validity of the authorisations issued until the date of entry into force of the generally binding order of the municipality which did not comply with that decree would not be affected. According to the explanatory memorandum, the reverse procedure would constitute an inadmissible legal retroactivity which is contrary to the principle of legal certainty enshrined in the Constitution. By reducing the validity of existing authorisations, the State would, according to the explanatory memorandum, put itself at risk of arbitration disputes conducted by existing operators. The bill was approved by the Chamber of Deputies on 21 June 2011. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as" the Senate ') returned the bill to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments accepted by the Chamber of Deputies at its meeting on 6 September 2011 and approved the bill as amended by the Senate. The Chamber of Deputies refused that the contested legislation should aim to defer the effects of the findings of the Constitutional Court, pointing in particular to the temporal circumstances of the draft law. In this context, it pointed out in particular that the finding of sp. zn. Finally, the Chamber of Deputies stated that the bill was discussed and approved in a constitutional manner and according to the standard rules of the legislative process.
7. In his observations of 8 February 2013, the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic also expressed the belief that it acted within the limits of the Constitution and in a constitutional manner when adopting the law. In particular, the Senate stated that the bill approved by the Chamber of Deputies at its 19th meeting on 21 June 2011 was properly referred to it on 28 June 2011. As Senate Press No. 127, the bill was directed to the Committee on Economic, Agriculture and Transport (as the Guarantee Committee), the Committee on Territorial Development, Public Administration and the Environment and the Committee on the Constitutional and Legal Affairs. All the committees appointed recommended that the bill be returned to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments. On 22 July 2011, the Senate adopted a resolution returning the draft law to the Chamber of Deputies as amended. In its observations, the Senate also summarised in detail the content of the debate on the Senate draft law in question.
Government and Ombudsman's position on the proposal
8. In accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 69 (2) and (3) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, hereinafter referred to as "the Law on the Constitutional Court ', the Constitutional Court notified the Government of the Czech Republic and the Ombudsman of the pending proceedings by letter dated 23 January 2013, reminding them of the time limit within which they could intervene in the proceedings and, where appropriate, to comment on the application.
9. On 1 February 2013, the Ombudsman announced to the Constitutional Court that he would intervene in the proceedings. The Government of the Czech Republic did not notify its entry into the proceedings within the time limit laid down by law (last 25 February 2013) and could therefore not bear witness to the status of intervener. By letter delivered to the Constitutional Court on 26 February 2013, JUDr. Jan Studnik, Chief Director of the Cabinet of Ministers and Chairman of the Legislative Council of the Government, asked the Judge-Rapporteur for an extension of one month to indicate whether the Government will join the proceedings as an intervener. It was not possible for the Constitutional Court to grant any relevance not only because its author could hardly be entitled to act as a government in proceedings before the Constitutional Court, but mainly because the 30-day period for entering the proceedings is a period within the meaning of Paragraph 69 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act which cannot be extended by the Constitutional Court and which cannot be waived. Nor did the government submit comments on the proposal in the form of an amicus curiae brief.
10. The Ombudsman commented on the proposal on 1 March 2013. It stated that it did not consider the contested provision to be an obstacle to the interference of the authorisations granted because, in its view, it does not actually affect the regulatory authorisation of municipalities existing before the amendment pursuant to the former provision of § 50 (4) of Act No. 202 / 1990 Coll., on lotteries and other similar games (hereinafter referred to as the "Lottery Act '), namely the regulation of all technical gaming equipment similar to winning instruments within the meaning of the former provision of § 2 (e) of the Lottery Act. In spite of this conviction, the Ombudsman acknowledged that in the present case he would also support the annulment of the contested provision, taking into account the long-term (and in his view illegal) decision-making practice of the Ministry of Finance, the long-term state interference in the constitutionally guaranteed right of municipalities to self-government (failure to respect generally binding decrees issued, including the refusal of the possibility of revocation of the authorisation for a later decree), the problematic procedural position of municipalities and the de facto abuse of the contested provision for the state's involvement in the constitutionally guaranteed right of municipalities to self-government.
Abandonment of oral proceedings
11. In particular, the Constitutional Court considered that there was no need to hold oral proceedings in the case, as this would not bring further, or better, and clearer clarification of the case than the way it was made aware of it from the written acts of the parties. In the light of the provisions of Article 44 of the Constitutional Court Act (in this context, the amendment implemented by Act No 404 / 2012 Coll., effective as of 1 January 2013, was therefore no longer required to ask the parties whether they agreed to refrain from oral proceedings and decided on the matter without holding oral proceedings.
Own review
Derogation of the contested provision
12. Article II (4) of Act No. 300 / 2011 Coll., amending Act No. 202 / 1990 Coll., on Lottery and other similar games, as amended, and other related laws, read:
Transitional provisions
(...)
4. Authorisations issued pursuant to § 2 (i), (j) and § 50 (3) of the Lottery Act and other similar games, as in force before 1 January 2012, shall not be authorised by the municipality to issue a general binding decree until 31 December 2014; The same applies to the provisions of Section 50 (5) of the Lottery Act and other similar games, as effective from 1 January 2012. The period of validity of these permits shall be limited by the Ministry of Finance to expire on 31 December 2014 at the latest if such lotteries and other similar games are operated in contravention of a generally binding municipal decree or in breach of the provisions of Section 50 (5) of the Lottery Act and other similar games, as applicable from 1 January 2012.
Presumption of review
13. The formally impeccable proposal was made by the person entitled. The Constitutional Court is competent to discuss the application and it is also admissible.
14. The Constitutional Court was first obliged to take into account whether it was entitled, in the case under examination, to review (and, where appropriate, to abolish) the amendment to the law itself or part thereof.
15. According to the settled case law of the Constitutional Court, it is not in principle possible to oppose the amendment, since such legislation does not generally have a separate legal existence; it receives it only as part of a legislative amendment; The amended legislation should therefore be referred to the Constitutional Court for consideration [cf., for example, Resolution sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 25 / 2000 of 15.8.2000 (U 27 / 19 SbNU 271), also available - as well as all other decisions in this finding - at http: / / nalus.ujud.cz].
16. However, this does not mean that a proposal against an amendment to the law or part of it (as in the present case) could never have been subject to a substantive review by the Constitutional Court [cf. sp. zn. One group of exceptions of the review consists of situations in which the constitutionality of the procedure for the adoption of amending legislation is verified [cf., for example, the finding of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 55 / 10 of 1.3.2011 (N 27 / 60 CollNU 279; 80 / 2011 Coll.) or the finding of sp. zn. Another exception is undoubtedly the situation (which has also occurred in the present case) in which the transitional provisions of the amending legislation are contested. In fact, the transitional provisions of the amending legislation are standardized and do not become part of the amended legislation. In this situation - and taking into account the fact that even the application of the transitional provisions of the amendment can be intervened in the constitutionally guaranteed rights (cf.) - the Constitutional Court found the derogation proposal negotiable.
17. The possibility of reviewing the intertemporal provisions was permitted by the Constitutional Court in the finds sp. zn.
18. On the basis of the reasons so set out, the Constitutional Court was able to review the contested provision.
Review of the procedure for the adoption of the contested legal provision
19. The Constitutional Court, as required by the provisions of Paragraph 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., first examined whether the contested provision (or the law of which that provision is part) was adopted within the limits of the Constitution established competence and in a constitutional manner. It has been based on further publicly available reports showing parliamentary proceedings and the statements of both chambers of Parliament.
20. The bill (then publ. under No. 300 / 2011 Coll.) was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies by the Government of the Czech Republic and was discussed as House Press No. 138. The bill was approved by the Chamber of Deputies at the 19th session of the sixth parliamentary term on 21 June 2011, with 138 votes in favour and 18 against in vote 287 out of 164.
21. The Senate was passed on 28 June 2011. On 22 July 2011, at its 10th meeting in the 8th term of office, the Senate adopted a resolution returning the bill to the Chamber of Deputies, as amended by the amendments adopted. 59 senators voted in vote 61 of the 64 senators present and no one was against it.
22. From the stenographer's report of the 21st meeting of the Chamber of Deputies held on 6 September 2011 The Constitutional Court found that the bill was approved by the Chamber of Deputies in the version referred to by the Senate, with 152 Members in favour and 18 votes against of 179 Members present in vote 21.
23. On 15 September 2011, the law was delivered to the President of the Republic, who signed it on 27 September 2011.
24. On 14 October 2011 the law was declared in the amount of 106 Collection of Laws under the number 300 / 2011 Coll.
25. The Constitutional Court notes that Act No 300 / 2011 Coll., of which the contested provision is part, has been adopted and issued within the limits of the constitutional competence and the constitutionally prescribed manner.
Meritative review of the contested provision
26. The key question of the substantive compatibility of the contested provision with the constitutional order is whether this legal standard, in conjunction with the procedure of the Ministry of Finance, temporarily limits the possibility for municipalities to regulate the operation of interactive video lottery terminals through general binding decrees, unconstitutionally interferes with the constitutionally guaranteed right of municipalities to self-government within the meaning of Articles 8, 100 (1) and 104 (3) of the Constitution.
27. The constitutional provisions cited above guarantee the self-administration of municipalities as local authorities (Article 8 in conjunction with Article 100 (1) of the Constitution), while conferring on them the power to regulate matters falling within their separate competence through the issuing of general binding regulations (Article 104 (3) of the Constitution). The constitutional guarantees of the right of municipalities to self-government constitute in the context of constitutional order a key component of the vertical division of power and some authors are even classified among the essential elements of the democratic rule of law (for example, Bahěžová, L., Filip, J., Molek, P., Podrazký, M., Šiměk, V., Zeměnek, L. Constitution of the Czech Republic: commentary. Praha: Linde, 2010, str. 140-141).
28. The definition of the meaning, substance, content and extent of the right of municipalities to self-administration has already been addressed by the Constitutional Court in its case-law many times, both in general and specifically in relation to the constitutional right of municipalities to issue generally binding regulations and even more specifically to the possibility of municipalities to regulate the operation of slot machines and similar devices within the meaning of the lottery law.
29. Older case law of the Constitutional Court interpreted the right of municipalities to self-administration (in particular in relation to the exercise of their powers to issue generally binding regulations) in a rather restrictive manner. The finding of sp. zn. The Constitutional Court stated in the cited finding that, after 15 years of the existence of the Constitution, containing the constitutional guarantee of the right to local authorities, the content of the local authorities' right to self-administration had already stabilised and became part of a wider legal awareness. In this context, he referred in particular to the regulatory solution contained in the provision of § 10 of Act No. 128 / 2000 Coll., on Municipality (municipal establishment), as amended, which laid down in substance the areas in which municipalities can issue generally binding regulations and whose boundaries were also specified by the rich case law of the Constitutional Court.
30. Subsequently, the Constitutional Court stressed [finding sp. zn. Therefore, the implementing act cannot purge or effectively eliminate the content of the constitutionally guaranteed right to territorial government.
31. In part, the content of the right to self-administration was defined by the Constitutional Court, for example, in the decision in sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 30 / 06 of 22.5.2007 (N 87 / 45 SbNU 279; 190 / 2007 Coll.), according to which matters which are mainly local or regional impact and which are in the interest of the municipality and its citizens fall within the sphere of the separate jurisdiction of the municipality regulated by generally binding decrees within the meaning of the constitutional order of the guaranteed territorial authority. In particular, it identified as such matters the safeguarding of local public order issues, maintaining the cleanliness of streets and other public spaces, protecting the environment, green in buildings and other public green areas, the use of community facilities serving public needs, the territorial development of the municipality, etc.
32. According to (here in points 4 and 30 of the quoted) of the sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 56 / 10, it is also a decision whether and where there may be locations of lotteries and other similar games (including interactive video lottery terminals), local order and as such falls within the separate competence of the municipalities, therefore the regulation of these matters is constitutionally guaranteed to the municipalities. Following that Constitutional Court, [finding sp. zn.
33. It follows from this that part of the right to self-administration within the meaning of Articles 8, 100 (1) and 104 (3) of the Constitution, and within the meaning of the case law of the Constitutional Court, it is also possible for municipalities to regulate the operation of interactive video-lottery terminals in their territory by issuing generally binding decrees. It should be stressed that the constitutional dimension of the right to self-government cannot, of course, be altered by ordinary law (cf. Article 9 (1) of the Constitution); Therefore, the argument that the possibility to direct the operation of interactive video lottery terminals to municipalities (given) was only given by the adoption of Act 300 / 2011 Coll., must be rejected as completely odd.
34. Thus, if the contested provision allows municipalities to regulate the operation of interactive video lottery terminals even temporarily but not insignificant for a period of time, it excludes (suspends), this is an intervention in the constitutionally guaranteed right to self-government.
35. The Constitutional Court is aware of the existence of an interpretative option according to which the contested provision does not constitute an obstacle to the interference of the authorisations issued to operate interactive video lottery terminals (cf. the Ombudsman's observations), but the administrative practice of the Ministry of Finance (also mentioned in the Ombudsman's observations) demonstrates that this interpretation option is not fully accepted by the Ministry in practice and therefore the application of the contested provision leads to extensive and ongoing interference in the administration of municipalities. The same suggests that the application for annulment of the contested provision was not only submitted by the city of Klatova, but also by the City of Frýdlant nad Ostravicí and Židlochovice in other proceedings (led by the Constitutional Court under sp. v. II.
36. In this context, the Constitutional Court has taken the view that the intervention in the right of municipalities to self-government caused by the contested legal provision is consistent with the principle of proportionality; In this context, it focused primarily on whether the temporary restriction of the possibility of municipalities to regulate the operation of interactive video lottery terminals pursues a legitimate objective.
37. The test of proportionality, clearly inspired by the case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court, was already formulated by the Constitutional Court in the sp. zn. The first is the criterion of suitability, i.e. the answer to the question whether an institute restricting a fundamental right allows the objective pursued to be achieved. The second criterion of measuring fundamental rights and freedoms is the necessity criterion of comparing a legislative instrument limiting fundamental rights or freedom with other measures enabling the same objective but not affecting fundamental rights and freedoms. The third criterion is then a comparison of the severity of both in the conflict of standing fundamental rights.
38. However, both from this finding and from many other [cf. sp. zn. IV. ÚS 1770 / 07 of 1.11.2007 (N 181 / 47 of CollU 391) or sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 7 / 09 of 4.5.2010 (N 102 / 57 of SbNU 315; 226 / 2010 Coll.), paragraph 34), it is evident that the assessment of the criterion of suitability (first step of the test) is an obvious precondition for answering a question whether the objective pursued by the regulatory regulation under the Constitutional Court is legitimate. In view of the fact that the very essence of the proportionality test is the attempt to strike a balance between contradictory constitutional principles, the criterion of suitability can only be taken into account if an adjustment is reviewed which suppresses or weakens one constitutionally protected interest (usually fundamental right) in order to protect another constitutionally protected interest. If the regulatory arrangements under consideration would not pursue any rational and identifiable objective (i.e. if it was entirely arbitrary) or would only pursue an illegitimate objective (which could not be granted constitutional protection), there would be a restriction of the constitutionally protected interest without appropriate counterbalance. Therefore, when applying the proportionality test (more precisely before applying the proportionality test), it is necessary to resolve whether a legitimate objective is pursued by the revised scheme. The assessment of whether the revised scheme is appropriate to achieve the objective of non-existent or illegitimate would naturally lack any meaning.
39. During the proceedings on a constitutional complaint (cf. Resolution of 16.1.2013 sp. zn. IV. ÚS 2315 / 12, which suspended the proceedings on a constitutional complaint and which referred the motion for annulment of the contested provision to the full court) The Ministry of Finance stated that the contested transitional provision legitimately addresses the intertemporal problem related to balancing conflicting constitutionally protected interests (i.e. the right to self-administration and the protection of ownership and the right to business) while protecting the legitimate expectations of operators of interactive video lottery terminals; In the context of this, the Ministry also drew attention to the threat of disputes (initiated by operators of interactive video lottery terminals) concerning the protection of rights under international agreements on the promotion and protection of investment.
40. However, the Constitutional Court finds that none of the objectives set out in the contested provision can be regarded as legitimate in the sense of the application of the intervention described above in the right of municipalities to self-administration. In the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, neither the chambers of Parliament, as parties to the proceedings nor the Government proposing the adoption of the standard now under review, have any other legitimate objective of appropriate measure with the constitutional right of municipalities to self-government. In addition, the Constitutional Court, which adds that it is not his duty to investigate what purpose, perhaps other than the Ministry of Finance, the purpose (s) of the transitional provision of Act No 300 / 2011 Coll. (see paragraph 38) exists (exist), was not specifically mentioned.
41. As part of the assessment of the stated purpose of the contested provision, the Constitutional Court first of all stresses that the Ministry's alleged attempt to address intertemporal problems related to the balancing of conflicting constitutionally protected interests cannot be considered a legitimate objective. The argument of the existence of an intertemporal problem is necessarily based on the premise that municipalities were not allowed to regulate the operation of interactive video lottery terminals on their territory until the legislative amendment made by the very law of which the contested transitional provision is part. However, as is apparent from the above, the opposite is true, since the case-law of the Constitutional Court referred to above only confirmed this constitutional law; Neither the findings of the Constitutional Court nor the amendment carried out by the legislature in parallel to them have created the constitutional right of municipalities to self-government.
42. For this reason, it is not possible to talk about the existence of legitimate expectations (which perhaps should be protected by the contested provision) for the operators of interactive video lottery terminals in the hope that their activities will not be regulated for at least a certain period of time by means of generally binding municipal decrees. Indeed, operators of interactive video lottery terminals - like any other legal entity - could and should have been aware that their legal sphere could be affected as a result of the adoption, amendment or repeal of legislation, not only by law but also by sublegal legislation (including generally binding regulations). This also follows from the settled case law of the Constitutional Court; e.g. finding sp. zn. 63 / 1997 Coll.], in which the Constitutional Court stated that the abolition of the old and the adoption of new legislation was necessarily linked to interference with the principles of equality and the protection of the citizen's trust in law. In line with the appellant, the Constitutional Court notes that it is not legitimate to assume that the operators of interactive video lottery terminals can be considered to be a legitimate expectation that the administrative practice of the Ministry associated with omission of the municipality's right to self-administration will continue.
43. Finally, the legitimate objective of the contested scheme cannot be considered as a legitimate objective of the State's alleged concerns about imminent arbitrage disputes. The argument that the cancellation (or amendment) of authorisations issued to operate interactive video lottery terminals could result in the opening of disputes under international agreements on the promotion and protection of investment is not substantiated and is merely speculation. In addition, it should be recalled that, if there were to be arbitrage initiated under international investment protection agreements, the procedure could only be initiated by foreign operators, which is, however, excluded under the provisions of Section 4 (4) of the Lottery Act.
Conclusion
44. The Constitutional Court therefore concludes that the contested provision interferes with the constitutionally guaranteed right of municipalities to self-administration, which did not pursue a legitimate objective. The conclusion that the contested provision is contrary to the provisions of Articles 8, 100 (1) and 104 (3) of the Constitution is not to be taken further steps in the proportionality test. For the reasons set out above, the Constitutional Court of Article II (4) of Act No. 300 / 2011 Coll., amending Act No. 202 / 1990 Coll., on Lottery and other similar games, as amended, and other related laws, annulled, in accordance with the provisions of § 70 (1) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., on the date of the declaration of the finding in the Collection of Acts, since it did not find reasons for other determination of the enforceability of the finding.
45. The appellant's objection, according to which the unconstitutional nature of the contested provision also resulted from the failure to respect the findings of the Constitutional Court by Parliament (and thus from the infringement of Article 89 (2) of the Constitution), did not in any way have to be dealt with when finding a material infringement of the legal regulation adopted with the constitutional order.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v. r.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No. 112 / 2013 Coll., on the application for annulment of Article II (4) of Act No. 300 / 2011 Coll., amending Act No. 202 / 1990 Coll., on Lottery and other similar games, as amended, and other related laws |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 30.04.2013 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0